Beards and Gay Marriage

[Thorns]

So, you deny that the act of sex is unitive in infertile couples? That is a very strange attitude, and seems to fly in the face of common sense.

Is there is difference in the sex act depending on the time of the month or when the wife is pregnant? Does the unitivity (?) of the act change? How can we determine the change in unitivity? How is it measured? Where is your evidence of a change in unitivity? How does a hysterectomy change the unitivity of the sexual act in the marriage?

And if the husband has had an orchidectomy because of, say, cancer, then do your same remarks apply?

Some heterosexual marriages are sterile for medical reasons. All heterosexual marriages are infertile some of the time. How does this temporary or permanent sterility affect the unitive part of the marriage?

rossum

If a man did not have an orchidectomy, he could create life.

If a woman didnt have a hysterectomy, she could create life.

There is nothing to reverse or restore in a homosexual relationship that would make their sex open to life. That is the difference. This is nature telling us they are not ordered for each other. The heterosexual infertile couple is still doing what theyre ordered.for, even though the capability no longer exists. The order toward life is what brings unity.

What matters is the order, not necessarily the outcome or capability.

 

[Ion]

So, you deny that the act of sex is unitive in infertile couples? That is a very strange attitude, and seems to fly in the face of common sense.

Is there is difference in the sex act depending on the time of the month or when the wife is pregnant? Does the unitivity (?) of the act change? How can we determine the change in unitivity? How is it measured? Where is your evidence of a change in unitivity? How does a hysterectomy change the unitivity of the sexual act in the marriage?

And if the husband has had an orchidectomy because of, say, cancer, then do your same remarks apply?

Some heterosexual marriages are sterile for medical reasons. All heterosexual marriages are infertile some of the time. How does this temporary or permanent sterility affect the unitive part of the marriage?

rossum

Are you aware that there is not possible such miracle like two man or two woman to procreate and have children?

 

[Bradski]

There is nothing to reverse or restore in a homosexual relationship that would make their sex open to life. That is the difference. This is nature telling us they are not ordered for each other. The heterosexual infertile couple is still doing what theyre ordered.for, even though the capability no longer exists. The order toward life is what brings unity.

PR said in the OP: Thus, the natural end of the sexual act is to procreate and unite. Any act that thwarts this natural end of the sexual act is therefore immoral.

That is, the natural end of a particular sexual act. There are plenty of things that a man and a woman can do with each other that is not open to life. That is, that doesn’t include that particular sexual act. I’d rather not be specific so let’s just use our imagination and say that whatever they do does not include the genitalia.

So they are not ‘thwarting’ anything here. They are simply not putting the whole system to a use that could be ‘open to life’. That is, there is nothing wrong with not using your biological system to produce life. I’d suggest that anyone reading this is not currently putting it to that use and you are doing nothing wrong.

Let’s agree for the purpose of discussion that ‘thwarting it’ is indeed wrong. That would mean that going the process of that particular sexual act that is ‘open to life’ and doing something that would prevent it being ‘open to life’ would be wrong. Such as using a condom.

But how can one say that any act between two people that does not include that particular sexual act, indeed does not include the genitalia whatsoever, is preventing procreation? It is not the aim to procreate, so how can you be preventing it?

 

[rossum]

If a man did not have an orchidectomy, he could create life.

If a homosexual man had sex with a woman outside his marriage he could create life.

If a woman didnt have a hysterectomy, she could create life.

If a lesbian woman had sex with a man outside her marriage then she could create life.

If the Jews were right then Jesus would not be the Messiah.

“If…” covers a great many things that do not happen.

There is nothing to reverse or restore in a homosexual relationship that would make their sex open to life.

Reverse the ages of a heterosexual couple to three years old and their relationship is not “open to life”. Using your reversal argument I can show all heterosexual marriages fail the “open to life” test. You are back in the realms of “If…” and fantasy here. Stick to reality please, it makes the discussion easier.

The order toward life is what brings unity.

So, where is your evidence gathered from many years of same sex
marriages in various places that there is less “unity” in a same sex marriage than in a childless heterosexual marriage? Do you also have data comparing same-sex and opposite-sex couples who adopt children? The data is potentially out there. If you make assertions about things then you need to provide data to back up your assertions.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Are you aware that there is not possible such miracle like two man or two woman to procreate and have children?

I am aware that the Christian God is omnipotent, and so can do anything. He made a woman from a rib. Do two men have ribs? Could God make a woman from one of those ribs? Do two women have ribs? Could God make a man from one of those ribs?

An omnipotent God can easily allow two women to have a child. Two men might be a bit more difficult, neither has a womb, but not beyond His powers.

Omnipotence overcomes a great many difficulties.

rossum

 

[GaryTaylor]

I’m not sure where the phrase “ordered towards” come from, but I’m guessing this is going to be a fork in the road. What is it’s history?

It comes from Darwin, the environment selects the organisms through natural sequencing that will be the survivors, thus natural order.

plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-selection/

 

[GaryTaylor]

In order for this organism (me) to survive

The organism in itself is not of consequence, life and survival of a species is… I’m not sure what your saying, you disagree with Darwin, how so?

 

[rossum]

It comes from Darwin, the environment selects the organisms through natural sequencing that will be the survivors, thus natural order.

plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-selection/

Indeed. See: Why Gays Don’t Go Extinct.

The findings may help solve the puzzle of why, if homosexuality is hereditary, it hasn’t already disappeared from the gene pool, since gay people are less likely to reproduce than heterosexuals.

A team of researchers found that some female relatives of gay men tend to have more children than average.

rossum

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Indeed. See: Why Gays Don’t Go Extinct.

The findings may help solve the puzzle of why, if homosexuality is hereditary, it hasn’t already disappeared from the gene pool, since gay people are less likely to reproduce than heterosexuals.

A team of researchers found that some female relatives of gay men tend to have more children than average.

rossum

Actually, the claim that “gay (i.e. same-sex attracted) people are less likely to reproduce than heterosexuals” has only been true for maybe the last 20-30 years – at least in any significant way. And I’m not sure people with SSA are *much *less likely to have kids with an opposite sex partner even now.

A great deal of the fecundity of the gay gene – if there is such a gene – probably comes from gay people having children of their own, through natural means.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I don’t see what that has to do with anything? We don’t have the gene identified, the survey is filled with speculation. The point a mutant gene continues to surface is about the same as saying some other mutant gene continues to surface. That doesn’t make it not a mutant gene, it just makes it factually still around.

“results are consistent with a growing number of studies that suggest that the female relatives of male homosexuals are more fecund than those of male heterosexuals”

This doesn’t change the point it indicates and “attempts” to define characteristics.

Here’s language of the article…

“Camperio-Ciani and his team “hypothesize” that the genes they modeled “may” cause people”

How many other’s hypothesize this in relation to Darwin? The collectiveness of hypothesis is what gives “theory” validity. Just like the Big Bang. What this is, is called off the top of the head thinking committed to paper with no consensus.

This system “does not address” causes of homosexuality in women, he said.

“We’re “still working on lesbianism”, but were “not getting to the same result,” and possibly we’ll come out with a completely different explanation,”

What’s astonishing is this mess even made it to ink on paper. Its indicative of the downward spiral of what passes for knowledge today.

The findings may help solve the puzzle ? I can’t imagine how. Being the article is 2008 I would think either progress was made, or the theory was shelved due to stagnation.

 

[GaryTaylor]

However, we are now talking about the individual organizing capacities of the self in relation to life. This is done in order to account for the chaotic nature of the evolutionary process and the inherent propensity of complex dynamic systems to grow more complex with time, aberrations in natural selection also appear frequently in plants and animals. Its not a question of good or bad but an analysis of what occurred and is a reality.

However, this wasn’t the intent of the question ( admittedly I’m assuming). For sure it wasn’t my intention to labor the point but to respond briefly to the OP. I understand people tend to inject emotion which leads to narrow thinking in regards. “The Origin of Species” has been around and been debated for some time, apparently we just haven’t reached any final conclusions. Its not a matter or personal emotions or opinions about Darwin, its about objectively seeking the truth.

Thanks

 

[Bradski]

It comes from Darwin, the environment selects the organisms through natural sequencing that will be the survivors, thus natural order.

The question wasn’t about ‘natural order’. It was about the term ‘ordered towards’, which, and I may be wrong here, wasn’t used by Darwin and is not associated with Darwin or his work. As far as I am aware, it is just a term used by Catholics to encourage people to believe that coitis between heterosexual couples has the potential for life, whether it is practically possible or not.

With the corollary that acts other than coitus between heterosexual couples are not therefore ordered towards life.

I can understand that preventing the act of coitus between a heterosexual couple from having the potential for life might make a Catholic uncomfortable, but I can’t understand that not having coitus in the first place can be wrong.

 

[PRmerger]

As far as I am aware, it is just a term used by Catholics to encourage people to believe that coitis between heterosexual couples has the potential for life, whether it is practically possible or not.

Well, it’s “just a term used by Catholics” in the same way that “polygon” is a “just a term used by mathematicians”.

All people who are concerned with truth are invited to use the terms.

 

[PRmerger]

Well, it’s “just a term used by Catholics” in the same way that “polygon” is a “just a term used by mathematicians”.

All people who are concerned with truth are invited to use the terms.

Interestingly enough, I just did a cursory search and found this, quite easily.

digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1355&context=yjlh

from the Yale Journal of Law.

It does not appear to be a religiously based article yet it does use the term “ordered towards”.

 

[PRmerger]

Also side note PR I have changed my stance on the discussion we never finished. I was wrong, I think.

Awesome.

(Not to the fact that you are wrong. But to the fact that you changed your stance.)

Now, could you reference what discussion you are talking about? The one where you claimed you could “know Scripture when I see it”?

 

[PRmerger]

By your bulimia example could you also condemn speed eating competitions?

I absolutely do find speed eating competitions reprehensible.

They are profligate and wasteful and a display of utter disdain for the poor.

 

[PRmerger]

So, you deny that the act of sex is unitive in infertile couples? That is a very strange attitude, and seems to fly in the face of common sense.

Is there is difference in the sex act depending on the time of the month or when the wife is pregnant? Does the unitivity (?) of the act change? How can we determine the change in unitivity? How is it measured? Where is your evidence of a change in unitivity? How does a hysterectomy change the unitivity of the sexual act in the marriage?

And if the husband has had an orchidectomy because of, say, cancer, then do your same remarks apply?

Some heterosexual marriages are sterile for medical reasons. All heterosexual marriages are infertile some of the time. How does this temporary or permanent sterility affect the unitive part of the marriage?

rossum

Again, rossum, you seem to not understand what “ordered towards” means.

An act can be “ordered towards” its correct end, without necessarily achieving it.

(Revisit my analogy of the senior citizens team playing baseball against the St. Louis Cardinals. The senior citizens’ play is ordered towards winning, but will never achieve a victory. But their play is still ordered towards winning.)

 

[PRmerger]

I am currently taking a chemotherapy drug that is known to cause serious birth defects. What would natural law direct me to do in this case? Cease having sex (to its natural end, as is being defined here); have sex to its natural end, and risk serious birth defects; or complete the act in a different way?

I am sorry to hear that you are ill! Prayers going up!

As far as what natural law would direct you to do: use the natural cycles of your wife’s infertile periods as times when you can engage in the marital act.

 

[PRmerger]

Let’s agree for the purpose of discussion that ‘thwarting it’ is indeed wrong. That would mean that going the process of that particular sexual act that is ‘open to life’ and doing something that would prevent it being ‘open to life’ would be wrong. Such as using a condom.

Yes.

But how can one say that any act between two people that does not include that particular sexual act, indeed does not include the genitalia whatsoever, is preventing procreation? It is not the aim to procreate, so how can you be preventing it?

Not understanding the question. Could you be more specific about the particular sexual act you’re thinking of, without being actually, er, specific?

 

[PRmerger]

I dispute your singular “end”. There are multiple ends (plural), including to unite.

Um…procreation AND union are, well, a dual end. Not singular. That is, we are agreed that there are “multiple ends” (plural) to the marital act.

We are agreed that intercourse is allowed between married infertile couples because that intercourse is directed towards the end of uniting the couple.

And because it is directed towards procreation.

That is despite the fact that procreation may be impossible

Yep.

Just like a victory for a senior citizens team may be impossible against the Yankees.

But they are still playing baseball. And their play is still ordered towards winning.