ok so the examples were semi (if not completely) ridiculous
But that doesn’t change the fact that just because something is limited to it’s designed function. When you say corn is energy, so no matter how we use it, it’s ok. Corn does not make that energy to be harvested by humans, it makes it for itself to grow and reproduce.
An orifice designed remove waste and using it as an entry point–is changing the function. Using corn to justify taking an organ and making it…ummmm…perform a biological function by means other than a vagina is changing the function of the item utilized to perform that function.
As far as the Vatican, wouldn’t it make more sense to use those funds to make all of humanity (poor, hungry, sick) more beautiful? But that’s another topic completely
I brought it up b/c it was actually on Catholic Answers Live this week. We are commanded by God to bring him glory (not as in 10 commandments, but as in asked–given permission yada yada yada).
The priest during this Q&A quoted some scripture that I am afraid that I have not memorized.
God is okay with beauty in worship. Now this does not mean that the we has humans should neglect those who suffer. But it doesn’t mean that God expects all of us to live as paupers to make everything equal. God wants us to treat people just and fair. This is what Jesus would do.
I dont have any scripture quotes handy–but I do not recollect that Jesus held in contempt those who had much. His issue was those who chose not to share or shared but a pittance. Then he speaks of the poor woman who gave all that she had even though it was not much. This wasnt to chastize the rich from being rich. It was chastizing their lack of fairness in sharing of what they had. Had they given half of what they had, Jesus probably would not have made an example of them. But the issue was that they gave practically nothing.
While the Catholic Church has millions upon millions of value in precious art, relics, structure, and money–Their giving is pretty high as well.
Why would we hold those chosen by Jesus himself and the Holy Spirit that continue to be disciples of Christ in higher esteem to help the poor than Jesus himself did?
Here is some Catechism of the subject. I began reading it but do not have time to review it in a manner at which I can fairly point to chatechism to illustrate the point.
vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a7.htm
However–it is part of the nature of the church to care for the poor and they do.
I am not certain of any scriptural reference or of Jesus’ own words that would direct them to liquidate assets to accomplish this task in full.
Actually, since both aspects of the reproductive system are not present (male and female), it seems that gay sex is about stimulating the nervous system, not necessarily specifically the reproductive nerves (as Ryan put it, slots X, Y, and Z), than it is about the reproductive system. So can it be said that stimulating nervous tissues is a miss use of them?
We are the only species that mates outside of the purpose of reproduction. IOW–we are the only species or mates for personal gratification.
Trust me, the animal kingdom justifications frustrate me just as much. But I don’t think it is necessarily right to say that the animals do not do the act for enjoyment. The stimulation make the act desirable, hence they do it because their bodies are telling their brains it feels good.
This is fascinating–and I will explain this. Women who have no issues that would otherwise be present, will naturally tend to be “in the mood” around the time of ovulation.
**Note, I Am in line with the Church on the subject of abstinence, but this next statement is a matter of biology and not faith and morality.
Part of the problem of teen pregnancy is that teens do not realize they usually ovulate prior to their first menstrual cycle. Then when they are pregnant, they are shocked.
People talk of teenage hormones and while it makes me ill to use that as an excuse to not teach morality, hormones is what drives a woman to be “in the mood”. Unlike men, we dont really have an on-off switch. But when we are " in the mood" where if we do not keep our minds in control of this physiological phenomen, it is a good indicator that the body is ovulating.
This is pretty much what is required in most of the animal kingdom.
And we are also pretty much the only species who has control over this part of our physiology from a physical/mental standpoint. We use the act as part of love or as part of sin or as part of whatever our free will conscience allows.
Dogs, cats, bunnies, mountain lions, bears–heck even the Emperor penguin do not. Mating is to continue the species and while there is compelling evidence that I do believe that there are social desires at play in how a species might choose a mate–there are seasons and times at play. The Emperor penguin migrates during mating season, picks their partner and voila.
Our now neutured rabbit–anytime any place even though he now lacks capacity. That’s why bunnies—multiply so quickly.
No emotion, no nothing. A biological function that continues the species.
From a pure religion standpoint, you have again brought in the point that permits the church to discuss free will and all the other stuff that holds your partnership in contempt when you point to the emotional aspects of the act.
Ok, done with the sarcasm, sorry about that.