Beards and Gay Marriage

[PRmerger]

b) How do you claim to know what reasons a goy (or straight) couple might have for not procreating?

Let’s leave non-Jewish couples out of this, shall we? I see no reason for particularizing the discussion in that direction.

Yep. And there are those who might find it offensive that DrT is proposing that goy couples might not procreate.

BTW, I do like the sound of that phrase which is a novel one to me: goy couples.

It trips lightly off the tongue.

 

[Stephen168]

An emission of semen in a vagina

does not make two people become one. It just can’t - whether fertilization does or does not occur or if it’s even possible for any given pair.
Stephen168;12103217:

And sex unions can never do this. No even as a shot on goal or a swing and a miss.

I meant same-sex unions can never do this

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Note that I never said that they did it without outside assistance, but so what? Why should I care? Why should the State care, if they are just after more citizens?

Well, for a Christian, nature is not random. If God made it so that gay people can’t have children of their own the natural way, then there’s got to be a reason. Since I don’t think God has a grudge against gay people, I take it that things are the way they are because God wants gay people to realize that their love is better when unconsummated. This is why Scripture, and Plato, and manifold ancient sources call homosexual sex “unnatural”.

So either I drop Christianity, or believe that homosexual actions are anti-normative. And if I believe they are anti-normative, then I would assume there are harms associated with them. Looking at the statistics, such harms are plausible. Thus, out of a desire to help gay people have the most good and rewarding lives they can, I oppose gay marriage.

So does God also hate sterile straight people? Priests? Monks? Nuns?

No, God does not hate sterile people, but he doesn’t make them to be sterile. Sterility is a defect.

So I guess you have two options: (1) Homosexuality is a defect. In this case, surely we shouldn’t make laws accommodating it. (2) Homosexuality is a natural variant. In this case, God would have made it fruitful, if He wanted gay people to have sex.

 

[runningdude]

Okey dokey.

Perhaps a tiny bit of elaboration. If you accept for instance that the Ten Commands are not new law introduced in Exodus, but rather a concise summary of the Natural Law, we can use them to illustrate my point.

In the Commandments, we see then in them the two great commands: Love God and Love your neighbor as yourself. When your neighbor is you spouse, there is an extra special duty! We see several commands to honor marriage (no adultery, no coveting another women) and some to honor oneself indirectly.

There is a natural duty to honor marriage by keeping the marriage act unitive and procreative. There is even a duty to eat (for failure to do so harms your body, running afoul of the duty not to “kill”). Nowhere is any duty to grow a long hair alluded to (indeed, such concept is gently mocked in the case of Samson)!

It is the context of the human person that gives actions their meaning and intended ends. Beards may naturally grow, but their is no context that makes the unhindered growth necessary.

 

[frobert]

It is the context of the human person that gives actions their meaning and intended ends. Beards may naturally grow, but their is no context that makes the unhindered growth necessary.

In terms of natural law ‘bread growth’ is not one of the special classes of acts that are determined by the “ends justifying the means” criteria, therefore a Thomas natural law theorist would say its inconsequential.

Thought process, what term describes this type of reasoning?

“I have lived on the lip
of insanity, wanting to know reasons,
knocking on a door. It opens.
I’ve been knocking from the inside.”
Rumi

 

[PRmerger]

Perhaps a tiny bit of elaboration. If you accept for instance that the Ten Commands are not new law introduced in Exodus, but rather a concise summary of the Natural Law, we can use them to illustrate my point.

In the Commandments, we see then in them the two great commands: Love God and Love your neighbor as yourself. When your neighbor is you spouse, there is an extra special duty! We see several commands to honor marriage (no adultery, no coveting another women) and some to honor oneself indirectly.

There is a natural duty to honor marriage by keeping the marriage act unitive and procreative. There is even a duty to eat (for failure to do so harms your body, running afoul of the duty not to “kill”). Nowhere is any duty to grow a long hair alluded to (indeed, such concept is gently mocked in the case of Samson)!

It is the context of the human person that gives actions their meaning and intended ends. Beards may naturally grow, but their is no context that makes the unhindered growth necessary.

Very Catholic what you have written!

 

[camillebru]

My name is Camille bruno Valdez my partner and I have been trying for a baby for over two years now, We were going to a fertility clinic for about 5 months before somebody told us to contact this spell caster who is so powerful, We contacted him at this email; arewaspecialisttemple@yahoo.com, for him to help us, then we told him our problem, he told us that we will either conceive in February 2014 or March 2014,but after two years of trying we were at a point where we were willing to try anything. And I’m glad we came to Dr Dahiru, Because his pregnancy spell cast put us at ease, and I honestly believe him, and his gods really helped us as well, I am thankful for all he has done. contact him via email: arewaspecialisttemple@yahoo.com if you are trying to get a baby or want your lover back. he has powers to do it, he has done mine

 

[SplendidSt]

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.

How did you come to this conclusion from points in the post I made?

 

[Bradski]

So I guess you have two options: (1) Homosexuality is a defect. In this case, surely we shouldn’t make laws accommodating it. (2) Homosexuality is a natural variant. In this case, God would have made it fruitful, if He wanted gay people to have sex.

There is no earthly reason why sex would need to feel as good as it does if it were God’s method for procreation. If God wanted couples to commit to each other and produce children and producing children was the main reason why they get together in the first place, then exchanging some bodily fluids need be no more desirable in itself than filling in your tax returns together.

But it does feel good because nature wants us to pass on as many of our genes as possible. It’s the same reason that sugars and fats taste so good. Nature is saying: this stuff is packed with calories - get it into you, it’s just what you need when you’re chasing each other around and butting heads with your rivals.

So saying that God wants us to have sex and has therefore made it desirable is as nonsensical as saying that He made good things taste nice and bad things taste awful. It’s as nonsensical as saying He made grass and trees green because it’s a pleasant colour to look at.

Let’s face it, if there weren’t any women about, the majority of men would have sex with anything that was available, animate or inanimate. The sex drive doesn’t just kick in when you hit the marital bed. It’s switched ON when you get to puberty, turned up to 11 and it is never OFF until you reach quite a ripe old age (at least from the male perspective).

So if God has designed the whole shooting match, then He really has nothing to complain about if practically everyone on the planet has sex with whomever and whatever takes their fancy with no thought about little bundles of joy that might result.

If He’s testing us (and I guess that’s the Catholic view), then we have all failed. Not just the young dude fumbling beneath the blankets or the married couple who are using contraception, or the young kids in the back of the car or the gay couple or the priest or anyone else. It is one massive and overwhelming FAIL.

But…you (whoever is reading this - not Prodigal Son in particular) are different. You manage to play by the rules that have been laid down. You are virtuous. You can rise above all this sordid and messy rutting. When you have sex, it is (fanfare) ‘Ordered Towards Procreation!’

Well done. Congratulations. And I’m sure you know lots of people like you. Well, that’s what they tell you. But you actually have no idea what goes on in anyone’s bedroom. Which is the way it should be. Because, apart from the fact that most people like some privacy during those intimate moments, It Has Nothing At All To Do With You. That’s right. Absolutely nothing. And whatever anyone else does get up to, It Will Not Affect You In Any Way Whatsoever.

So if it’s not scaring the horses or keeping you awake at night, how about we leave decisions about other people’s sex lives to (wait for it…) other people. Yes, I know it’s kinda weird for you not to have any say in the type of sex someone else may be having. It may even be a little upsetting. Perhaps a little scary. But how about giving it your best shot…

 

[Peter_Plato]

So if it’s not scaring the horses or keeping you awake at night, how about we leave decisions about other people’s sex lives to (wait for it…) other people. Yes, I know it’s kinda weird for you not to have any say in the type of sex someone else may be having. It may even be a little upsetting. Perhaps a little scary. But how about giving it your best shot…

In effect, you are saying there shouldn’t be "World Pride Fest 2014” where people parade around loudly proclaiming (keeping everyone within earshot awake at night) that they have every say about the type of sex everyone should be having and telling the world who they are having it with.

Did you set up your little soapbox at Casa Loma, Bradski?

Of course, only SOME should be quiet, but OTHERS ought to have every say, right Bradski?

 

[Bradski]

In effect, you are saying there shouldn’t be "World Pride Fest 2014” where people parade around loudly proclaiming (keeping everyone within earshot awake at night) that they have every say about the type of sex everyone should be having and telling the world who they are having it with.

Did you set up your little soapbox at Casa Loma, Bradski?

Of course, only SOME should be quiet, but OTHERS ought to have every say, right Bradski?

There was a need for such displays. As there was at Stonewall back in Day 1. But thankfully we are getting to the point where it’s not necessary any more to bring everyone’s attention to the inequalities that gay people live under.

Sadly, as we can see all too often in forums such as this, there is still some way to go before people Mind Their Own Business when it comes to sex.

Give it no so long at all and Gay Pride marches and Mardi Gras will be as anachronistic as Black Power or Women’s Rights. You may well have asked at some point: Did they really send children up chimneys. Or your kids might ask: Were there really separate toilets for black and white people?

When your grandkids start asking: Was there really a time when people thought that being gay was wrong? - then you’ll know the time for marches and banners will have long past.

So yes, there shouldn’t have to be such a thing as a World Gay Anything At All.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

There is no earthly reason why sex would need to feel as good as it does if it were God’s method for procreation. If God wanted couples to commit to each other and produce children and producing children was the main reason why they get together in the first place, then exchanging some bodily fluids need be no more desirable in itself than filling in your tax returns together.

But it does feel good because nature wants us to pass on as many of our genes as possible. It’s the same reason that sugars and fats taste so good. Nature is saying: this stuff is packed with calories - get it into you, it’s just what you need when you’re chasing each other around and butting heads with your rivals.

So saying that God wants us to have sex and has therefore made it desirable is as nonsensical as saying that He made good things taste nice and bad things taste awful. It’s as nonsensical as saying He made grass and trees green because it’s a pleasant colour to look at.

None of the things you said in the above paragraph is nonsensical. Clearly “nature” – your term – is designed so that these things feel good and taste good. Anyone who believes in God believes that God designed nature, thus it’s no leap to say that God designed it this way because he wants us to procreate, etc.

As for your claim that we would procreate even if it didn’t feel good, maybe. But then, childbirth would be a clinical affair, and one of the most dazzlingly awesome symbolic experiences in life – creating another person – would be dull. Moreover, only people who wanted children would have kids, which reminds me, more than anything, of the movie Stepford Wives, a world that is completely and permanently bourgeois.

Let’s face it, if there weren’t any women about, the majority of men would have sex with anything that was available, animate or inanimate. The sex drive doesn’t just kick in when you hit the marital bed. It’s switched ON when you get to puberty, turned up to 11 and it is never OFF until you reach quite a ripe old age (at least from the male perspective).

This is all extremely false. Most human beings realize, at a certain point, that unrestrained sexuality merely multiplies desires; it doesn’t satisfy them. The reason that sex addicts go to such bizarre lengths (and fetishes) to get turned on is that “normal sex” bores them. But the problem is with them, not with the sex. The problem is that they haven’t realized that love is the ultimate aphrodisiac, and love is not something that you can find just anywhere. At any rate, I certainly hope that you have for yourself realized that more sex and random sex isn’t more fulfilling, and I’m quite disappointed to see how cynical you are about other men’s ability to discipline themselves.

So if God has designed the whole shooting match, then He really has nothing to complain about if practically everyone on the planet has sex with whomever and whatever takes their fancy with no thought about little bundles of joy that might result.

You don’t make a child good by not giving him a chance to be bad – that’s not parenting, that’s totalitarianism. God, our Father, wants us to grow in chastity. So he lets us realize for ourselves that screwing everything that moves won’t fulfill us.

If He’s testing us (and I guess that’s the Catholic view), then we have all failed. Not just the young dude fumbling beneath the blankets or the married couple who are using contraception, or the young kids in the back of the car or the gay couple or the priest or anyone else. It is one massive and overwhelming FAIL.

False. I know many chaste people.

But…you (whoever is reading this - not Prodigal Son in particular) are different. You manage to play by the rules that have been laid down. You are virtuous. You can rise above all this sordid and messy rutting. When you have sex, it is (fanfare) ‘Ordered Towards Procreation!’

Now you’re being presumptuous. I am not virtuous, nor am I only capable of sex that is ordered to procreation. Many days, I passionately desire to have sex with another man. And I have lusted in that direction, which means that I have no leg to stand on condemning those who commit sodomy. This is why I do not condemn those who commit sodomy.

Well done. Congratulations. And I’m sure you know lots of people like you. Well, that’s what they tell you. But you actually have no idea what goes on in anyone’s bedroom.

Good to know I have no idea what goes on in my wife’s bedroom. I’m sure that, despite the fact that she appears to me chaste and committed to me, she’s really sneaking around with dozens of other guys.

And apparently, I should just assume that all my friends are sexually promiscuous too. What would this accomplish? Very little, except to make me cynical and to make me feel better about my own lack of self-control, since I make the unfounded assumption that everyone else lacks self-control too. (It’s phenomenal that 95% of my friends have stable marriages, since they’re all apparently sexually promiscuous. But I suppose you’ll say “they have their reasons” for staying together.

So if it’s not scaring the horses or keeping you awake at night, how about we leave decisions about other people’s sex lives to (wait for it…) other people. Yes, I know it’s kinda weird for you not to have any say in the type of sex someone else may be having.

Apparently you have me confused with other posters. Can you quote to me a single sentence where I expressed a desire to control other people’s sex lives?

 

[PRmerger]

There is no earthly reason why sex would need to feel as good as it does if it were God’s method for procreation. If God wanted couples to commit to each other and produce children and producing children was the main reason why they get together in the first place, then exchanging some bodily fluids need be no more desirable in itself than filling in your tax returns together.

Yep. God certainly could have removed all sensation from sex.

Sexual pleasure is a gift, to be sure. :yup:

But it does feel good because nature wants us to pass on as many of our genes as possible. It’s the same reason that sugars and fats taste so good. Nature is saying: this stuff is packed with calories - get it into you, it’s just what you need when you’re chasing each other around and butting heads with your rivals.

Sure.

So saying that God wants us to have sex and has therefore made it desirable is as nonsensical as saying that He made good things taste nice and bad things taste awful. It’s as nonsensical as saying He made grass and trees green because it’s a pleasant colour to look at.

Or we could just say that God is good and gave us a good thing.

Let’s face it, if there weren’t any women about, the majority of men would have sex with anything that was available, animate or inanimate. The sex drive doesn’t just kick in when you hit the marital bed. It’s switched ON when you get to puberty, turned up to 11 and it is never OFF until you reach quite a ripe old age (at least from the male perspective).

It’s a good thing that most of us live our lives acknowledging our disordered desires and aren’t compelled to act on them.

At least, if we’re Catholic and rational.

So if God has designed the whole shooting match, then He really has nothing to complain about if practically everyone on the planet has sex with whomever and whatever takes their fancy with no thought about little bundles of joy that might result.

Huh?

That’s not what God planned for us.

That’s what happens when people ignore the Plan and go their own way.

If He’s testing us (and I guess that’s the Catholic view),

Actually, no.

Giving us sexual desires is a gift, not a test.

That it may be a disordered desire is the fault of Original Sin.

Not of God.

then we have all failed.

Yep, pretty much.

That’s why we need Christ and His Redemption.

Not just the young dude fumbling beneath the blankets or the married couple who are using contraception, or the young kids in the back of the car or the gay couple or the priest or anyone else. It is one massive and overwhelming FAIL.

Without Christ, sadly, yes. It is one massive and overwhelming FAIL.

That’s why Christ came–to redeem us from this one massive and overwhelming FAIL.

But…you (whoever is reading this - not Prodigal Son in particular) are different. You manage to play by the rules that have been laid down. You are virtuous. You can rise above all this sordid and messy rutting. When you have sex, it is (fanfare) ‘Ordered Towards Procreation!’

Well done. Congratulations. And I’m sure you know lots of people like you. Well, that’s what they tell you. But you actually have no idea what goes on in anyone’s bedroom. Which is the way it should be. Because, apart from the fact that most people like some privacy during those intimate moments, It Has Nothing At All To Do With You. That’s right. Absolutely nothing. And whatever anyone else does get up to, It Will Not Affect You In Any Way Whatsoever.

So if it’s not scaring the horses or keeping you awake at night, how about we leave decisions about other people’s sex lives to (wait for it…) other people. Yes, I know it’s kinda weird for you not to have any say in the type of sex someone else may be having. It may even be a little upsetting. Perhaps a little scary. But how about giving it your best shot…

This is a wee bit heavy on the sarcasm and not becoming of you, Bradski.

What up with that?

 

[stewstew03]

In effect, you are saying there shouldn’t be "World Pride Fest 2014” where people parade around loudly proclaiming (keeping everyone within earshot awake at night) that they have every say about the type of sex everyone should be having and telling the world who they are having it with.

Did you set up your little soapbox at Casa Loma, Bradski?

Of course, only SOME should be quiet, but OTHERS ought to have every say, right Bradski?

http://media.giphy.com/media/lExXm1vSE7zb2/giphy.gif(image larger than 4096KB)

 

[Bradski]

Anyone who believes in God believes that God designed nature, thus it’s no leap to say that God designed it this way because he wants us to procreate, etc.

But he set it up in such a way so that we can get pleasure from it with no thought of procreation. And the vast majority of people (effectively everyone) gives no thought at all to increasing the population when they are doing it simply because they are doing it because it feels good. There’s no thought of it being Ordered Towards Procreation!

As for your claim that we would procreate even if it didn’t feel good, maybe. But then, childbirth would be a clinical affair, and one of the most dazzlingly awesome symbolic experiences in life – creating another person – would be dull.

Do you know anyone who has conceived via artificial insemination who has described the birth as ‘clinical’?

Moreover, only people who wanted children would have kids…

Well, good grief, that’s a great idea. Maybe He should have asked around when he was setting things up and you could have suggested that. Think of all the problems it would have prevented. It’s all positives and no negatives. In other words…where is the problem in that?

The problem is that they haven’t realized that love is the ultimate aphrodisiac, and love is not something that you can find just anywhere. At any rate, I certainly hope that you have for yourself realized that more sex and random sex isn’t more fulfilling, and I’m quite disappointed to see how cynical you are about other men’s ability to discipline themselves.

Ah, yes. Love as opposed to sex. And I’m sure that you realise that the two don’t necessarily go together. But when they do, who is anyone to say that it shouldn’t be allowed?

And men’s ability to discipline themselves? Give me a break, Prodigal. There isn’t a man on the planet that hasn’t had sex just because he wanted to, with no thought of it being Ordered Towards Procreation!

You don’t make a child good by not giving him a chance to be bad – that’s not parenting, that’s totalitarianism. God, our Father, wants us to grow in chastity. So he lets us realize for ourselves that screwing everything that moves won’t fulfill us.

But there’s a difference in allowing a child to make mistakes and purposely tempting her with something that feels great and then punishing her for doing it. That could be construed as cruelty. I’d describe someone who did that as a bad parent.

False. I know many chaste people.

We’re talking the whole planet here. I’m sure there are a few about.

Now you’re being presumptuous. I am not virtuous, nor am I only capable of sex that is ordered to procreation. Many days, I passionately desire to have sex with another man. And I have lusted in that direction, which means that I have no leg to stand on condemning those who commit sodomy. This is why I do not condemn those who commit sodomy.

So I don’t see a problem here. I can’t see any problem at all in someone thinking that it’s a sin. If you don’t want to do something because you think it’s sinful then, hey, don’t do it. If you think that someone else is committing a sin by doing it, then it’s all good. If you want to tell them it’s a sin and would like them to stop for their own good, then go for it. But if they tell you then that they’d prefer it if you minded your own business, then mind your own business you must.

And apparently, I should just assume that all my friends are sexually promiscuous too. What would this accomplish? Very little, except to make me cynical and to make me feel better about my own lack of self-control, since I make the unfounded assumption that everyone else lacks self-control too.

Maybe all your friends are virtuous. Maybe some of them are closet swingers. Maybe all of them love each other and have sex every day and twice on Sunday or maybe they don’t. The point is, which I think you missed, is that it has nothing at all to do with you whatsoever.

Apparently you have me confused with other posters. Can you quote to me a single sentence where I expressed a desire to control other people’s sex lives?

My apologies. I didn’t mean you in particular. English needs a specific third person plural (as in ‘Ustedes’ if your Spanish is up to it).

 

[PRmerger]

But he set it up in such a way so that we can get pleasure from it with no thought of procreation.

Nope. He didn’t set it up that way.

We see it that way because we are flawed.

 

[Bradski]

Yep. God certainly could have removed all sensation from
Giving us sexual desires is a gift, not a test.

Not ‘removed’. He designed the whole thing so it was part of the original spec. And it’s not a test?

God: Morning all. I’m here today to tell you about this immensely pleasurable experience I’ve designed for you. I’ve programmed it so that it’s entirely possible to experience it with anyone else, male or female. It’s possible to do it quite a few times a day and you can even do it by yourself if you like.

To remind you that it’s available, you’ve all been loaded up with feelings of sexual desire and you will regularly feel the need to indulge in this experience, especially those of you who are at the younger end of the spectrum. You will feel very frustrated if these desires are not met.

However…Notwithstanding what I’ve just said, the rules are that you can only experience this pleasure in certain circumstances, with only one other person, and then only after certain ceremonies have been completed and the experience must be Ordered Towards Conception!

Yes, I know this will lead to all sorts of problems and it will be exceptionally difficult to abide by these rules. But it’s not a test. No, settle down, it really isn’t. I repeat, it’s not a test.

But I’ll be keeping an eye on you anyway and if you break the rules there’ll be hell to pay.

It is one massive and overwhelming FAIL.

I wonder why…

Nope. He didn’t set it up that way. We see it that way because we are flawed.

It feels good because we are flawed? If we were not flawed it wouldn’t be any great shakes? That’s nonsense.

 

[PRmerger]

Not ‘removed’. He designed the whole thing so it was part of the original spec.

Pleasure was part of our original plan.

Disordered desire for that pleasure was not, Bradski.

And it’s not a test?

No. God did not set it up as a test.



Now, that we can put our natures are put to the test is a function of our own lack of perfection.

Not as a willing test by God.

 

[PRmerger]

I wonder why…

It’s all 'splained here:

usccb.org/bible/genesis/1

It feels good because we are flawed? If we were not flawed it wouldn’t be any great shakes? That’s nonsense.

No.

It feels good because it’s a gift from God.

I already said that, friend.

We have disordered desires for this pleasant feeling because we are flawed.

It wasn’t how it was meant to be.

And clearly, all one has to do is look at our anatomy and see that some disordered desires were…

just not meant…

to be like that.

They just don’t fit.

You know?

 

[Bradski]

No. God did not set it up as a test.

So what do you call something that has rules where you get a pass if you obey them and you don’t if you break them?

God set it up the way I described and it certainly sounds testing to me to have to obey them. If it wasn’t a test, then there’d be no failures. But as you said, we’re all failing…