Still this view is predicated on the fact all have behavior issues which is what I’m suggesting. This is the chicken and egg confusion in the approach, which I have to assume is why the updating was done on the DSM in that the debate becomes one of value judgment on heterosexual rather than factual evidence on homosexuality.
In all honesty what would it matter. A person who shots up will eventually commit suicide if they don’t quit, but it does not always stop them.
Because if you were from God and of God you would listen to ME. But you are not from me, because you reject me, and my truth.It’s gay marriage we’re talking about. You can’t help being gay, so the suicide rate, if it was based on nothing but being gay, is not something that would be likely to change (although we both know that it’s a reflection of most people’s attitude to gays, so we both can do something to help that).
You can’t help being gay, but you do have control over what romantic/sexual relationships you pursue. (Surely you would agree?) Personally, I don’t think there is any connection between merely being gay and suicide; I expect the connection is either a matter of suicide arising from guilt and shame from homosexual activity, or a “common cause” connection – for example, a boy might be abused by a man, and this might lead to two things: homosexual attractions and suicidal ideations.
I actually have never said that I oppose legal gay marriage, in the course of this conversation. I have serious worries about legalizing gay marriage, but I do not have a dogmatic position against it. (I do have a dogmatic opposition to Church recognition of such marriages).
Oh, I would be happy to declare 50-80% of heterosexual marriages null and void, on the basis that the parties did not intend faithfulness until death. I don’t treat gay couples different from straight couples. And if a straight couple regularly engages in sodomy, I consider them to be engaged in serious sin.
You’re absolutely right. People can make whatever sort of lifelong commitments to each other they want, and they can even declare these commitments publicly and live in whatever arrangement they like. The question of gay marriage has nothing to do with that. It has to do with this narrow question: what are the advantages of recognizing gay marriages to be on par with straight marriages, on a purely legal basis?
The way I have aways seen it is that an assertion of a fact like “it is raining outside” is not an opinion. At least not the way I think of it. This is my definition of opinion=“belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge, or a generally held view”, but I acknowledge that you may be using a different definition. Also sense we are going over defs, subjective=" based on feelings or opinions rather than facts", facts=“something that truly exists or the truth value is known”.
Why would they want to play another game and call it baseball?This assumes that you and you alone get to dictate what is called ‘baseball’ despite the rest of society disagreeing with you - furthermore you are not just refusing to call it baseball, you are trying to prevent them from playing at all unless they play your game, by your rules, with who you say.
If you don’t like their game, don’t play and don’t watch. Trying to stop them playing, or trying to ruin their game by heckling, is just selfish and rude.
I don’t accept your given.
Catholics believe the “marital act” is reserved for husband and wife. The marital act is a conjugal union between man and woman; this union occurs even when children don’t result from the union or are not possible.
Because we don’t separate sex from marriage, but perhaps you do.
An infertile couple can still complete the bodily union between husband and wife – they can become “one flesh” through coitus. This union between two bodies is essential to the conjugal view of marriage – it’s not just about rubbing bodies against one another.
I’m assuming, then, that you would support any sexual relationship as long as it is consensual?
Certainly you understand that marriage is also more than just expressing love an intimacy – or is that part of your definition as well? Expressions of love, intimacy, and consensual sex can be found in all sorts of relationships. Can you offer a definition of marriage that we, as a society (any society), should value as a marital norm?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.
This comment could just as easily come from a traditionalist – why do homosexual activists get to redefine marriage? You are trying to dictate a new rule and weaken the institution. If you don’t like the long-established definition of marriage, don’t play and don’t watch. Trying to redefine the institution, or “ruin the game”, is just selfish and rude.…
This assumes that you and you alone get to dictate what is called ‘baseball’ despite the rest of society disagreeing with you - furthermore you are not just refusing to call it baseball, you are trying to prevent them from playing at all unless they play your game, by your rules, with who you say.
If you don’t like their game, don’t play and don’t watch. Trying to stop them playing, or trying to ruin their game by heckling, is just selfish and rude.
…
But it’s not just Christians, and marriage is not just a “religious view.” The conjugal union between a man and woman sometimes results in children – stabilizing that relationship is good public policy. There’s no policy reason for stabilizing the romantic/platonic relationships between two loving friends.
A man and woman become “one flesh” through coitus; in the context of marriage, this union is known as the “marital act.” Same sex couples cannot create a bodily union in the same way that a man/woman couple can.
Certainly – just as a father and his adult daughter might also bond socially and psychologically during consensual sex. Should the state recognize that relationship as well?
So, to be clear, let me paraphrase what I understand you to be saying:DrTaffy;12007401:
He is a normal heterosexual until he falls into the homo temptation, and he falls in the temptation by having homosexual sex. There is no purity anymore in his relationship. Or maybe you thought that “sex-less” means no sex on Fridays only?What?
What decision?
Why is a homosexual not a homosexual before making this ‘decision’?
How does this rule out a sex-less same-sex marriage?
The moment he completely gives up sex he become again a heterosexual person, homosexuality doesn’t have any sense for him anymore.This is the best recommendation for those that have fallen in this temptation, and is perfectly logical.
I’ve noticed. I’m suggesting that you might want to take a good look at that habit!
Well, if telling yourself that makes you feel you have saved face, go ahead. But:And it does seem to be quite effective. I’ve already noticed a change.
No change. That is what I claimed all along.
Ah, there you go. See, you learnt something new, isn’t that nice?
Interesting. How do you come to this conclusion? For example, how much latin do I know? According to you?DrTaffy;12007468:
than their face value, then that is a clear example of what I mean by you using jargon to obscure rather than elucidate.
Exactly.
Quid pro quo.
… you don’t know what ‘quid pro quo’ means, do you?
Or if you do, please explain how it is relevant in this context!
All I will say is that I know about as much Latin as you do.
Ookay, a clarification: to me, actually “using your stomach to hold your lithium batteries (so you’ll always have them when you need them!)” would imply that :
Sure I would. Given the stipulations above, it has a use, ergo it is ‘useful’.
Anomalous <> immoral
But if you suffer psychological trauma, that occurs in the brain. Entirely. The long-term harm shown by studies of child abuse victims is psychological.
Emphasis added. Does that bit not highlight that the problem here was not, in fact, physically the genitalia? but the Mind?
A celebrity called Rolf Harris is currently being tried here in the UK. Many of the acts of which he is accused were ‘just’ (if I dare use that word) a hand on a thigh or up a shirt. Not even on the breasts (just how narrowly are we defining ‘genitalia’ here? Do breasts count?)
Well, it is true that I do not recall seeing that qualification of “tend toward harm” before. For example:
Again, if ‘harm’ or ‘tending toward harm’ is extended to cover potential as well as actual harm, and ‘harm’ such as disrespectful actions such as desecrating a grave without anyone seeing, then maybe we agree. But as with many classical consequentialist arguments it seems, to me, to rely on stretching a definition of a word way beyond its usual meaning in order to make a moral system look simple in its premise.
Doesn’t that just shift the ambiguity from the definition of ‘virtue’ to that of ‘excellent action’.
Is not, or should not be allowed to give consent? You maybe aware that in some cultures parents have been able to consent to sex (well, marriage and by implication, sex) for children?
Actually, Bradski, if you follow the sequence of arguments, what was presented was a query to Dr. Taffy as to **why **he calls a circle a circle. He was asked to demonstrate the reason for calling something a circle, not to reiterate a definition.
You do see my point, though, right, friend? You simply accept that Euclid wrote a definition of a circle, even though you have very, very little evidence that he did actually do this.
I find the divorcing of marriage from sex to be the most peculiar of propositions that have been made by the Pro-Gay Marriage side.Because we don’t separate sex from marriage, but perhaps you do.
I am not a bully, so I’m not going to shame you any further into conceding that you made a claim about the Bible that simply ain’t there.Now, as far as the rest of it goes, do you accept the perpetual virginity of Mary and the validity of Josephite marriages, or do I need to give you some pointers to catholic teaching on that?
Yep. Pretty much. It does imply that.
Think about this very carefully, DrTaffy. You are saying that there is no significant physical harm from storing lithium batteries in your stomach in order to be able to retrieve them conveniently.
And then you would have earned the label of being DISORDERED.
Well I think that we can agree that being abused can happen to anyone and it’s not something one chooses to have done to oneself, so we can ignore that. But guilt? That’s a different matter.
I have no figures on that but it wouldn’t really surprise me. When I was growing up, gay people remained in the closet for a very good reason indeed. Even at the end of the twentieth century, to our collective shame, the terms ‘******’ and ‘queer’ were still in general us (what am I saying? In some quarters they still are).
We are not talking about nullifying marriages. We are talking about whether they should be allowed in the first instance. If you have a figure in mind as to the percentage of gay people who cheat on their partners after marriage and use that as a basis for not allowing gay marriage, then one would assume that you’d have to use that same percentage for heterosexual marriages. Or would it be different. Either way, do you have a figure for both?
