S
stewstew03
Guest
You are wasting your time. Evidence and reason are of no consequence to a recalcitrant revisionist.
- Status
P
Prodigal_Son
Guest
Um, why does the “nature” of the black swan matter? Two points:
(1) All nature is fallen. So we shouldn’t expect animals to be saints, and we don’t observe that they are.
(2) Catholic teaching does not forbid male swans from cavorting with other male swans. Nor does Catholic teaching insist that it is harmful for male swans to do so.
P
PRmerger
Guest
I would totally read an encyclical about the Good News regarding Black Swans!Nor does Catholic teaching insist that it is harmful for male swans to do so.
Et in Evangelio, et Nigri Olores
S
SplendidSt
Guest
Okay, cutting a beard or not having one is not an issue, plenty people don’t have beards, plenty people do. The beard is just hair, yeah it grows, you can cut it or stop it from growing but it’s not alive, it’s keratin, like nails. The fact is you would not grow a hair/nails in a way that hurts the function of other parts of your body. Say I would not grow my toe nails to a point that I could not walk. It is better to use the example of the ear, the ear is made of living tissue and has a proper function. Use this argument:
When I make a statement in favor of the natural order of human sexuality in opposition to the sexual act between members of the same sex, I make sure to reiterate this: that by human reason alone one can assert just as the nature (function) of ears is hearing/balance, the nature of lungs is respiration and the nature of eyes is seeing, the nature of human sexuality (the sexual act) is unitive and ordered to procreation. This is self evident.
When we speak of nature in this context we do not mean nature as “anything that occurs in the natural world”. We mean nature as the essential qualities of a given subject. In regard to human anatomy, observe the ear. Without any cultural invention whatsoever the function of the ear is hearing/balance. (Provided you have working ears or ears at all) in all situations the primary function of the ear is hearing/balance. Some might object at first, “that isn’t all of what ears are for, are you ignorant to the fact there are so many other things you can do with ears? Are ear decorations and piercings immoral to you?”. After hearing this in your head probably 1000 times over, the logic should communicate more. Yes indeed there are so many other functions of the human ear: piercing decorations, gages and even tattoos, but in all cases these functions **do not harm the primary function of the ear. **
You can pierce your ear, for example, but you wouldn’t pierce your ear in a way that you could no longer hear. That action harms the ear’s natural function, which is innate & primary, hurting/destroying it for the sake of a secondary and imposed function. If we are aware of this, what do me make of the human sexual act?
Its primary function is unitive and ordered to procreation. Again we hear, “that isn’t all of what [the sexual act is] for, are you ignorant to the fact there are so many other things you can do? Are [married infertile opposite sex relationships] immoral to you too?” Let us refer back to the logic. The sexual act between an infertile married opposite sex couple** does not harm the the primary function of the sexual act. **They can perform the sexual act and the act will always be unitive and ordered to procreation regardless of the result of the act. Even a fertile version of this couple’s act will be unitive and ordered to procreation regardless of the act’s result. People can perform the sexual act, but just as you would not pierce your ear in a way that you could no longer hear and harm the ears function, it is irrational to perform the sexual act with someone of the same sex.
Unlike the act between an infertile/older couple, when sex is performed between members of the same sex, the unitive function is damaged. The unitive function is wholly unitive, not merely figurative/invented. Since it is unitive it involves personal, emotional **as well as physical **(the natural function of the reproductive organs is used) and if these things are not present there is a lack and disorder involved in what should be entire unity. The procreative function is also destroyed in the act. The act is no longer ordered to procreation, this is another disorder and harm. it is not a virtue to dismantle and damage what would otherwise be a full and functional act between two human beings. The issue here is specifically about the immediate consequences of human action.
Regardless of the rationality or irrationality of any human act, our society lives in a way that pushes logic and reason to the side for the sake of immediate gratification. Participating in such behavior as made clear earlier may seem different to the person who participates. It may feel, or seem to be fulfilling but despite the feelings it truthfully isn’t. Deep, loving relationships between two people do not have any sexual requirement to be truly loving. This is simply a myth perpetuated by the current popular opinion, not based on fact. Nature is a beautiful thing, respect it.
When I make a statement in favor of the natural order of human sexuality in opposition to the sexual act between members of the same sex, I make sure to reiterate this: that by human reason alone one can assert just as the nature (function) of ears is hearing/balance, the nature of lungs is respiration and the nature of eyes is seeing, the nature of human sexuality (the sexual act) is unitive and ordered to procreation. This is self evident.
When we speak of nature in this context we do not mean nature as “anything that occurs in the natural world”. We mean nature as the essential qualities of a given subject. In regard to human anatomy, observe the ear. Without any cultural invention whatsoever the function of the ear is hearing/balance. (Provided you have working ears or ears at all) in all situations the primary function of the ear is hearing/balance. Some might object at first, “that isn’t all of what ears are for, are you ignorant to the fact there are so many other things you can do with ears? Are ear decorations and piercings immoral to you?”. After hearing this in your head probably 1000 times over, the logic should communicate more. Yes indeed there are so many other functions of the human ear: piercing decorations, gages and even tattoos, but in all cases these functions **do not harm the primary function of the ear. **
You can pierce your ear, for example, but you wouldn’t pierce your ear in a way that you could no longer hear. That action harms the ear’s natural function, which is innate & primary, hurting/destroying it for the sake of a secondary and imposed function. If we are aware of this, what do me make of the human sexual act?
Its primary function is unitive and ordered to procreation. Again we hear, “that isn’t all of what [the sexual act is] for, are you ignorant to the fact there are so many other things you can do? Are [married infertile opposite sex relationships] immoral to you too?” Let us refer back to the logic. The sexual act between an infertile married opposite sex couple** does not harm the the primary function of the sexual act. **They can perform the sexual act and the act will always be unitive and ordered to procreation regardless of the result of the act. Even a fertile version of this couple’s act will be unitive and ordered to procreation regardless of the act’s result. People can perform the sexual act, but just as you would not pierce your ear in a way that you could no longer hear and harm the ears function, it is irrational to perform the sexual act with someone of the same sex.
Unlike the act between an infertile/older couple, when sex is performed between members of the same sex, the unitive function is damaged. The unitive function is wholly unitive, not merely figurative/invented. Since it is unitive it involves personal, emotional **as well as physical **(the natural function of the reproductive organs is used) and if these things are not present there is a lack and disorder involved in what should be entire unity. The procreative function is also destroyed in the act. The act is no longer ordered to procreation, this is another disorder and harm. it is not a virtue to dismantle and damage what would otherwise be a full and functional act between two human beings. The issue here is specifically about the immediate consequences of human action.
Regardless of the rationality or irrationality of any human act, our society lives in a way that pushes logic and reason to the side for the sake of immediate gratification. Participating in such behavior as made clear earlier may seem different to the person who participates. It may feel, or seem to be fulfilling but despite the feelings it truthfully isn’t. Deep, loving relationships between two people do not have any sexual requirement to be truly loving. This is simply a myth perpetuated by the current popular opinion, not based on fact. Nature is a beautiful thing, respect it.
I
Ion
Guest
Ok, clarification: The male-male black swans have sex. I make no assertion as to whether or not it is for pleasure. But what other reason do you suggest they have? Baiting Catholics?
stewstew03 did assert that they do not “engage in sexual activity for pleasure”, so maybe he could answer how he knows that?
I think they only attempt to do it because they confuse another male with a female.
Check this web site: realclearscience.com/blog/2012/06/chicken-reproduction.html
From the web site:
“2) No copulatory organs
As with most bird species, roosters and hens don’t have external genitalia. Instead both partners procreate using an external orifice called a cloaca. When the cloacae are touched together, sperm is transferred into the female reproductive tract. Since no penetration is involved, the act is simply called a “cloacal kiss.”
Both genders also use their cloacae for defecation.”
I
Ion
Guest
Yes indeed. And I would like to stress this unity must not be understood as friendship only. Because male and female are not only alike but different. So it is very interesting how attempting to destroy this human diversity through homosexual acts, leads to extinction.
I
Ion
Guest
I remember the rooster at my grandparents farm, running after the young roosters which at the time did not have developed male signs. He usually didn’t catch them but neither he wanted to destroy them. Only after the male signs were evident he did not cease to run and fight them.
From wiki:" Among bird species with a penis are paleognathes (tinamous and ratites),[3] Anatidae (ducks, geese and swans),[4] and a very few other species (including flamingoes[citation needed] and chickens[5]). A bird penis is different in structure from mammal penises, being an erectile expansion of the cloacal wall and being erected by lymph, not blood."
Swan “sex” is a variation of the “birds sex” because the cloacal wall can expand, and is not a genitalia like in the case of the humans.
I
InSearchofGrace
Guest
Stephen168
New member
Establishing a ‘pecking order.’ Sheep do the same for the same reason. Unless you need to believe that homosexuality is ‘natural;’ in that case all sheep are homosexuals.
I remember the rooster at my grandparents farm, running after the young roosters which at the time did not have developed male signs. He usually didn’t catch them but neither he wanted to destroy them. Only after the male signs were evident he did not cease to run and fight them. .
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
It seems to me that you have, above, essentially conceded the argument against calling same sex liaisons “marriage” in the same sense that conjugal marriages are, just as you would have to agree that “football” in Europe refers to a fundamentally different game than the one played in the US or Canada, despite the shared name.So if some Brits turned up in your town and formed a football team, would you be demanding that they instead call it by your term, or that they play by your rules? Even if they showed you the historical evidence of ‘football’ being used to describe their game?
Merely because Brits call their game “football” does not ipso facto make their game identical to the game played in the US and Canada. The two games are clearly different regardless of the equivalency of the name.
Merely because the term “marriage” has been or is being used to describe different kinds of relationships does not make all these relationships essentially the same.
It would be a rather senseless move for the townspeople in your example to either:
- engage in an elaborate pretense that the two games are identical merely because they share the same name, or
- insist that the rules and play of the two games MUST be blended together, as a result of the shared name, to form a new version of the game such that, henceforth, the word “football” will only refer to one game that encompasses both sets of rules no matter the effect such a merging will have on either game.
1a) engage in an elaborate pretense that conjugal marriage and same-sex “marriage” are identical merely by the legal fiat of giving them the shared moniker, or
2a) insist that the name “marriage” be defined as a blending of conjugal and same-sex relationships, such that, henceforth, the term “marriage” will refer to both types regardless of the effects that such a merging will have on either type of relationship.
It would seem that revisionists are committed to one of the two “boneheaded” moves above by insisting that the name used to define a reality actually does define the reality, irrespective of what the reality is.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
The behavior becomes clear. Course denial as you see isn’t easy to resolve. And we agree different personality types exist which creates individual-preference, further thus behavior. For example with the bird, they simply were not comfortable and preferred to be with themselves. We as a whole re-enforce unintentionally the thinking which creates the behavior. Not Catholics or Atheists, but we as people. Various ways which there is no need to go into. We separate people from ourselves through prejudice, I know you didn’t think everyone was prejudice. They are, and we need to stop fooling ourselves. The difference is in “degree” only.
For example John Doe may grow up in Catholic household, he is subjected to various personalities which interact in the thinking-feeling process. As we see there is but so much parents can do and basically at some point its like the bird that leaves and flies. You’ll have to fly on your own. Your responsible for your own actions, however you think or feel, and your ordered to the whole, you excuse your own actions and basically you are on your own here, and you rationalize and excuse and the intellectual dual begins here. This is where you hear what Bongo and other cultures have done to validate the behavior. It really doesn’t matter if it makes sense to YOU, it must somehow, however unreasonable make sense to the individual to continue to act as such. Otherwise they would be in the process of working through the denial by reason-support.
Same thing happened with Spirituality, for example with Aliens. There are very few cultures who didn’t embrace a belief in some form of deity even if they believed there leader was half god. Another dilemma of man which coincides with all the above thinking. However, today we would deny this and rationalize it as they didn’t know what they were talking about. They were delusional. But Bongo was OK playing with whomever.
Even Alien theorists don’t deny the existence of supreme intelligence. They may not logically make sense altogether, for example it very difficult to propose I saw a ufo so reptile people exist? How did we go from seeing something you can’t explain to reptile people? The same way we went from different personalities exist so I can use whomever for my self-gratification because we seem to be having the same emotional dilemma. In other words not by reason or logic.
We are in this together, we are responsible for all the personality types, all the eggs are in One Basket. We don’t want to eliminate the introvert the shy withdrawn, the thin, fat, various shades of tone, and language accent and so forth. We want to give them an “equal chance” that is what equality is all about. Not, I like abusing Brunettes so that is my “equal right”. Thats your thinking left unchecked and for a very long time.
So what does all this mean?
For example John Doe may grow up in Catholic household, he is subjected to various personalities which interact in the thinking-feeling process. As we see there is but so much parents can do and basically at some point its like the bird that leaves and flies. You’ll have to fly on your own. Your responsible for your own actions, however you think or feel, and your ordered to the whole, you excuse your own actions and basically you are on your own here, and you rationalize and excuse and the intellectual dual begins here. This is where you hear what Bongo and other cultures have done to validate the behavior. It really doesn’t matter if it makes sense to YOU, it must somehow, however unreasonable make sense to the individual to continue to act as such. Otherwise they would be in the process of working through the denial by reason-support.
Same thing happened with Spirituality, for example with Aliens. There are very few cultures who didn’t embrace a belief in some form of deity even if they believed there leader was half god. Another dilemma of man which coincides with all the above thinking. However, today we would deny this and rationalize it as they didn’t know what they were talking about. They were delusional. But Bongo was OK playing with whomever.
Even Alien theorists don’t deny the existence of supreme intelligence. They may not logically make sense altogether, for example it very difficult to propose I saw a ufo so reptile people exist? How did we go from seeing something you can’t explain to reptile people? The same way we went from different personalities exist so I can use whomever for my self-gratification because we seem to be having the same emotional dilemma. In other words not by reason or logic.
We are in this together, we are responsible for all the personality types, all the eggs are in One Basket. We don’t want to eliminate the introvert the shy withdrawn, the thin, fat, various shades of tone, and language accent and so forth. We want to give them an “equal chance” that is what equality is all about. Not, I like abusing Brunettes so that is my “equal right”. Thats your thinking left unchecked and for a very long time.
So what does all this mean?
P
Prodigal_Son
Guest
I
Ion
Guest
Speaking of unity in diversity through marriage as different of the friendship, I was thinking of the mythical amazons, women warriors.
How would it be such a society, all males and a few females kept in cages for reproduction? Kind of a horror movie…
How would it be such a society, all males and a few females kept in cages for reproduction? Kind of a horror movie…
J
jimmy
Guest
The difference between a beard and sex is that sex has a moral value, a beard doesn’t. But the persons response to you makes sense considering that modern society has reduced sex to a meaningless act that is essentially the same as cutting your beard.
I
Ion
Guest
I think that the purpose of the amazons myth in those times was to get an adverse reaction against same sex society. We are safe now, at least for a while…What the heck, we treat each other like meat and animals anyway. Cage training wouldn’t hurt. What makes you think it won’t be reverse?
D
DrTaffy
Guest
No, I objected to the use of subjective arguments to impose restrictions on others, and you responded by objecting to the idea that religious arguments were subjective. Since the terms of the original proposition were set by me, if anyone is confusing ‘arguments’ with ‘conclusions’ it is you.
OK, if I understand what you are saying then you are veering even further away from the topic of this thread, and indeed seem to be accelerating hard towards the philosphical event horizon of sollipsism.
Do you really not see the difference between insisting that noone be allowed to do X because your personal beliefs forbid it, and insisting that noone be allowed to do X because of the following arguments and evidence that everyone can accept and agreee on? Or at least they can disagree on for reasons that are open to discussion, not just shouting “I believe Y” or “I believe not-Y”?
Then why do you need to inject your religious beliefs into any debate, given that you know that many of your interlocutors will not share those beliefs?
Also, how do you defend beliefs such as the perpetual virginity of Mary without recourse to invoking your religious beliefs?
So you are entirely unaware of formal proofs of the golden rule? Or you reject them for some objective reason?
D
DrTaffy
Guest
A) You are being rude again.
B) No, you have not. At least not to me on this thread. If you are referring to something you said to someone else on another thread, then how am I expected to know that? Either way, it should be trivial for you to quote where you answered these points.
How can you claim that marriage is ‘for’ the State to promote conception, when it does no such thing? Marriage is neither necessary for nor even helpful for conception. Indeed, marriage can only prevent conception, as when someone who is both willing and able to have children ends up married for life to someone who is either unwilling or unable.
Further, if promoting conception were the purpose for marriage, why would the State give marriage licenses to those who had not conceived, nor made any commitment to do so? The obvious thing would be to grant the rights only to those who had already conceived.
Finally, if promoting conception were the purpose for marriage, same sex couples who had conceived would be more worthy of marriage licenses than childless heterosexual couples. The State, after all, doesn’t care about the child’s genes, as long as they are being adequately cared for. So a couple who have produced kids (and are raising kids, which is where marriage does help) should have the same marriage rights whatever their gender.
Oops, missed one. So really and truly Finally this time, can you explain why the definition of marriage must exclude all forms of marriage that you oppose, whereas the same is not true for the definition of ‘Sex’. Or to look at it another way, why does admitting that polygamous marriages were in fact marriages imply support for polygamy?
No, what you said was (emphasis in colour added):
I note the conflict between the blue and green text only for irony!
As far as the red text goes:
Now, if you not/B] talking about the state promoting conception, what on earth are you getting at by talking about the ‘generative aspect’ of sexual union, or ‘the possibility of children’, as justifications of marriage? And how do these escape observation that same sex couples who do procreate would, by that logic, be more deserving of marriage than opposite sex couples who do not? Or that formal lifelong marriage reduces the chances of children being conceived?
- Status