Gay marriage legalized in the UK

[fix]

Digger71:

You cannot make a post menopausal woman pregnant. They are sterile and it is only the arrangement of gentials that differentiates the partners. The sterility is REAL, and anyone who marries a post menopausal woman is avoiding procreation and is sinning.

This is identical to two men or two women getting married.

But the fact is in all these cases sterility is incidental. I have yet to hear of a single person marrying a post menopausal woman, or dating their own gender to avoid having children.

John the baptist was born of a post menopausal woman and is said to be a miracle.

God could make a fertile homosexual marriage if he so wanted. Indeed, don’t some religion predict the next massiah will be born of a man?

That one is sterile by nature does not diminish their complimentarity. Same sex folks can never be fertile as that is not the design.

 

[fix]

Gnosis:

Or what if a woman was born without a uterus? That wouldn’t be natural and it would be impossible to conceive. Sex in that case would have no hope of pro-creation. Sex in that case would be solely for the purpose of pleasure.

She is still female. It is not simply an issue of sterility, it is that same sex folks can never be fertile as that is not the way things are intended.

 

[fix]

Libero:

I can tell you know that teachers are not allowed to run around willy nilly lying to their students. The teacher in question runs two science departments, he is not imcompetent, and would no doubt take some pried in his knowledge of scientific fact. Teachers can not just make up claims as they wish.

No proof.

How can we say that same sex orientation is not normal? Whilst it is a defect, and is not the usual, it has occured throughout our entire history, the bible states it was around over two millenia ago, further more, SSA occurs in other species, I don’t know how people can proclaim in all seriousness that it is a choice.

The actions are a choice. That mutations, or whatever, occur does not mean these things are the natural order. We are in a fallen world.

A person with a mental illness is “not normal” however would you wish for their human rights to be taken away? The fact that homosexuality is a genetic irregularity does not put that person on the same level as one who has a life threatening disease etc.

There is no “right” to a faux marriage. That is a central point. No one has any right to anything that is morally wrong.

 

[fix]

steve99:

We are sliding down not so much a slippery slope as off the edge of a precipice.

Yet, many still question folks as to why they are so concerned about these issues.

 

[Libero]

No proof.

There is no need to be quite so pedantic, i have said that I shall get the proof that ye of little faith require, and I have also stated that you can easily find the endocrine research. I have defended the credibility of my teacher, and also explained the situation. There is nothing more I can do, perhaps you should stop complaining about the proof.

The actions are a choice. That mutations, or whatever, occur does not mean these things are the natural order. We are in a fallen world.

And yet you will still see two male bullocks or two cows trying to have sex, will they be burning in eternal hellfire?

There is no “right” to a faux marriage. That is a central point. No one has any right to anything that is morally wrong.

In the Athesist 21st century, you cannot mix democratic politics with olden religious beleifs, the British and South African governments have created Civil Unions, not marriages, there is a reason for this, they are preserving rights and respecting religions, our governments will not force people to accept religious beliefs. If you wish to deny this, then it is pointless you engaging in this topic.

 

[fix]

Libero:

And yet you will still see two male bullocks or two cows trying to have sex, will they be burning in eternal hellfire?

The natural moral law is for humans, not cattle. Dogs often eat their own feces, does that prove it is natural?

In the Athesist 21st century, you cannot mix democratic politics with olden religious beleifs, the British and South African governments have created Civil Unions, not marriages, there is a reason for this, they are preserving rights and respecting religions, our governments will not force people to accept religious beliefs. If you wish to deny this, then it is pointless you engaging in this topic.

Truth does not change with time. Olden religious beliefs such as murder still hold true, no matter who rejects them.

 

[Libero]

The natural moral law is for humans, not cattle. Dogs often eat their own feces, does that prove it is natural?

Well that depends, if humans were to eat faeces, they would most probably cause their death, however, humans choosing to embrace their sexuality will not.

Truth does not change with time. Olden religious beliefs such as murder still hold true, no matter who rejects them.

People do not require religion to know that murder is wrong, do you not think that many years ago pagans who had to look into the eyes of the cowering children they were ordered to kill fealt unhappy?

 

[fix]

Libero:

Well that depends, if humans were to eat faeces, they would most probably cause their death, however, humans choosing to embrace their sexuality will not.

Embracing one’s sexuality as defined by the natural moral law.

People do not require religion to know that murder is wrong, do you not think that many years ago pagans who had to look into the eyes of the cowering children they were ordered to kill fealt unhappy?

People do not need to know homosexual conduct is wrong from religion, that is known from natural law.

 

[Gnosis]

Doesn’t natural law dictate that human beings should not fly for we do not have wings…yet we have airplanes…?

Isn’t part of being human being able to overcome the limitations set by nature?

 

[Ziggy]

Gnosis:

Doesn’t natural law dictate that human beings should not fly for we do not have wings…yet we have airplanes…?

Isn’t part of being human being able to overcome the limitations set by nature?

That’s just silly. We are still human on or off the plane, we didn’t overcome nature. To “overcome nature”, our human nature would have to change. But next time I see superman, I’ll ask for his secret to flying

 

[ThomasMore1535]

Gnosis:

Doesn’t natural law dictate that human beings should not fly for we do not have wings…yet we have airplanes…?

Isn’t part of being human being able to overcome the limitations set by nature?

Uhh…no, you obviously have no idea what the Church actually teaches on this matter.

Natural law refers to what is objectively right and what is objectively wrong from a moral standpoint. It is not, as you and so many other people think, a “religious opinion.” It is something that can be known through human reason. You say that we should not enforce our “morality” on anyone else. Does that include the moral notion that stealing is wrong? Of course not. Homosexual acts are objectively disordered because they are contrary to reason.

It is right that you do not have to be religious to know that murder is wrong. That’s the natural law working in you. You can know through reason that it is wrong. Certainly, the natural law is taught in the Ten Commandments, the Sermon on the Mount, etc. It is God’s wisdom imprinted on man’s soul. Yes, that’s right. God gave us reason as well. I’m sure that surprises someone like you who thinks that Christianity is nothing but a bunch of anti-intellectual hogwash. Protestantism may be, but Catholicism is not. It gives reasons for why it teaches that certain acts are wrong. That’s what others have been trying to tell you and those like you on this forum.

 

[ThomasMore1535]

Libero:

In the Athesist 21st century, you cannot mix democratic politics with olden religious beleifs, the British and South African governments have created Civil Unions, not marriages, there is a reason for this, they are preserving rights and respecting religions, our governments will not force people to accept religious beliefs. If you wish to deny this, then it is pointless you engaging in this topic.

How many times does this have to be explained…the fact that homosexual acts are objectively wrong is NOT a religious belief, any more than the notion that stealing or murder or lying are wrong are religious beliefs. Rather, they are part of the natural law, and by that I mean that they are things that can be KNOWN THROUGH HUMAN REASON. Everybody is bound by this.

I’m sure you would have a big problem if the Church did not condemn racism or try and solve human poverty. You would expect that of her, and rightly so. If she didn’t try and help the poor in Africa, thus “imposing her morality” which teaches that the poor have dignity and deserve our charity, you would probably be quite upset with her. Yet when she starts speaking on things that you disagree about, you go off accusing her of “sticking her head in politics” where she shouldn’t, rather than actually trying to engage her on the merits of what she has to say. Typical secularist hypocrisy.

 

[ThomasMore1535]

Gnosis:

Well, not really that funny, seeing as your faith is based on someone who was supposedly born of a virgin. Perhaps lesbians do have a chance to get pregnant with their partners? After all, Christ’s birth is one of the most widely known defiances of natural law.

Aside from the fact that you, in your attempt to be so “understanding” and “open minded” to other beliefs and cultures like the good liberal you no doubt are, have just uttered the worst blasphemy against Our Lord and His Immaculate Mother that I can possibly imagine, you again demonstrate a complete lack of understanding as to what the natural law is.

Natural law simply teaches what is morally right and what is morally wrong. God did not violate the natural law when He sent His Holy Spirit down to Our Lady, and caused the conception of His Son to come about in Her womb, because Our Lord’s conception was not the result of two human’s comming together. That was God Himself giving Himself over to the Blessed Virgin Mary to be her Divine Son. It was a miracle. Unlike lesbians, Mary did not have a “partner,” so-to-say. She was a virgin, in case you didn’t know. She never experienced the marital act. So there is absolutely no comparrison between her conceiving God Himself in her womb and two women committing fornication and the result being the conception of a child. God would never do that, because such acts are inherrently evil. There is nothing evil, by contrast, with Him sending His Holy Spirit to conceive His Only Begotten Son in the womb of the Most Holy and Immaculate Ever-Virgin Mary.

You are going to have to put forth better arguments than what you’ve given if you’re to be taken seriously.

 

[Digger71]

ThomasMore1535:

you no doubt are, have just uttered the worst blasphemy against Our Lord and His Immaculate Mother that I can possibly imagine, you again demonstrate a complete lack of understanding as to what the natural law is.

Do calm down. Gnosis has an interesting point. The virgin birth violates natural law.

ThomasMore1535:

Natural law simply teaches what is morally right and what is morally wrong.

Based on observation and scriptural filtration, aparent application of reason and tradition. No ‘simply’ about it.

ThomasMore1535:

God did not violate the natural law when He sent His Holy Spirit down to Our Lady, and caused the conception of His Son to come about in Her womb, because Our Lord’s conception was not the result of two human’s comming together.

Bestiality is OK?

ThomasMore1535:

That was God Himself giving Himself over to the Blessed Virgin Mary to be her Divine Son…

A time travel problem? Can you become your own parent? An incest problem? If you have a time machine and have sex with your own mother, and as a pair you conceive…

ThomasMore1535:

It was a miracle. Unlike lesbians, Mary did not have a “partner,” so-to-say.

Denial of the existance of God. God (holy spiritform) was her partner, by your account.

ThomasMore1535:

She was a virgin, in case you didn’t know.

was.

ThomasMore1535:

She never experienced the marital act.

No marriage = fornication.

ThomasMore1535:

So there is absolutely no comparrison between her conceiving God Himself in her womb and two women committing fornication and the result being the conception of a child.

I agree, you’ve made it sound a whole lot worse.

ThomasMore1535:

God would never do that,

Hubris, you know the mind of god.

ThomasMore1535:

because such acts are inherrently evil. There is nothing evil, by contrast, with Him sending His Holy Spirit to conceive His Only Begotten Son in the womb of the Most Holy and Immaculate Ever-Virgin Mary.

Except he wasnt married to her…QED fornication.

ThomasMore1535:

You are going to have to put forth better arguments than what you’ve given if you’re to be taken seriously

ThomasMore1535:

Beam, mote, pot, kettle, black

Now, remind me how faith illuminates reason, again?

 

[Walt_Oliver]

This discussion is completely off-topic and the charity exhibited here is…underwhelming. Thread closed.

Participants, please review your posts. If the same lack of charity shows up in other threads, suspensions will be meted out.

---

Thanks for your cooperation.

---

Walt