Do religious freedom rights supersede other rights?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Holly3278
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sex taken out of reproductive purpose completely becomes one of mere entertainment purpose.

Each biology process has a purpose. Anything that goes away from its biological purpose is a disordered condition.
So an eighty year old woman having sex (and please no baloney about ‘being open to conception’) is disordered. The old dear, according to you, is just entertaining herself.

And I know what the male reproductive system is for. It’s biological purpose is to get as many women pregnant as possible. A man restricting himself to one woman is not natural. It may be culturally and religiously required (and my wife is pretty keen on it as well) but it sure ain’t a natural condition.
 
So an eighty year old woman having sex (and please no baloney about ‘being open to conception’) is disordered. The old dear, according to you, is just entertaining herself.
Sarah was 90 when she had Isaac so I sure hope it’s not disordered or entire Bible is false
 
40.png
Wozza:
So an eighty year old woman having sex (and please no baloney about ‘being open to conception’) is disordered. The old dear, according to you, is just entertaining herself.
Sarah was 90 when she had Isaac so I sure hope it’s not disordered or entire Bible is false
Well, there’s talking trees and people swallowed whole by whales in the bible as well. But I wouldn’t use it as a text book for dendrology or cetology though. Neither is it my go-to reference on obstetrics.

And just because one thing isn’t true in the bible doesn’t mean it’s all false.
 
talking trees and people swallowed whole by whales
Let’s try to stay focused

Either your claim is false or Bible Scripture about Sarah is false. You’re free to reject the Old Testament , but then obviously that means rejecting Catholicism, Christianity, Judaism, etc, do you prefer Atheism?
 
Last edited:
40.png
Wozza:
talking trees and people swallowed whole by whales
Let’s try to stay focused

Either your claim is false or Bible Scripture about Sarah is false. You’re free to reject the Old Testament , but then obviously that means rejecting Catholicism, Christianity, Judaism, etc, do you prefer Atheism?
If you think that someone in the bible had a child at the age of ninety and that means that an eighty year old woman is today capable of conceiving, then you can ignore my post that refered to that. It doesn’t concern you.

Neither do the bits about trees and whales which you apparently also believe.
 
Last edited:
If you think that someone in the bible had a child at the age of ninety
I do because as I understand it (someone correct me if I’m wrong), that’s what Old Testament Scripture says and it’s not taught as a metaphorical age, and as Catholics we’re required to believe Old Testament
and that means that an eighty year old woman is today capable of conceiving, then you can ignore my post
I think God has shown that is capable, per Sarah and if I , as a mortal limited human were to say “you know, I know Scripture says God made it possible for a 90 year old woman to have a baby, but clearly I know more than God and what God is capable of, so in 2019? Yeah I know that can’t happen” that would be pride on a Lucifer scale
It doesn’t concern you.Neither do the bits about trees and whales which you apparently also believe.
Ad hominem attacks just weaken your arguments
 
Last edited:
40.png
Wozza:
It doesn’t concern you.Neither do the bits about trees and whales which you apparently also believe.
Ad hominem attacks just weaken your arguments
You don’t know the meaning of ad hominem apparently. Me pointing out that you believe the stories of talking trees and Jonah and the whale is not a fallacy. Especially as you have already said that you are required to believe the OT.

Honestly, the post concerning the 80 year old woman doesn’t concern you. If you want to start a thread on the veracity of the OT then I’ll be glad to join in.
 
Last edited:
Rights come from God, not from man. If they are rights, they don’t supersede each other.
 
And I know what the male reproductive system is for. It’s biological purpose is to get as many women pregnant as possible. A man restricting himself to one woman is not natural. It may be culturally and religiously required (and my wife is pretty keen on it as well) but it sure ain’t a natural condition.
Are you sure that that is true of humans? It must be very difficult to say with certainty, as our self-consciousness, social organization, and ability to communicate are unique in the animal kingdom. While it is true that in many species a male does attempt to impregnate as many females as possible (and in some instances kills the offspring of those females resulting from impregnation by other males), this is not true of all species. This, as you may know, is called polygynous mating. Among our closest primate relatives, this mating system is seen in gorillas.

Our somewhat more distant relatives, the gibbons, on the other hand, mate somewhat like humans: they are normally monogamous, but will occasionally breed outside of an established pair. In the case of humans, we typically feel a strong emotional bond with another human with whom we choose to mate, and have feelings of loyalty to that partner that would normally exclude mating with other partners. Humans often have quite specific preferences in terms of sexual attraction. We also typically observe taboos in mating practices that are not experienced by other species. For example, a human male will not typically wish to breed with a mother and daughter or with sisters.

Humans are also a species in which it is normal for the male to experience a lifelong bond with his offspring and to wish to play a role in raising his young. As I stated earlier, it is suggested that this is one reason why humans normally continue to have sex during pregnancy. We may have evolved to do this to reduce the risk of the male mating with other females while his partner is pregnant.

It is also worth noting that where polygyny does occur in humans it is normally quite closely regulated. E.g. in Islam a man may have up to four wives, but there are further restrictions such as a requirement to treat all wives equally or to obtain consent from existing wives. So even in these instances humans are differentiated from gorillas.
 
Last edited:
40.png
Wozza:
And I know what the male reproductive system is for. It’s biological purpose is to get as many women pregnant as possible. A man restricting himself to one woman is not natural. It may be culturally and religiously required (and my wife is pretty keen on it as well) but it sure ain’t a natural condition.
Are you sure that that is true of humans? It must be very difficult to say with certainty, as our self-consciousness, social organization, and ability to communicate are unique in the animal kingdom. While it is true that in many species a male does attempt to impregnate as many females as possible (and in some instances kills the offspring of those females resulting from impregnation by other males), this is not true of all species. This, as you may know, is called polygynous mating. Among our closest primate relatives, this mating system is seen in gorillas. Our somewhat more distant relatives, the gibbons, on the other hand, mate somewhat like humans: they are normally monogamous, but will occasionally breed outside of an established pair. In the case of humans, we typically feel a strong emotional bond with another human with whom we choose to mate, and have feelings of loyalty to that partner that would normally exclude mating with other partners. Humans are also a species in which it is normal for the male to experience a lifelong bond with his offspring and to wish to play a role in raising his young. As I stated earlier, it is suggested that this is one reason why humans normally continue to have sex during pregnancy. We may have evolved to do this to reduce the risk of the male mating with other females while his partner is pregnant. It is also worth noting that where polygyny does occur in humans it is normally quite closely regulated. E.g. in Islam a man may have up to four wives, but there are further restrictions such as a requirement to treat all wives equally or to obtain consent from existing wives. So even in these instances humans are differentiated from gorillas.
Correct.
The bodily dimension of a human being is integrated with the spiritual.
Our bodies and biological processes have deeper meaning and purpose than those of animals.
Animals are “pure nature” so to speak. The do not reflect on the meaning and purpose of their physicality, and can’t do moral evaluations. They behave instinctually in response to the world around them.
 
Last edited:
Thank you. That is a very succinct way of putting it. Even emotionally complex animals such as elephants do not feel the kind of bond with a mate or offspring, or responsibility towards larger social groups, that humans do. This is not even specific to particular cultures or religions. All human societies have developed some kind of regulation of our reproductive function based on a conscious experience of purpose and meaning in our lives. I am reminded of a friend of mine who was teaching a university course on ancient Greek history, and her students reportedly took some persuading that the ancient Greeks experienced the feeling that we would call love. They were convinced that love was something that humans had invented quite recently and that all human relationships before that point had more base motivations such as material or social advantage or a desire to control.
 
I’ve no problem with any of that. When I refer to the male reproductive system I’m talking about modern man about 200,000 years ago at least. And I doubt if there have been any biological changes in the short evolutionary time since then. So we have evolved to act as we did at least that far back. And I would suggest well before that.

The male sexual drive maps quite well with other mammals. Humans discarded oestrus back somewhere in our lineage but males act as if it’s on 24/7 all year round. There is no reason for it, unless it’s a product of the evolutionary process.

If you are Christian and believe it was designed that way…then you need to support a very bad design indeed.
 
I don’t believe it was “designed” that way. I would say that that is just how we have evolved and it presumably must have some advantages. What I dispute is the argument that human males are genetically hardwired to want to breed with as many females as possible. I think that most humans seem to prefer monogamy.
 
The Christian view of humanity is that of a whole being, body and soul.
We are not merely biological entities or processes subject to material considerations. We have the power of reason to reflect, decide, evaluate…etc…many things could be said that are uniquely human, and our bodily design is integrated with these powers.
Human beings are exceptional in this regard.
 
Last edited:
I don’t believe it was “designed” that way. I would say that that is just how we have evolved and it presumably must have some advantages. What I dispute is the argument that human males are genetically hardwired to want to breed with as many females as possible. I think that most humans seem to prefer monogamy.
I put that down to cultural norms:

"In a more recent review of these questions, a team of evolutionary anthropologists led by Joe Henrich showed that long-lasting monogamous marriages were not the norm outside Western countries until very recently [11]. They pointed out that roughly 85% of societies known in the anthropological record allowed men to marry multiple wives. The historical record also shows that lifelong monogamous marriages, as a rare social institution, can be traced back to classical Greece and Rome, and did not begin its global spread until recent centuries [12].

In their provocative review, they argue that monogamy should be understood as a recent form of cultural adaptation that comes with strong social advantages and unique benefits for women, men, and children." Did We Evolve to Be Monogamous? | Psychology Today
 
And I know what the male reproductive system is for. It’s biological purpose is to get as many women pregnant as possible. A man restricting himself to one woman is not natural. It may be culturally and religiously required (and my wife is pretty keen on it as well) but it sure ain’t a natural condition.
Poison in your breakfast is not natural either, but for a frequent adulterer, it might be.

Humans have both intellects and wills that far exceed anything in the animal kingdom. Using those natural faculties will show that it is not possible to show human love for your children if you get as many women pregnant as possible. Years ago Father Theodore Hesburgh explained to young men at Notre Dame that the most important thing a father could do for his children was to love their mother. For humans, that requires fidelity, permanence, and openness to new life. Saint Augustine referred to those as the three goods of marriage, all of which our secular culture has rejected to its great harm.
 
40.png
Wozza:
And I know what the male reproductive system is for. It’s biological purpose is to get as many women pregnant as possible. A man restricting himself to one woman is not natural. It may be culturally and religiously required (and my wife is pretty keen on it as well) but it sure ain’t a natural condition.
Poison in your breakfast is not natural either, but for a frequent adulterer, it might be.

Humans have both intellects and wills that far exceed anything in the animal kingdom. Using those natural faculties will show that it is not possible to show human love for your children if you get as many women pregnant as possible. Years ago Father Theodore Hesburgh explained to young men at Notre Dame that the most important thing a father could do for his children was to love their mother. For humans, that requires fidelity, permanence, and openness to new life. Saint Augustine referred to those as the three goods of marriage, all of which our secular culture has rejected to its great harm.
I don’t disagree. We have developed the ability to overcome our natural instincts. No-one argued otherwise.
 
I don’t disagree. We have developed the ability to overcome our natural instincts. No-one argued otherwise.
We have a different understanding of the term “natural”. What is natural to animals is different from what is natural for humans. Humans are made in God’s image with the faculties of reason and free will that are part of our nature. These things are natural to humans, though clouded by sin.
 
40.png
Wozza:
I don’t disagree. We have developed the ability to overcome our natural instincts. No-one argued otherwise.
We have a different understanding of the term “natural”. What is natural to animals is different from what is natural for humans. Humans are made in God’s image with the faculties of reason and free will that are part of our nature. These things are natural to humans, though clouded by sin.
Do you know why we snarl when we’re angry?
 
What I dispute is the argument that human males are genetically hardwired to want to breed with as many females as possible. I think that most humans seem to prefer monogamy
It is possible for a man to prefer a monogamous relationship to a polygamous one and still want to have sex with many women.

It is possible for a man to want to have sex with many women and yet not want to breed with them all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top