Beards and Gay Marriage

[GaryTaylor]

But they don’t want to keep it boring. Sex addictions always like spice. At a certain point, though, you’ve simply tried everything normal. Thus enters perversion. Then you’ve tried everything legal. Thus enters criminal activity. Then you’ve tried everything consensual. Thus enters rape.

If we follow the sex addict long enough, we’ll find that he harms the people around him precisely because the sex gets boring to him.

(An important point, though, is that homosexuality is usually NOT a progression on this ladder. Most gay people start being attracted to people of the same sex *before *they are sexually active.)

I’m with you, and frobert’s following post also.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

And more to the point, a same sex relationship does not prevent someone from procreation, whereas priestly vows of celibacy do. So the proposed argument does not work against same sex marriage, but would work as a condemnation of Catholic priesthood.

If you are talking about bi-sexuals as opposed to homosexuals, that’s so. But a bi-sexual is still a sodomite.

Priests who are celibate are not sodomites. They cannot be condemned as sodomites.

Nor can they be condemned as celibate, since the New Testament biblical injunction both by Jesus and Paul is for them to be celibate if they can be.

They still get to be called Father because they are fatherly spiritual shepherds.

Homosexuals don’t get to be called Father because they have not earned the title in any sense of the word.

 

[stewstew03]

So any article, even in a peer reviewed journal, is instantly dismissed if it is by an atheist?

…

Nope – try reading my post again and see if that helps with comprehension.

This is still far better evidence than has been offered that same sex couples cause “potentially serious issues with regard to human social health”.

You cited an essay. If you’re serious about redefining norms, then please cite a study (preferably published in a top-tier peer-reviewed journal) that utilizes a reputable methodology (i.e, large, random, and representative sample observed longitudinally) that demonstrates the “equality” of same-sex parenting.

 

[PRmerger]

Well, I did not actually ask you,…

LOL!

I would think that after being on the CAFs for, um…a week…one would understand the nature of a forum.

(Join date of DrTaffy: Dec 15, 2012)

In a forum, all members are invited to post responses to all posts.

If one prefers to dialogue with only one individual, we use what’s called the Private Message system.

It’s more…

private.

 

[PRmerger]

I can, and have, proposed a general definition of marriage that would cover all the meanings of the term in different societies, but that intrinsically does not rule out (for example) incestuous, polygamous, forced, underage or same-sex marriages, as all of those have been current in various civilisations throughout the ages.

IIRC it was something like “two or more people coming together to form a new family unit” - and I include the “or more” only to cover those who seem to think polygamy is one marriage of more than two people, rather than one person involved in more than one marriage simultaneously.

Essentially what you are proposing is a government registry for friendships. And for incestuous/polygamous relationships.

Can you propose some reasons we would need a governmental registry for this?

 

[njlisa]

Sorry if someone has already mentioned this. But Leviticus 19:27 commands: “Do not clip your hair at the temples, nor trim the edges of your beard.”

This is a commandment that Orthodox Jewish men follow to this day.

 

[PRmerger]

Sorry if someone has already mentioned this. But Leviticus 19:27 commands: “Do not clip your hair at the temples, nor trim the edges of your beard.”

This is a commandment that Orthodox Jewish men follow to this day.

That’s why we have a Church to guide us into discerning which of the mandates in Scripture are binding, and which are not.

It is interesting in discussions with Protestants, though, as to how they defend clipping their hair and trimming their beards.

 

[njlisa]

That’s why we have a Church to guide us into discerning which of the mandates in Scripture are binding, and which are not.

Indeed.

 

[Stephen168]

They don’t just share a location, they share many of the same parts. e.g. the penis. How does a priest or monk urinate without using his penis?

How does a nun?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

It is interesting in discussions with Protestants, though, as to how they defend clipping their hair and trimming their beards.

Not necessarily about facial hair, the one’s that knock at my door tend to declare that the old testament is the old covenant and that with the help of the holy spirit one can be divinely guided to properly interpret the scripture and how and where it is to be applied. While among groups that make this declaration there are some incompatible interpretations/conclusions I have also been told that those other people with the wrong interpretation are wrong for a spectrum of reasons which include being an agent of the devil, mistakenly interpreting their own misguiding feelings as the holy spirit, and not “in tune” with the spirit enough to realize their mistakes.

Well, some of them say this. I’ve already been verbally chastised for not being in conformance with biblical rules, like the time I walked in a Church with long hair. A clear violation of 1 Corinthians 11:14 while my sisters were in violation of 1 Corinthians 11:16. I’ve also encountered protestants that are in support of enforcing the old testament but don’t do so fully because we live in a land that is according to them corrupt and has laws against such enforcement.

 

[Stephen168]

The one I gave months ago in post #303. Hence the hypocrisy of Stephen’s claim that I was refusing to give my definition.

hypocrisy?

I would note that your definition falls short on a couple of points:

1) It relies (a lot) on the phrase ‘ordered towards’ which is so vaguely defined (as used by you) that is still leaves the actual meaning very vague
​

It just means there is a reason/purpose/goal to marriage; like striking a match is ordered to fire, and a shot on goal is ordered to scoring. It may not happen every time but it is the reason/purpose/goal of doing it. Marriage is ordered toward making a family. Family defined as parents are their children.
Sexual acts not ordered toward creating a family are disordered and called sodomy.

And more to the point, a same sex relationship does not prevent someone from procreation, whereas priestly vows of celibacy do. So the proposed argument does not work against same sex marriage, but would work as a condemnation of Catholic priesthood.

Not using your reproductive system is not sodomy, using it in a disordered way is sodomy. Same sex unions can never create their own children because they can only engage in sodomy together.
Marriage requires the ability to engage in reproductive sex (not sodomy). This requires one person from each sex.​

 

[PRmerger]

Not necessarily about facial hair, the one’s that knock at my door tend to declare that the old testament is the old covenant and that with the help of the holy spirit one can be divinely guided to properly interpret the scripture and how and where it is to be applied. While among groups that make this declaration there are some incompatible interpretations/conclusions I have also been told that those other people with the wrong interpretation are wrong for a spectrum of reasons which include being an agent of the devil, mistakenly interpreting their own misguiding feelings as the holy spirit, and not “in tune” with the spirit enough to realize their mistakes.

Well, some of them say this. I’ve already been verbally chastised for not being in conformance with biblical rules, like the time I walked in a Church with long hair. A clear violation of 1 Corinthians 11:14 while my sisters were in violation of 1 Corinthians 11:16. I’ve also encountered protestants that are in support of enforcing the old testament but don’t do so fully because we live in a land that is according to them corrupt and has laws against such enforcement.

Yep. The Protestant position is indeed untenable.

 

[frobert]

It appears that posters are talking past each other. Some are discussing the meaning of marriage as they see it and others are talking about the definition as they see it. Is no wonder there is not be only difference and not agreement. I have to say that it is amusing though.

 

[ManOnFire]

Ironically, if we never cut our hair, that would probably be the effective birth control. I just don’t understand these guys with the bushy beards. It’s not the least bit attractive, and I’m a guy. I can just imagine what some women think of them.

 

[frobert]

It appears that posters are talking past each other. Some are discussing the meaning of marriage as they see it and others are talking about the definition as they see it. No wonder there only difference and not agreement. I have to say that it is amusing though.

 

[frobert]

It appears that posters are talking past each other. Some are discussing the meaning of marriage as they see it and others are talking about the definition as they see it. It Is no wonder there is only difference and not agreement. I have to say that it is amusing though.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

…]It may not happen every time but it is the reason/purpose/goal of doing it. Marriage is ordered toward making a family. Family defined as parents are their children.
Sexual acts not ordered toward creating a family are disordered and called sodomy…]

It sounds like there may be quite a number of heterosexual unions that don’t quite live up to your description of marriage. For example, married couples are not necessarily open to children.

But I can see how this fits as a partial description of sacramental marriage.

 

[runningdude]

So in a discussion with someone regarding the Catholic position on marriage I proffered the natural law argument.

Specifically, I offered the argument: “If an act does not achieve its natural end, that act is detrimental to the organism. 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. Gay sexual acts do not procreate, (nor unite), therefore they are immoral.”

Question: the “natural end” of the beard is to grow. Thus, it would appear to be contrary to the moral law to shave one’s beard. Clearly, this is not immoral. But why? …

Your premise is wrong; it is not act of sexual intercourse has a “natural end”; rather it is our human person that has a natural purpose. It is the human persons joined in marriage that are called to be fruitful and multiply; there is no equivalent natural requirement to grow a really long beard.

 

[Stephen168]

It sounds like there may be quite a number of heterosexual unions that don’t quite live up to your description of marriage. For example, married couples are not necessarily open to children.

But I can see how this fits as a partial description of sacramental marriage.

See post 646

 

[PRmerger]

It sounds like there may be quite a number of heterosexual unions that don’t quite live up to your description of marriage.

Indeed.

That is limned by the horrible failure rate of marriages.

For example, married couples are not necessarily open to children.

Then they ought not have gotten married.