Beards and Gay Marriage

[Protestor]

Awesome. The one where you claimed you could “know Scripture when I see it”?

Yes that one. Umm I listened to “ascent of mt. carmel” and it was pretty convincing that revelations should not be trusted, even if they are from G-d.

I figured that you probably wouldn’t approve of competition eating, but I was wondering if the natural order thing is one of the reasons.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Could be a genetic mutation ordered towards the evolution of the species[if its genetic mutation which is unknown] and higher natural order.

“more favorable” mutations may accumulate and result in adaptive changes.

For example, a butterfly may produce offspring with new mutations. The majority of these mutations will have no effect; but one might change the color of one of the butterfly’s offspring, making it harder (or easier) for predators to see. If this color change is advantageous, the chance of this butterfly’s surviving and producing its own offspring are a little better, and over time the number of butterflies with this mutation may form a larger percentage of the population"

Also it could be favorable “variation” could be since time is a factor the betterment of mankind is yet to come, I see they don’t have a clue with the lesbians. Could be randomness, chance, choice- develops into the natural order of the master race.

The Black Butterfly syndrome.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation

Lots of unknowns.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes that one. Umm I listened to “ascent of mt. carmel” and it was pretty convincing that revelations should not be trusted, even if they are from G-d.

You can only know which texts are inspired texts because the Catholic Church told you they were inspired.

 

[Bradski]

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

This is going to depend on your definition of sex.

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.

I could equally say that reducing sex to a purely mechanistic method of producing babies is astonishing. But you’re not saying that and neither was I implying that sex is literally as meaningless as scratching an itch.

And back to your definition…

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.

‘engaging in sex’. Well, that might include the bits and pieces normally associated with reproduction. But how does that relate to what Prodigal say below. That we can use these bits for other reasons?

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.)

So you can use something that has one purpose - a teleological goal if you like, for an entirely different purpose and it’s not wrong. Well I believe that that is what we are discussing. Men and women using bits and pieces that have been ‘designed’ for one purpose for an entirely different purpose. If you’re OK with that then I don’t see a problem.

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.

Apart from the fact that you seem to think that so many people don’t enjoy sex (and women more so by a factor of 1,000), what are the reasons (plural)?

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?

No. I’m saying that if a couple aren’t having sex, then a condom is not preventing them getting AIDS. Let me try this…

A man and a woman go shopping. They have a great time discovering together all the little outlets that they both like and he has his money ready so that they might end up with a little something to take home. But he’s wrapped his wallet in plastic so that the money can’t get out. He can’t hand it over, the transaction cannot be completed, so no little package. The purpose of going shopping is ordered towards buying things. So wrapping his money up like that may, to some people, be seen as wrong.

Two women decide to go for a drive down the coast. They discover that each of them knows these little inlets and bays so they go exploring together and have a great time (I was thinking of taking the analogy a little further at this point, but thought better of it).

Now your point would be, unless I’m mistaken, that driving down the coast and doing all that explorin’ together has somehow prevented them buying something at the shops. I’d think that most people would say that there is no connection whatsoever.

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.

Your position isn’t incoherent. I understand it. I just don’t agree with it.

 

[Ion]

This is going to depend on your definition of sex.

I could equally say that reducing sex to a purely mechanistic method of producing babies is astonishing. But you’re not saying that and neither was I implying that sex is literally as meaningless as scratching an itch.

And back to your definition…

‘engaging in sex’. Well, that might include the bits and pieces normally associated with reproduction. But how does that relate to what Prodigal say below. That we can use these bits for other reasons?

So you can use something that has one purpose - a teleological goal if you like, for an entirely different purpose and it’s not wrong. Well I believe that that is what we are discussing. Men and women using bits and pieces that have been ‘designed’ for one purpose for an entirely different purpose. If you’re OK with that then I don’t see a problem.

Apart from the fact that you seem to think that so many people don’t enjoy sex (and women more so by a factor of 1,000), what are the reasons (plural)?

No. I’m saying that if a couple aren’t having sex, then a condom is not preventing them getting AIDS. Let me try this…

A man and a woman go shopping. They have a great time discovering together all the little outlets that they both like and he has his money ready so that they might end up with a little something to take home. But he’s wrapped his wallet in plastic so that the money can’t get out. He can’t hand it over, the transaction cannot be completed, so no little package. The purpose of going shopping is ordered towards buying things. So wrapping his money up like that may, to some people, be seen as wrong.

Two women decide to go for a drive down the coast. They discover that each of them knows these little inlets and bays so they go exploring together and have a great time (I was thinking of taking the analogy a little further at this point, but thought better of it).

Now your point would be, unless I’m mistaken, that driving down the coast and doing all that explorin’ together has somehow prevented them buying something at the shops. I’d think that most people would say that there is no connection whatsoever.

Your position isn’t incoherent. I understand it. I just don’t agree with it.

Well, what is your definition of sex?

 

[PRmerger]

This is going to depend on your definition of sex.

LOL!

Sex, but definition, involves sexual organs.

Saying sex can be an activity without sexual organs is like saying one can think without using the mind.

I could equally say that reducing sex to a purely mechanistic method of producing babies is astonishing. But you’re not saying that and neither was I implying that sex is literally as meaningless as scratching an itch.

So then I completely missed the point. What is it you were trying to say about sex and itching? (And I see how that sentence could be construed humorously, so I apologize. )

 

[PRmerger]

‘engaging in sex’. Well, that might include the bits and pieces normally associated with reproduction. But how does that relate to what Prodigal say below. That we can use these bits for other reasons?

I don’t understand what you’re saying here. You’re being a bit too circumspect.

No. I’m saying that if a couple aren’t having sex, then a condom is not preventing them getting AIDS. Let me try this…

A man and a woman go shopping. They have a great time discovering together all the little outlets that they both like and he has his money ready so that they might end up with a little something to take home. But he’s wrapped his wallet in plastic so that the money can’t get out. He can’t hand it over, the transaction cannot be completed, so no little package. The purpose of going shopping is ordered towards buying things. So wrapping his money up like that may, to some people, be seen as wrong.

Er, yes. If his purpose is to buy something then wrapping his money up so he can’t hand it over is indeed wrong. It’s thwarting his purpose.

Why in the world would anyone do that?

And how does the above example further your position?

Two women decide to go for a drive down the coast. They discover that each of them knows these little inlets and bays so they go exploring together and have a great time (I was thinking of taking the analogy a little further at this point, but thought better of it).

Now your point would be, unless I’m mistaken, that driving down the coast and doing all that explorin’ together has somehow prevented them buying something at the shops. I’d think that most people would say that there is no connection whatsoever.

Is the purpose of their trip to shop? Or to leisurely engage in sightseeing?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

So you can use something that has one purpose - a teleological goal if you like, for an entirely different purpose and it’s not wrong. Well I believe that that is what we are discussing. Men and women using bits and pieces that have been ‘designed’ for one purpose for an entirely different purpose. If you’re OK with that then I don’t see a problem.

Sure, unless the use of their organs in this way disrupts another aspect of their purpose, as a whole – that is, the *telos *of the human being, which is happiness. If you could show me that acts of sexual congress between two gay people tended toward the consequence of happiness, then we could have a really interesting discussion.

Mind you, I do think that other acts gay couples do together – intimate conversations, long walks together, even physical caresses – can contribute to their happiness. But I don’t think sex does. There is something futile and depressing about the whole thing. There can certainly be a whole lot of pleasure there, but it doesn’t seem (to me, at least) to be the sort of pleasure that makes us better people.

A man and a woman go shopping. They have a great time discovering together all the little outlets that they both like and he has his money ready so that they might end up with a little something to take home. But he’s wrapped his wallet in plastic so that the money can’t get out. He can’t hand it over, the transaction cannot be completed, so no little package. The purpose of going shopping is ordered towards buying things. So wrapping his money up like that may, to some people, be seen as wrong.

Two women decide to go for a drive down the coast. They discover that each of them knows these little inlets and bays so they go exploring together and have a great time (I was thinking of taking the analogy a little further at this point, but thought better of it).

Sure, I’m fine with that. You don’t prevent the creation of children by having gay sex – that is, unless you choose to have gay sex because you don’t want to have children (which is not necessarily a common reason).

My argument rests on the notion that people are made for happiness. Show me that gay sex makes people happy and virtuous in some consistent manner, and I will agree with your position.

 

[Ion]

I might have had sex and didn’t even know it

 

[PRmerger]

I might have had sex and didn’t even know it

I know, right?

How much fun could that be if we’re doing it and are oblivious?

 

[Ion]

I know, right?

How much fun could that be if we’re doing it and are oblivious?

This line is from Merriam Webster “: physical activity in which people touch each other’s bodies, kiss each other, etc.”

 

[GaryTaylor]

Merriam Webster? Did he convert to Catholicism?

 

[GaryTaylor]

“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,”



I think the lesbians are being neglected and not receiving equal rights.

 

[DrTaffy]

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.

How is it ‘ordered towards’ pregnancy even if, as you say, it is “impossible for pregnancy to occur” in that case?

In other words how are you not trying to use the impossibility of pregnancy as an absolute bar to gay sex, while simultaneously saying that the impossibility of pregnancy is not an absolute bar to heterosexual sex? Surely this shows that the possibility of pregnancy is just a smokescreen, and that it is homosexual sex that you object to, not sex with no possibility of pregnancy?

For that matter why are we talking about sex when the topic was about marriage? How is a lesbian couple that go to great effort to ensure that they do concieve less ‘ordered towards’ pregnancy than a heterosexual couple that go to great lengths to ensure that they do not?

The unite part only works because the act itself is pro-procreative.

Why not? How does loving consensual sex ever not bring a couple closer together?

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

Which in no way prevents them from expressing love and intimacy. Even in Catholic dogma a sterile heterosexual couple are allowed to marry and have unitive but non procreative sex.

 

[DrTaffy]

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.

Just repeating the assertion over and over does not make it true.

Saying that ‘all sex must be ordered towards procreation’ is like saying that all use of the penis must be ordered towards urination. Oh, and ordered towards procreation. If you really believe that then I weep for your wife, and wonder how you expect catholic boys to live long enough to marry without dying from an exploding bladder. The very concept that every use of a given facilty must be ‘ordered towards’ each and every possible use of that facility is intrinsically nonsensical.

Part of the problem here, I think, is your use of the jargon ‘ordered towards’, used not to clarify your argument but rather to obscure a blind spot in your argument - that is, you use the phrase, just assume that it has established a point, and have never actually looked at what it fundamentally means, either to you or to those you are speaking to.

Try rephrasing your argument without the jargon.

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

More obscuring jargon. Noone becomes “one flesh” during sex, but both heterosexual couples and homosexual couples come together in an expression of love and intimacy.

 

[Ion]

How is it ‘ordered towards’ pregnancy even if, as you say, it is “impossible for pregnancy to occur” in that case?

In other words how are you not trying to use the impossibility of pregnancy as an absolute bar to gay sex, while simultaneously saying that the impossibility of pregnancy is not an absolute bar to heterosexual sex? Surely this shows that the possibility of pregnancy is just a smokescreen, and that it is homosexual sex that you object to, not sex with no possibility of pregnancy?

For that matter why are we talking about sex when the topic was about marriage? How is a lesbian couple that go to great effort to ensure that they do concieve less ‘ordered towards’ pregnancy than a heterosexual couple that go to great lengths to ensure that they do not?

Why not? How does loving consensual sex ever not bring a couple closer together?

Which in no way prevents them from expressing love and intimacy. Even in Catholic dogma a sterile heterosexual couple are allowed to marry and have unitive but non procreative sex.

The unity part: just because homosexuals pretend to be united that doesn’t mean they really are; there is absolutely nothing to point to this unity, not even a symbol. In the Catholic marriage there is the uniqueness of the unity first of all, the project of the life, and the kids. The sexual act of the married couple only delimitate the marriage and do not define it, it’s only the point of no return, and not the central point as for the homosexuals. The homosexuals can swear an whole hour they will not divorce, nobody would care. Later on they go and “express love and intimacy” to somebody else with no problems of conscience.

There are infertile couples who marry and can hope in a miracle, or a future medical discovery, but for homosexuals there are no such hopes. Life is from God. And there are Catholics who married and waived sex for the whole of their life, which for homosexuals is a total nonsense.

Not everybody is perfect and if the marriage of two Catholics has weakness in the beginning, there is a model to use it to make it better.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Here’s the problem, its quite plausible man and women may reach a higher intellect in which many instances which we perceive need may become obsolete by evolution. This doesn’t mean extinction. Intercourse may not at some point be essential to union.

For example skin pigmentation, hair and so forth through sequence. Perhaps assuming higher intelligence exists is indeed hard to imagine.

The study of bi-sexual, homosexual-lesbian, is really in its infant stage, not of existence but of understanding. I can’t see for example its concluded this should be removed from the behavior spectrum, what indicates this? I can’t think of one situation which would indicate otherwise. I acknowledge the updating of the DSM, yet the removal doesn’t negate learned behavior as a possibility. In other words what evidence exists to verify the action? You have no gene, you cannot prove higher variation since we are talking unknown. So the counterproductive behavior may not exist in the “being” but in the sequence of later actions contingent on being. We can’t “assume” behavior without perspective here.

Are we not in essence talking about being more considerate of each other, responsible love and concern, the greater good.

First and foremost is viewing gender-variant as the problem, this thinking needs to be removed to understand the complexities.

When we speak the Church-Family, the teaching of the Church in moral elaboration should be the par-excellence and thought of as so. Why? because its historically and statistically proven which no one disagrees with…how the Church has served mankind=family since its conception.

If we can’t find it in ourselves to ascent dogmatically to the teaching of the Church, certainly it would be foolish to ignore the wisdom of the higher moral ground taken.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Just repeating the assertion over and over does not make it true.

Saying that ‘all sex must be ordered towards procreation’ is like saying that all use of the penis must be ordered towards urination. Oh, and ordered towards procreation. If you really believe that then I weep for your wife, and wonder how you expect catholic boys to live long enough to marry without dying from an exploding bladder. The very concept that every use of a given facilty must be ‘ordered towards’ each and every possible use of that facility is intrinsically nonsensical.

Sure, but there are uses of an organ that tend to lead to harm for the possessor of that organ.

Moreover, the sexual instinct, in itself, makes it clear that sexuality is subject to different kinds of moral standards than other aspects of the body. It sounds quite strange to say that sex between two men is permissible because it is permissible to use your forehead to head a soccer ball, or because it is permissible to use your ear as a place to hang decorations.

Sex is obviously morally charged – surely you wouldn’t deny that. The moral seriousness of sex is reflected in the fact that adults are allowed to give noogies to children, but not allowed to fondle them sexually. Anyone who says that (for instance) an erection may be used for other purposes than its intended biological purpose has to explain why there are so very many uses that an erection may not be used for. The answer would seem to be that we do not allow an erection to be used for behaviors that tend to lead to harm.

The Catholic position is that all forms of sodomy (which are just as common among heterosexuals as homosexuals) tend to lead to harm.

 

[DrTaffy]

The unity part: just because homosexuals pretend to be united that doesn’t mean they really are; there is absolutely nothing to point to this unity, not even a symbol.

Of couse there is. There is the couple itself, for one thing, and all the things you go on to list for a ‘Catholic’ marriage:

In the Catholic marriage there is the uniqueness of the unity first of all, the project of the life, and the kids.

The only difference being the need for external assistance to produce (or adopt) kids, which many heterosexual couples need as well.

Consider this couple, finally married after 53 years of actual persecution, not modern day western catholic “help help I’m being oppressed” persecution. It is arrogant and offensive in the extreme for you to claim that they have not demonstrated their unity.

The sexual act of the married couple only delimitate the marriage and do not define it, it’s only the point of no return, and not the central point as for the homosexuals.

Riiight - because marriage is all about sex for homosexuals, amiright?

Oddly enough, it is here on CAF that every discussion of marriage comes back to sex. Discussions on homosexual fora focus more on sharing old age, raising kids, not being spat on in the street and so on.

The homosexuals can swear an whole hour they will not divorce, nobody would care. Later on they go and “express love and intimacy” to somebody else with no problems of conscience.

Because all homosexuals are lying untrustworthy promiscuous sluts?

…but you meant that in a loving, non-homophobic sense, I am sure.

There are infertile couples who marry and can hope in a miracle, or a future medical discovery, but for homosexuals there are no such hopes.

Why not? A miracle is a miracle, and a catholic is surely the last to assert that a virgin cannot give birth.

Likewise, there are medical advances that offer the possibility of producing sperm or ova from stem cells.

Life is from God. And there are Catholics who married and waived sex for the whole of their life, which for homosexuals is a total nonsense.

Why? Why cannot a same sex couple enter a josephite marriage, where conception is off the cards anyway? Barring supernatural intervention, of course.

 

[DrTaffy]

Sure, but there are uses of an organ that tend to lead to harm for the possessor of that organ.

Which is an entirely different argument from saying that each and every use of a penis must be procreative because that is what a penis is ‘for.’

Do I take it that you accept the falsehood of that naive version of a natural law argument?

The moral seriousness of sex is reflected in the fact that adults are allowed to give noogies to children, but not allowed to fondle them sexually.

Rape is wrong, yes. This is because of lack of informed consent, not the sex of those involved.

Which is one of the things badly wrong with the vocabulary of ‘sodomy’ - it takes a horrible horrible moral system to look at the story of Lot and Sodom and conclude that the main thing wrong with habitually gang-raping visitors to death was the same-sex aspect.

Anyone who says that (for instance) an erection may be used for other purposes than its intended biological purpose has to explain why there are so very many uses that an erection may not be used for. The answer would seem to be that we do not allow an erection to be used for behaviors that tend to lead to harm.

Harm to others, sure. The bar to imposing my belief that you are harming yourself is a lot higher.

But again, this is not the natural law argument that a penis is only ‘for’ some things. You wouldn’t say that using an erection as a hat hook is gravely immoral, would you? (Link possibly not safe for work, depending on how sensitive you are. It is Neil Patrick Harris wearing a bow tie and a strategically placed top hat with no obvious means of support)

The Catholic position is that all forms of sodomy (which are just as common among heterosexuals as homosexuals) tend to lead to harm.

Fine. But if you want to impose that view on others, prove it objectively. Or accept that others can impose their views on you with the same standard of proof as you use.