N
Nepenthe
Guest
Sure. And not just dogs either, but cats, rats, apes, squirrels and pretty much every mammal of which I have ever seen more than a few, male and female both.
- Status
P
Publisher
Guest
As a matter of fact…yes…my dad’s beagle was absolutely “in love” with his terrier…both males…
“Natural”? Homosexuality occurs in just about every species…birds do it…bees do it…can’t remember the rest of the Cole Porter song…but it is naturally occuring in creation.
M
Mirdath
Guest
‘Birds do it, bees do it, even educated fleas do it – let’s do it, let’s fall in love!’
Watching Tank Girl multiple times comes in handy!
Also, monogamous gay penguins hatching eggs.
I
iamrefreshed
Guest
I think Mirdath and Brianwalden have given us all a fine example of what these message boards are meant for.
I applaud you both for your respectful tone and the ability to respond to each others questions. I do not believe I have ever enjoyed reading a thread as much as this one.
Thanks!
I applaud you both for your respectful tone and the ability to respond to each others questions. I do not believe I have ever enjoyed reading a thread as much as this one.
Thanks!
E
emily47017
Guest
thank you, and gorillas, orangutans, chimps, dolphins, dugongs, voles, sheep, giraffes, elk, elephant seals…
that animals have homosexual sex is undeniable and irrelevant to human marriage.
M
Mirdath
Guest
Thank youI think Mirdath and Brianwalden have given us all a fine example of what these message boards are meant for.
I applaud you both for your respectful tone and the ability to respond to each others questions. I do not believe I have ever enjoyed reading a thread as much as this one.
Thanks!
N
nilofc
Guest
Do gay fleas have annual “Pride” parades in New York City too?
The article you posted is quite convincing…yeah… if your mind is so set on the gay agenda.
I can show you another study which says otherwise.
E
emily47017
Guest
i recommend biological exuberance by bruce bagamihl, though at 768 pages it’s not exactly light reading – pun intended.
also worth reading: homosexual activity among animals stirs debate if you do read this article, you’ll notice that the debate is “why”, not “whether”.
M
Mirdath
Guest
Go right ahead, show me those two penguins are completely imaginary
H
He_Man
Guest
No one debates the fact that living as a minority is fine by God. Many debate the fact that living as a practicing homosexual, in any relationship, is okay.
M
Mirdath
Guest
And many debated long and hard over whether interracial couples were okay – or did much, much worse things than debate – back in the day too.
H
He_Man
Guest
Animals also slaughter each other in droves, and defecate in front of one another. There has to be a better argument than “dogs do it.”
E
emily47017
Guest
anymore, you mean. when miscegenation laws were in effect, many debated the "natural"ness of racial mixing. living in a mixed race relationship was considered a threat to society. one might even say a threat to marriage itself.
B
Bishopite
Guest
Well, you did say " I don’t believe in an absolute ‘source’ of morality." And without an ultimate source everything and everyone being equal, no one can say what or who’s version of morality is superior to the other.No. I am not a relativist: I believe putting people in ovens and gas showers is universally wrong, no matter who does it. Come now, were I an honest relativist, I would not be here telling you your idea that it’s moral to oppose same-sex marriage is wrong, now would I? It’d be ‘right for you’ and I wouldn’t be able to say anything about it.
However, I am not a relativist. You’re wrong
Bickering? Ha, never.
Research whom? Jesus was the greatest philosopher ever. Now I could research him.Yes it was Dostoyevsky. His statement essentially says it all.
N
nilofc
Guest
I am not talking about visibility.Go right ahead, show me those two penguins are completely imaginary
Prove that these penguins who displays this behaviour is outright gay. And I can show you that being a homosexual is a mental disorder in human beings. But did I say that we shouldn’t respect them?
Actually they are accorded with the same respect as we give other people. But when they do homosexual acts, then it becomes intrinsically disordered.
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,140 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."141 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
E
emily47017
Guest
well, that’s certainly not what i’ve been saying. we didn’t bring it up – we only debunk the myth. this is from my first post on the topic:
B
Brendan
Guest
And males beating up sexual rivals occurs all throughout nature as well, perhaps we should make that legal too.
If one guy beats up another, he gets to take the losers mate for his own, OK? After all, it’s the ‘natural’ way of doing things.
B
brianwalden
Guest
I don’t think my opinion is better than yours. That’s why it’s left open to debate. Debate is much better than literal fighting. Why must we argue? Well this isn’t a utopia. I would like to agree as much as you would. Do you know how to make that happen?
I do think that society has the right to outlaw all alcohol if it feels its dangerous. However I don’t know how that would realistically happen in America without certain exceptions being built into the law, as was the case during Prohibition. This is a result of our system of lawmaking which attempts to listen to everyone’s voices. Plus the current marriage laws don’t prevent anyone from performing any type of religious marriage, the government just may not recognize it civilly.
You’re close to making a good point. I think that maybe the perceived implausibility of your example is keeping it from hitting home with me. Have you got an example from a real American law that was at one time passed? I will say in advance that sometimes the system fails - its a human system, it will fail. Slavery is an obviously example of this. But in general I believe that the more people we get voicing their full opinions the greater the chance for freedom. The more we try to limit people to purely politically correct ideas, the greater the chance of oppression.
Maybe you’ve got the wrong idea of how Christians view sacramental and natural marriage. They’re not two separate things. Instead sacramental marriage is a subset of natural marriage. Our concept of natural marriage is a union between one man and one woman. Sacramental marriage the same thing only it also makes God a part of the marriage. No one’s trying to get our rules for sacramental marriage passed as law.
We have no other types of marriage. There’s no concept of marriage which we determine for ourselves and marriage which other people determine for themselves. For us marriage is sitting there behind the curtain - we all know it’s there but can’t see exactly what it is. Defining marriage, then, is about society taking it’s best guess at what’s behind the curtain. It’s not, in the Catholic mind anyway, about making a vague outline so that everyone entertain their own best guess as to what’s behind the curtain. Maybe the differences in our two approaches are why we argue so much.
Why is the belief that marriage is the union between one man and one woman patently religious?
If the goal is to be open, the government should have no concept of marriage. But that’s not what the goal is. The goal is to create a legal definition of marriage. I’d much rather allow everyone to speak their minds openly whether they’ve reached their conclusions by religious, secular, or other means than to allow only PC ideas into the discussion.
Something isn’t a human right just because it’s not banned. Yes you’re allowed to do pretty much whatever society doesn’t prohibit, but that doesn’t mean its a human right. One state may have a law against jaywalking while another doesn’t. That doesn’t make jaywalking a human right in one state and not a human right in another. One state allows it, one doesn’t. Unless we’re talking about a declared right that’s being violated it’s not an issue of human rights.
B
brianwalden
Guest
All citizens can form whatever type of relationships with whichever citizens they want. The government doesn’t forbid anyone from doing so.
I agree that the government is the servant of society. Society decides the laws. That’s why Catholics, as members of society, speak out so much. I don’t believe government is above it’s proper position when it comes to marriage laws. The fact that the laws are changing as society changes should show that government is serving society as it should.
The Bible also has murder, rape, incest, polytheism, theft, war, etc. in it. Does that make all those things a part of natural law? And isn’t the claim of natural law, whether it’s true or not, that it can be known to all without relying on divine revelation? So what does something being in the Bible have to do with natural law?
N
Nepenthe
Guest
Our? Who’s ‘we’ kemosabe? You mean YOUR concept of natural marriage, and those like-minded.
Yeah, actually, it is. If you want to wear spandex, shove beans up your nose and cluck like a chicken whenever you order a latte, that is a-okay. Even I get the ickies when I think about people who get a thrill from wearing a scooby-doo suit in public (and, ew…in private), but I would be truly appalled if that were prohibited by law.
Also, what does ‘natural law’ have to do with anything? It’s a fictional convenience (unless you are talking about gravity and so forth), generally used and abused to justify some peoples’ indignations about people who either do not live similarly or have differing opinions.
- Status