P
Prodigal_Son
Guest
True, that.
- Status
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
I do and they are in whats called “denial”. Some suggest “they like” what they are doing and have no issue, and I have heard doctors and very intelligent people make this claim.
They call that boring addiction pleasure and run to it at every chance, and they “like” what they are doing as for them its an escape just like dope for a junkie.
So, you would deny this?
They call that boring addiction pleasure and run to it at every chance, and they “like” what they are doing as for them its an escape just like dope for a junkie.
So, you would deny this?
P
Prodigal_Son
Guest
But they don’t want to keep it boring. Sex addictions always like spice. At a certain point, though, you’ve simply tried everything normal. Thus enters perversion. Then you’ve tried everything legal. Thus enters criminal activity. Then you’ve tried everything consensual. Thus enters rape.
If we follow the sex addict long enough, we’ll find that he harms the people around him precisely because the sex gets boring to him.
(An important point, though, is that homosexuality is usually NOT a progression on this ladder. Most gay people start being attracted to people of the same sex *before *they are sexually active.)
F
frobert
Guest
You have correctly described denial and tolerance which are the two common threads of addiction: Denial is a function of the brain whereby the brain filters out the damaging negative aspects of what your sexual pursuits are having on self, family, friends, dignity, work, etc. As the addiction takes hold, it is compulsive in pursuit to “numb-out,” get a “high,” or both. Pleasure diminishes as tolerance builds making the desired high more and more elusive. More sex doesn’t work, More partners doesn’t work. This is what I refer to as the boring phase. You experiment with more intense and riskier forms of sex. Soon all sex becomes boring but you have lost control and you can’t stop even though there is little or no pleasure. Porn is almost always involved.I do and they are in whats called “denial”. Some suggest “they like” what they are doing and have no issue, and I have heard doctors and very intelligent people make this claim.
They call that boring addiction pleasure and run to it at every chance, and they “like” what they are doing as for them its an escape just like dope for a junkie.
So, you would deny this?
Dose this sound like hell? It does to me.
The first 3 steps of recovery. (simplified version)
I have lost control I am powerless to stop
There is a power greater than myself who can restore my sanity
I surrender to that power
The Serenity Prayer that many addicts turn to:
God grant me the serenity
To accept the things I cannot change;
Courage to change the things I can;
And wisdom to know the difference.
Peace
F
frobert
Guest
The resolution is simple. To reach the end of the beard allowed to grow, the means is not to shave. The end of allowing does not justify the means of “not shaving.” So shaving is not immoral in or out of natural law. Getting one’s head around negatives is not always easy.
The natural law moral argument for procreation is somewhat different than one for beards.
P
PRmerger
Guest
P
Porknpie
Guest
the word Sodomy has its roots in the Book of Genesis, chapter 19. The men of the city were wanting to have sex with the angels appearing as men.
19 The two angels came to Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them, and bowed down with his face to the ground. 2 He said, “Please, my lords, turn aside to your servant’s house and spend the night, and wash your feet; then you can rise early and go on your way.” They said, “No; we will spend the night in the square.” 3 But he urged them strongly; so they turned aside to him and entered his house; and he made them a feast, and baked unleavened bread, and they ate. 4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house; 5 and they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, so that we may know them.” 6 Lot went out of the door to the men, shut the door after him, 7 and said, “I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly.
Webster includes a broader definition :
anal or oral copulation with a member of the same or opposite sex; also : copulation with an animal
S
simpleas
Guest
Thanks.
Yeah this sounds to me like our modern day acts of sexual violence against men that I hear about in certain countries. (also women and children)
No one would argue that rape of anyone is ok.
SS people are consenting to their acts, not being forced by dominating people who need to show their power by taking them by force.
I can see a difference between lust of people and force by “leaders”. Also the difference of love between people.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
It is not clear to me that “consent” makes all that much of a difference where the terms of “consent” are a product of socialization, indoctrination or some other persuasive means such that the one who consents is unwary of the full repercussions of what s/he is consenting to.
Being a willing participant, if that involves the reasoning ability, emotional, social or psychological maturity of a child, even if the “age of consent” has been surpassed does not necessarily mean that a full comprehension of what is being consented to has been achieved.
The “dominating people” are, indeed, “showing their power” by forcing compliance to their views on a wide social scale. Certainly the coercive “power” is subtle (social indoctrination, peer pressure, legal coercion, etc.,) but nevertheless just as forceful. Ask Brendan Eich, the Colorado baker, Bishop Cordileone, Sister Jane Dominic Laurel, and countless others who have been “put in their place” for holding views contrary to the “dominating people.”
Try, sometime, to show dissent with the prevailing views and see how you, too, will be "forced by dominating people who need to show their power by taking … [you] … by force.”
F
frobert
Guest
Porknpie and simpleas, thank you for your contributions in putting to rest the fallacious belief held by many that the sin of Sodom was the mere same-sex acts as practiced today. I would add one thing, that the sodomic acts were egregious, not only in and of themselves, but because the Sodomites transgressed the ancient virtue of hospitality that imposes duties on host and guest.
Stephen168
New member
Yes, while all homosexual sex acts are sodomy not all sodomy is practiced by homosexuals.
Stephen168
New member
I was hoping to get an answer to this question
F
frobert
Guest
All in due time my friend. After 50+ pages, on and off subject, I am allowing time to let my remarks about beards to percolate.
Perhaps you might want to comment on my solution.
S
simpleas
Guest
I realise there are many people who get caught up in/ do not realise what it is they are doing due to social, emotional pressures. I was not referring to age of consent, and journeys of peoples sexual experiences.
I was pointing out the text about sodom and how I now view it and how it is still an active “problem” in our world. The rape of men, by men, and rape of women and children.
S
SplendidSt
Guest
Here’s an answer I always give.
When I make a statement in favor of the natural order of human sexuality in opposition to the sexual act between members of the same sex, I make sure to reiterate this: that by human reason alone one can assert just as the nature (function) of ears is hearing/balance, the nature of lungs is respiration and the nature of eyes is seeing, the nature of human sexuality (the sexual act) is unitive and ordered to procreation. This is self evident.
When we speak of nature in this context we do not mean nature as “anything that occurs in the natural world”. We mean nature as the essential qualities of a given subject. In regard to human anatomy, observe the ear. Without any cultural invention whatsoever the function of the ear is hearing/balance. (Provided you have working ears or ears at all) in all situations the primary function of the ear is hearing/balance. Some might object at first, “that isn’t all of what ears are for, are you ignorant to the fact there are so many other things you can do with ears? Are ear decorations and piercings immoral to you?”. After hearing this in your head probably 1000 times over, the logic should communicate more. Yes indeed there are so many other functions of the human ear: piercing decorations, gages and even tattoos, but in all cases these functions **do not harm the primary function of the ear. **
You can pierce your ear, for example, but you wouldn’t pierce your ear in a way that you could no longer hear. That action harms the ear’s natural function, which is innate & primary, hurting/destroying it for the sake of a secondary and imposed function. If we are aware of this, what do me make of the human sexual act?
Its primary function is unitive and ordered to procreation. Again we hear, “that isn’t all of what [the sexual act is] for, are you ignorant to the fact there are so many other things you can do? Are [married infertile opposite sex relationships] immoral to you too?” Let us refer back to the logic. The sexual act between an infertile married opposite sex couple **does not harm the the primary function of the sexual act. **They can perform the sexual act and the act will always be unitive and ordered to procreation regardless of the result of the act. Even a fertile version of this couple’s act will be unitive and ordered to procreation regardless of the act’s result. People can perform the sexual act, but just as you would not pierce your ear in a way that you could no longer hear and harm the ears function, it is irrational to perform the sexual act with someone of the same sex.
Unlike the act between an infertile/older couple, when sex is performed between members of the same sex, the unitive function is damaged. The unitive function is wholly unitive, not merely figurative/invented. Since it is unitive it involves personal, emotional as well as physical (the natural function of the reproductive organs is used) and if these things are not present there is a lack and disorder involved in what should be entire unity. The procreative function is also destroyed in the act. The act is no longer ordered to procreation, this is another disorder and harm. it is not a virtue to dismantle and damage what would otherwise be a full and functional act between two human beings. The issue here is specifically about the immediate consequences of human action.
Regardless of the rationality or irrationality of any human act, our society lives in a way that pushes logic and reason to the side for the sake of immediate gratification. Because of Alfred Kinsey our society has developed the idea that all orgasmic acts are the same, and they’re not the same. Participating in such behavior as made clear earlier may seem different to the person who participates. It may feel, or seem to be fulfilling but despite the feelings it truthfully isn’t. Deep, loving relationships between two people do not have any sexual requirement to be truly loving. This is simply a myth perpetuated by the current popular opinion, not based on fact. Human sexuality is a beautiful thing, respect it.
S
simpleas
Guest
AgreeHere’s an answer I always give.
When I make a statement in favor of the natural order of human sexuality in opposition to the sexual act between members of the same sex, I make sure to reiterate this: that by human reason alone one can assert just as the nature (function) of ears is hearing/balance, the nature of lungs is respiration and the nature of eyes is seeing, the nature of human sexuality (the sexual act) is unitive and ordered to procreation. This is self evident.
When we speak of nature in this context we do not mean nature as “anything that occurs in the natural world”. We mean nature as the essential qualities of a given subject. In regard to human anatomy, observe the ear. Without any cultural invention whatsoever the function of the ear is hearing/balance. (Provided you have working ears or ears at all) in all situations the primary function of the ear is hearing/balance. Some might object at first, “that isn’t all of what ears are for, are you ignorant to the fact there are so many other things you can do with ears? Are ear decorations and piercings immoral to you?”. After hearing this in your head probably 1000 times over, the logic should communicate more. Yes indeed there are so many other functions of the human ear: piercing decorations, gages and even tattoos, but in all cases these functions **do not harm the primary function of the ear. **
You can pierce your ear, for example, but you wouldn’t pierce your ear in a way that you could no longer hear. That action harms the ear’s natural function, which is innate & primary, hurting/destroying it for the sake of a secondary and imposed function. If we are aware of this, what do me make of the human sexual act?
Its primary function is unitive and ordered to procreation. Again we hear, “that isn’t all of what [the sexual act is] for, are you ignorant to the fact there are so many other things you can do? Are [married infertile opposite sex relationships] immoral to you too?” Let us refer back to the logic. The sexual act between an infertile married opposite sex couple **does not harm the the primary function of the sexual act. **They can perform the sexual act and the act will always be unitive and ordered to procreation regardless of the result of the act. Even a fertile version of this couple’s act will be unitive and ordered to procreation regardless of the act’s result. People can perform the sexual act, but just as you would not pierce your ear in a way that you could no longer hear and harm the ears function, it is irrational to perform the sexual act with someone of the same sex.
Unlike the act between an infertile/older couple, when sex is performed between members of the same sex, the unitive function is damaged. The unitive function is wholly unitive, not merely figurative/invented. Since it is unitive it involves personal, emotional as well as physical (the natural function of the reproductive organs is used) and if these things are not present there is a lack and disorder involved in what should be entire unity. The procreative function is also destroyed in the act. The act is no longer ordered to procreation, this is another disorder and harm. it is not a virtue to dismantle and damage what would otherwise be a full and functional act between two human beings. The issue here is specifically about the immediate consequences of human action.
Regardless of the rationality or irrationality of any human act, our society lives in a way that pushes logic and reason to the side for the sake of immediate gratification. Because of Alfred Kinsey our society has developed the idea that all orgasmic acts are the same, and they’re not the same. Participating in such behavior as made clear earlier may seem different to the person who participates. It may feel, or seem to be fulfilling but despite the feelings it truthfully isn’t. Deep, loving relationships between two people do not have any sexual requirement to be truly loving. This is simply a myth perpetuated by the current popular opinion, not based on fact. Human sexuality is a beautiful thing, respect it.
F
frobert
Guest
A good synopsis of Tomistic natural law theory.
Some natural law theorist argue that St. Thomas’s theory of natural law is not a human-revelation theory but rather a nature-revelation one. Either way it is valid to discuss human characteristics in natural law theory. My only point is that to do so necessitates additional assumptions of human nature.
D
DrTaffy
Guest
So any article, even in a peer reviewed journal, is instantly dismissed if it is by an atheist?
This is still far better evidence than has been offered that same sex couples cause “potentially serious issues with regard to human social health”.
Amusing, but irrelevant to this discussion. As far as I see, at least.
D
DrTaffy
Guest
Well, I did not actually ask you, but clearly Stephen is simply never going to answer, while complaining about others not answering his questions - which was pretty much the point I was making.
But anyone who hasn’t got that yet never will, so I’ll take the excuse to close this.
The one I gave months ago in post #303. Hence the hypocrisy of Stephen’s claim that I was refusing to give my definition.
I would note that your definition falls short on a couple of points:
- It relies (a lot) on the phrase ‘ordered towards’ which is so vaguely defined (as used by you) that is still leaves the actual meaning very vague
- It does not exclude incestuous marriages. Does that mean that you support marriage for brother and sister?
- It does exclude many marriages that are clearly referred to as such - including the polygamous marriages in the Bible itself.
D
DrTaffy
Guest
They don’t just share a location, they share many of the same parts. e.g. the penis. How does a priest or monk urinate without using his penis?
He doesn’t, of course. (barring certain unfortunate medical conditions)
And more to the point, a same sex relationship does not prevent someone from procreation, whereas priestly vows of celibacy do. So the proposed argument does not work against same sex marriage, but would work as a condemnation of Catholic priesthood.
- Status