Beards and Gay Marriage

[PRmerger]

But not using the necessary equipment for it’s natural use is not thwarting it’s use. Priests do not use their equipment for it’s natural purpose and it’s not considered immoral.

Right.

Equally, two gay women do not use their equipment for it’s natural purpose. They are not thwarting it’s use but in this case ‘not using it’ is considered immoral.

How so?

And that’s why it’s immoral. They are using their equipment. But in a disordered way.

Kind of like using your stomach to store your lithium batteries. You think: “I can regurgitate them whenever I need them! How convenient!”

Disordered, right?

Using your argument you could say “I’m not using my stomach for its natural use, therefore I’m not thwarting anything.”

But I think we all would be justified in responding like this to anyone who uses her stomach to store her batteries because she’s not thwarting the stomach’s “natural purpose”.

 

[Bradski]

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

Notwithstanding that I’m absolutely positive that you would be able to find those two words in that order somewhere on the web, I’m sure you are aware that the words in the context in which we are discussing them are invariably used to put forward a specific view regarding sexual intercourse between two consenting heterosexual adults and it’s propensity for producing life as a natural outcome.

This view, in the context in which we are discussing it, is a Catholic view.

The definition of a polygon as a plane figure bounded by straight lines is valid whether one is a mathematician or not. Stating whether a sexual act being ordered towards life or not is a matter of opinion. You may need to be specific, within the bounds of decorum, as to which specific act we need to discuss.

If it’s just the one (I only know of the one), then all others are, by definition, not ordered towards life. And are therefore irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[PRmerger]

Notwithstanding that I’m absolutely positive that you would be able to find those two words in that order somewhere on the web, I’m sure you are aware that the words in the context in which we are discussing them are invariably used to put forward a specific view regarding sexual intercourse between two consenting heterosexual adults and it’s propensity for producing life as a natural outcome.

This view, in the context in which we are discussing it, is a Catholic view.

Again, it’s only “a Catholic view” in the same way that saying, “Rain comes from the sky is a meteorological view.”

The definition of a polygon as a plane figure bounded by straight lines is valid whether one is a mathematician or not.

Indeed.

Stating whether a sexual act being ordered towards life or not is a matter of opinion.

Is it a matter of opinion to say: this is circle:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Notwithstanding that I’m absolutely positive that you would be able to find those two words in that order somewhere on the web, I’m sure you are aware that the words in the context in which we are discussing them are invariably used to put forward a specific view regarding sexual intercourse between two consenting heterosexual adults and it’s propensity for producing life as a natural outcome.

This view, in the context in which we are discussing it, is a Catholic view.

The definition of a polygon as a plane figure bounded by straight lines is valid whether one is a mathematician or not. Stating whether a sexual act being ordered towards life or not is a matter of opinion. You may need to be specific, within the bounds of decorum, as to which specific act we need to discuss.

If it’s just the one (I only know of the one), then all others are, by definition, not ordered towards life. And are therefore irrelevant to the discussion.

Scientists regularly say things about animals like “the purpose of the nose is to smell food and anticipate predators” or “the purpose of hair is to insulate”. They also have said – and will only stop saying for political reasons, perhaps – that “the purpose of the genitals is to procreate”. I don’t understand the distinction between saying that “X is the purpose of Y” and saying “Y is ordered to X”.

 

[PRmerger]

If it’s just the one (I only know of the one), then all others are, by definition, not ordered towards life.

Are you aware of what the CC’s position is on these other acts? I’m just curious if you are.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

The definition of a polygon as a plane figure bounded by straight lines is valid whether one is a mathematician or not. *Stating whether a sexual act being ordered towards life or not is a matter of opinion. *

Is this supposed to be an argument? If so, you are assuming what you are trying to prove. For Catholics believe that this question is not merely a matter of opinion. You can’t intelligently deny our position by just asserting that it’s wrong.

That’s like asserting “But a woman has a right to choose!” in a debate about abortion.

 

[PRmerger]

Is this supposed to be an argument? If so, you are assuming what you are trying to prove.

Yep.

It’s called “begging the question”.

That’s the actual correct use of the term “begging the question”.

Most people use it to mean “it prompts the question”, as in, “Your comment begs the question, ‘If you are prochoice, why are you against a woman having an abortion so she can appear on a reality TV show?’ You should be applauding her right to choose!”

This is an incorrect use of “begs the question”.

But it is indeed a good question. Why, indeed, would any prochoicer be aghast at a woman choosing to have an abortion for any frivolous reason, such as wanting to look good for prom, wanting to have a thin body for bikini season, wanting to have a baby on Easter and not in January, etc etc etc.

 

[Bradski]

And that’s why it’s immoral. They are using their equipment. But in a disordered way.

So if they have sex but don’t use the equipment required to procreate, then that’s ok…? The only argument I can see against that is that a Catholic definition of sex must include the genitalia.

I’d say that sexual intercourse involves the transfer of genetic material in a manner that could result in fertilisation. But ‘having sex’ does not necessarily include that. By your definition, preventing fertilisation in the first instance is wrong. But it doesn’t make sense to say that a sexual act that doesn’t include the possibility of fertilisation and is not aimed at fertilisation can be described as ‘preventing it’.

 

[Ion]

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

God is almighty but that does not mean he is going to do whatever you can put in a meaningful sentence. God is Holy.
God will never do such miracle, of making two women to procreate as a result of faking a sexual act, because it is against the natural law, there is no meaning in such an act. It would be against the order of things.

It is pointless for you to pretend that anything you do with your sexual organ should be considered sex.

You take out the meaning and the result is something animalic at best, but probably not even that because of the destructive potential.

 

[GaryTaylor]

can be described as ‘preventing it’.

How is it conducive? I think her analogy with food and actually eating still holds.

 

[Bradski]

I don’t understand the distinction between saying that “X is the purpose of Y” and saying “Y is ordered to X”.

It’s too simplistic. Like saying that beoming pregnant is the purpose of a fertile heterosexual couple having sex. Well…not exactly. It may be the result, but it is rarely the intention. The purpose is, throughout the natural world, to scratch an itch.

There’s a reason why sex feels good. And that’s because nothing (or nobody) would ever have bothered if it didn’t feel good. It just takes up too much valuable time and resources. So nature made it a pleasurable experience.

It’s only humans that can conceive of conception and the ratio of the number of times we have sex that actually could result in conception versus the number of times we actually want that result is vanishingly small.

But considering the number of sexual permutations where it is impossible to conceive and saying that any one of them is preventing conception makes no sense. You can’t prevent something if the intention is not there in the first place.

That’s like saying that having a couple of beers this evening ‘prevented’ me from drinking two bottles of water.

Is this supposed to be an argument? If so, you are assuming what you are trying to prove. For Catholics believe that this question is not merely a matter of opinion. You can’t intelligently deny our position by just asserting that it’s wrong.

I’m not denying that you hold that position. I am pointing out that others hold a different one. You can’t have two definitions of a polygon. It’s not a matter of opinion. But your position is a matter of opinion. You hold one view and I hold a different one.

 

[PRmerger]

So if they have sex but don’t use the equipment required to procreate, then that’s ok…? The only argument I can see against that is that a Catholic definition of sex must include the genitalia.

I am unsure how anyone can have sex without using the “equipment required to procreate.”

Could you delicately 'splain how this could happen?

I’d say that sexual intercourse involves the transfer of genetic material in a manner that could result in fertilisation. But ‘having sex’ does not necessarily include that. By your definition, preventing fertilisation in the first instance is wrong. But it doesn’t make sense to say that a sexual act that doesn’t include the possibility of fertilisation and is not aimed at fertilisation can be described as ‘preventing it’.

I think you may be unfamiliar with the Church’s teaching on sexual acts that don’t result in the possibility of fertilization.

Is that correct, Bradski?

 

[PRmerger]

It’s too simplistic. Like saying that beoming pregnant is the purpose of a fertile heterosexual couple having sex. Well…not exactly. It may be the result, but it is rarely the intention. The purpose is, throughout the natural world, to scratch an itch.

And there’s the rub.

To reduce sex to a means of satisfying an urge is to miss completely its purpose.

For who can deny that sex is the source of life?

It is a chance to co-create with God, something so profoundly sublime and magnificent that you have reduced to something as mundane as a neurological stimulus/response.

This reduction of sex as being analogous to scratching an itch is as astonishing to me as your saying this is just a pile of dirt:

 

[PRmerger]

There’s a reason why sex feels good. And that’s because nothing (or nobody) would ever have bothered if it didn’t feel good. It just takes up too much valuable time and resources. So nature made it a pleasurable experience.

Certainly. It’s a gift we’ve been given, to be sure!

It’s only humans that can conceive of conception and the ratio of the number of times we have sex that actually could result in conception versus the number of times we actually want that result is vanishingly small.

Ok.

I’m not denying that you hold that position. I am pointing out that others hold a different one. You can’t have two definitions of a polygon. It’s not a matter of opinion. But your position is a matter of opinion. You hold one view and I hold a different one.

That’s what we Catholics are trying to do: get you to see that your view on sex is as wrongheaded as someone saying, “I get to have a different opinion than you do on this shape. You want to call it a square, but my opinion is that it’s a circle!”

http://etc-mysitemyway.s3.amazonaws...od-icon-symbols-shapes-shape-square-clear.png

You can call it a circle if you want, but you’re going to be wrong, and it’s our job as proclaimers of truth to correct anyone who is so objectively wrong it’s going to result in his moral/spiritual/mathematical demise.

 

[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.

That I do understand, if every act of heterosexual intercourse resulted in a baby then there would be a lot more babies than there are now.

I have two arguments here. Firstly that fertility is not required for intercourse, as with women past the menopause or infertile men. Married infertile couples can have sex. Fertility is no an essential requirement.

My second argument is about the uniting function of intercourse. That may be present in both opposite sex and same sex partnerships. The OP talked about “Thus, the natural end of the sexual act is to procreate and unite.”

We are all agreed that procreation is not essential – I am separating procreation from “ordered towards” here. That leaves the “unite” part. There is no reason why the uniting part does not apply between same sex couples as well as between opposite sex couples.

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.

A same sex couple have exactly the same chances of procreating as a couple where the man has had an orchidectomy. What difference is there between a 0% chance in one case and a 0% chance in the other case? I am not Catholic, just as civil law does not follow Catholic doctrine. What justification can you offer for one 0% being different from the other 0% that will convince a non-Catholic and justify a difference in law?

rossum

 

[Thorns]

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?

I’m not sure I understand the question. Are you saying something like kissing, for example? That the act isn’t aimed at procreation and doesn’t involve the genitalia?

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

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

That’s correct, I don’t see your point other than conceding the fact that a homosexual relationship cannot be open to life in and of itself, it has to rely on outside help and other factors. A heterosexual couple doesn’t need any such assistance, they can be open to life and unite all on their own. Why can they do this? Because their relationship is ordered toward procreation and thus, unity.

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.

Actually, even if you did this in this rather sickening example, the relationship would still be open to life, even though the capabilities aren’t there (yet). The outcome isn’t what it’s important, it’s what the relationship is ordered toward.

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?

It’s self evident. The mere fact that same sex couples cannot fully give themselves to one another (because their acts are not ordered toward life) supports the fact that they cannot fully unite. Simple as that, really.

It’s like asking for evidence why a bulimic person isn’t as healthy and well nourished as someone who eats their food properly. The mere fact that they don’t digest much nutrition is a testament as to why they’re not fully nourished.

 

[Thorns]

We are all agreed that procreation is not essential – I am separating procreation from “ordered towards” here.

Which is your first mistake. Ordered towards means it is pro-procreative, even if the outcome isn’t achieved. The act itself is still ordered toward making babies, even if it’s impossible for pregnancy to occur.

That leaves the “unite” part. There is no reason why the uniting part does not apply between same sex couples as well as between opposite sex couples.

The unite part only works because the act itself is pro-procreative. An intrinsically sterile couple isn’t pro-procreative, I think we can both agree on that. Therefore, no unity is possible because those sex acts weren’t at any point, aren’t, and never will be made for making babies.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

It’s too simplistic. Like saying that beoming pregnant is the purpose of a fertile heterosexual couple having sex. Well…not exactly. It may be the result, but it is rarely the intention. The purpose is, throughout the natural world, to scratch an itch.

Wait, wait, wait. You’re using a completely different meaning of the word “purpose” here. Of course people have sex without intending a child! Did you think that anyone in this thread disagreed with you about that?

Aristotelian “purpose” or “telos” has nothing to do with that, nor does the claim of biologists that the “purpose” of the eye is to see. I mean, sure, people might use their eyes to wet napkins, but that is clearly not the purpose of the eye. (Not that this makes it wrong to use your eyes to wet napkins – see my note earlier in this thread on why I don’t believe it’s necessarily wrong to use an organ to achieve a non-teleological goal.)

There’s a reason why sex feels good. And that’s because nothing (or nobody) would ever have bothered if it didn’t feel good. It just takes up too much valuable time and resources. So nature made it a pleasurable experience.

Billions of women who haven’t enjoyed sex over the ages (and millions of men) completely disagree with you. They had sex for other reasons.

You can’t prevent something if the intention is not there in the first place.

That’s pure nonsense. You’re saying that a condom can’t prevent AIDS, because the conscious purpose of two people having sex isn’t to get AIDS?

Why would a person ever prevent something they intend, anyway?

I’m not denying that you hold that position. I am pointing out that others hold a different one. You can’t have two definitions of a polygon. It’s not a matter of opinion. But your position is a matter of opinion. You hold one view and I hold a different one.

Yes, but your position has not been that my position is false, but that my position is incoherent, since I don’t understand what a “purpose” is. So if my position is incoherent, I don’t even hold any position whatsoever. All I want to prove is that my position is coherent. I’m not naive enough to think that you’d be willing to concede that my position is correct.

 

[PRmerger]

That I do understand, if every act of heterosexual intercourse resulted in a baby then there would be a lot more babies than there are now.

LOL!!

Er, yes. If every act of intercourse resulted in a baby…then, yes, there would be a lot more babies.

And if every apple that fell from a tree was made into apple pie we’d have a whole lot o’ apple pies in the world.

 

[PRmerger]

My second argument is about the uniting function of intercourse. That may be present in both opposite sex and same sex partnerships. The OP talked about “Thus, the natural end of the sexual act is to procreate and unite.”

We are all agreed that procreation is not essential – I am separating procreation from “ordered towards” here.

All acts between a couple engaging in sex must be ordered towards procreation.

It does not necessarily need to result in a new human life, but it must be an act that would result in one, if all things worked as they should.

That leaves the “unite” part. There is no reason why the uniting part does not apply between same sex couples as well as between opposite sex couples.

Can you explain, as delicately as you can, how a lesbian couple becomes One Flesh during sex?

A same sex couple have exactly the same chances of procreating as a couple where the man has had an orchidectomy.

No argument here.

And we are agreed that a sexual act between 2 people of the same gender is never going to be ordered towards procreation, yes?

While intercourse between 2 people of opposite gender will be ordered towards procreation, yes?

What difference is there between a 0% chance in one case and a 0% chance in the other case? I am not Catholic, just as civil law does not follow Catholic doctrine. What justification can you offer for one 0% being different from the other 0% that will convince a non-Catholic and justify a difference in law?

rossum

Because of the “ordered towards” part.

Not understanding that part is like saying, “I don’t understand what the difference is between when I played house as a child and actually being a wife and mother. I do the same thing.”