Homosexual Acts are Not Against the Natural Law

  • Thread starter Thread starter DavidGonzalez
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Rau said:
The ACT is intrinsic to the bonding, and intrinsic to the act is the delivery of sperm. Can you not see a picture forming here? Why does THIS act both bond one person to another and transfer genetic material? The act intrinsically incorporates procreative potential.

**The release of an egg is not a chosen act by a woman. **

I am not making any universal argument. I am asking you to look at the male sexual act and see its full nature!
Click to expand...
It does not appear you answered his question.
Are women morally treated in a different way because of this difference?
If not then the conclusion would be that the transfer of the genetic material is irrelevant.
If yes then the double standard does not make any logical sense.
 
No one is born gay because no one is born sexually attracted to other ppl gay or straight. That is just wrong. Surely we can all see that
 
John_of_Woking said:
No one is born gay because no one is born sexually attracted to other ppl gay or straight. That is just wrong. Surely we can all see that
Click to expand...
No male child is born with male pattern baldness, but that does not mean that this is not in his genes. Nor is anyone born heterosexual.
 
Jaaanosik said:
It does not appear you answered his question.
Are women morally treated in a different way because of this difference?
If not then the conclusion would be that the transfer of the genetic material is irrelevant.
If yes then the double standard does not make any logical sense.
Click to expand...
Actually, he has.

Any act is made morally significant by the fact that it is an intentional act on the part of a moral agent.

WIthout moral agency there is no moral significance.

Women do not create or dispose of eggs by some intentional act on their part, well, aside from using artificial contraception.) Men can and do with regard to sperm. Hence, the moral difference.

I am not sure this can even be contested, but go ahead and try if you wish.
 
Peter_Plato said:
Actually, he has.

Any act is made morally significant by the fact that it is an intentional act on the part of a moral agent.

WIthout moral agency there is no moral significance.

Women do not create or dispose of eggs by some intentional act on their part, well, aside from using artificial contraception.) Men can and do with regard to sperm. Hence, the moral difference.

I am not sure this can even be contested, but go ahead and try if you wish.
Click to expand...
Further most women are completely unaware of when their eggs are released during their cycle. Those who use NFP must closely monitor their temperatures and other indications to determine the point in time they are ovulating. One could hardly be guilty of sin when ovulation is not under the woman’s control nor is she usually even aware.

In contrast a woman who sells her eggs IS like the man who “spills his seed” in that it’s an overt act in which she is complicit and further she receives payment for her services :eek:
 
Jaaanosik said:
It does not appear you answered his question.
Are women morally treated in a different way because of this difference?
If not then the conclusion would be that the transfer of the genetic material is irrelevant.
If yes then the double standard does not make any logical sense.
Click to expand...
Actually, I was not arguing a moral point, nor a universal point. I am simply asking the other poster to observe the nature of the act in which a man engages in sexual relations, and to see the obvious conclusion. There are ample moral and theological arguments in Church documents, such are already rejected on principle by the other poster.
 
John_of_Woking said:
No one is born gay because no one is born sexually attracted to other ppl gay or straight. That is just wrong. Surely we can all see that
Click to expand...
That seems to be a silly statement of the obvious, and it is also not a rejection of the argument put by some that “gayness”, or a predisposition to same sex orientation, is established at a very early stage in our development. Personally, I don’t know whether this is the case, but i can see no reason to discard the idea. We are biologically complex - things can go wrong.
 
Peter_Plato said:
Actually, he has.

Any act is made morally significant by the fact that it is an intentional act on the part of a moral agent.

WIthout moral agency there is no moral significance.

Women do not create or dispose of eggs by some intentional act on their part, well, aside from using artificial contraception.) Men can and do with regard to sperm. Hence, the moral difference.

I am not sure this can even be contested, but go ahead and try if you wish.
Click to expand...
I am confused.
Are you saying that lesbian sexual act is not immoral because women do not control the egg release?
Are you saying it’s not immoral at all?
… or …
If it is immoral then based on what merit?
 
Jaaanosik said:
I am confused.
Are you saying that lesbian sexual act is not immoral because women do not control the egg release?
Are you saying it’s not immoral at all?
… or …
If it is immoral then based on what merit?
Click to expand...
Lesbian sexual practices, unlike gay male sexual practices do not result in an egg “release.” This is completely separate from any sexual activity but is based on the ebb and flow of certain female hormones. Lesbian sexual acts are disordered, not open to life and not reflecting the appropriate use of our bodies as they were created. Further sexual expression is to be restricted to marriage and two Lesbians cannot marry.

Are you just being obtuse or do you not understand the complete difference between the functioning of a male and female reproductive tract? Understand that the complimentarity is the reason that males are created for females and females are created for males.
 
LisaA said:
Lesbian sexual practices, unlike gay male sexual practices do not result in an egg “release.” This is completely separate from any sexual activity but is based on the ebb and flow of certain female hormones. Lesbian sexual acts are disordered, not open to life and not reflecting the appropriate use of our bodies as they were created. Further sexual expression is to be restricted to marriage and two Lesbians cannot marry.

Are you just being obtuse or do you not understand the complete difference between the functioning of a male and female reproductive tract? Understand that the complimentarity is the reason that males are created for females and females are created for males.
Click to expand...
Are the lesbian sexual acts less immoral than gay male due to the fact that women do not control the egg release?
It appears to me that some posters here were implying that.
 
Jaaanosik said:
Are the lesbian sexual acts less immoral than gay male due to the fact that women do not control the egg release?
It appears to me that some posters here were implying that.
Click to expand...
I have no idea how you come to that conclusion or even that question. Sexual intimacy is to be limited to married couples. Lesbian or gay couples engaged in sexual activity are engaged in a grave sin. I think the reference to the difference between males and females and how the elements of conception are released from ovaries or testicles was related to the discussion of what constitutes sodomy…which in Biblical sense includes masturbation. When a male masturbates it is more obvious that he has “spilled his seed” a prohibited act. When a woman masturbates it is not necessarily related to ovulation which is monthly and based on her hormones and menstrual cycle.

Again are you being obtuse or do you really want to delve this deep into the subtle differences between male and female non-marital sexual activity? How about this, if it’s not between a married couple it’s a sin, a grave sin. I’m not sure there is the concept of degree.
 
**WOMEN AND CHILDREN FIRST. Why are homosexual lobbyists sucking all the air out of the room when women and children are at-risk? Where are the freedom fighters defending the right of women and children to be free from violence, with the rape rate on the increase and child sex trafficking endemic? Where are the child-loving homosexuals who wish to adopt children in the abortion war? All I’ve seen is male homosexual activists screaming for abortion rights. Prove me wrong. This very posting is another instance of going AWOL in the war to protect women and children. Am I allowed to use the word “crotchaholics?”

Move on and move against the violence against women and children. That is the “natural” role of men. Tell me what you are doing, not saying. What are you doing, natural man? What are you doing to protect the most vulnerable from predation? What are you doing to help the woman and child? Because child molestation and a lack of an emotional bond with the same-gender parent has been proved to be how homosexuals are created, not “natural law.” That’s like saying prostitution is a fact, so part of “natural law” when virtually every prostitute has been sexually victimized as a child. What are you doing to protect women and children? Homosexual males are among the richest, and most legally privileged demographic in America. What are you doing to protect the poorest and most legally endangered demographic, women and children? The proposal to include pregnant women under hate crimes was rejected. Is that natural? What are you doing for the disenfranchised? **
 
LisaA said:
I have no idea how you come to that conclusion or even that question. Sexual intimacy is to be limited to married couples. Lesbian or gay couples engaged in sexual activity are engaged in a grave sin. I think the reference to the difference between males and females and how the elements of conception are released from ovaries or testicles was related to the discussion of what constitutes sodomy…which in Biblical sense includes masturbation. When a male masturbates it is more obvious that he has “spilled his seed” a prohibited act. When a woman masturbates it is not necessarily related to ovulation which is monthly and based on her hormones and menstrual cycle.

Again are you being obtuse or do you really want to delve this deep into the subtle differences between male and female non-marital sexual activity? How about this, if it’s not between a married couple it’s a sin, a grave sin. I’m not sure there is the concept of degree.
Click to expand...
How do you understand the post #244?
 
Jaaanosik said:
How do you understand the post #244?
Click to expand...
Apologies. I haven’t had the chance to respond to your request, but I will in due course.

After reading through the sequence of posts that led to your question, it appears that some dots will need to be connected. Unfortunately, I don’t have the time and quiet space at the moment to do your question justice, but will get to it in a day or so.
 
This argument has no foundation at all…thankyou everyone for revealing all the holes in it.

This is based so much on modern individualistic thought…“I” was born this way; “I” have feelings; “I” have rights; “I” can do what ever “I” want. That is the world’s way of doing things…
 
Jerurussia said:
WOMEN AND CHILDREN FIRST. Why are homosexual lobbyists sucking all the air out of the room when women and children are at-risk? Where are the freedom fighters defending the right of women and children to be free from violence, with the rape rate on the increase and child sex trafficking endemic? Where are the child-loving homosexuals who wish to adopt children in the abortion war? All I’ve seen is male homosexual activists screaming for abortion rights. Prove me wrong. This very posting is another instance of going AWOL in the war to protect women and children. Am I allowed to use the word “crotchaholics?”

Move on and move against the violence against women and children. That is the “natural” role of men. Tell me what you are doing, not saying. What are you doing, natural man? What are you doing to protect the most vulnerable from predation? What are you doing to help the woman and child? Because child molestation and a lack of an emotional bond with the same-gender parent has been proved to be how homosexuals are created, not “natural law.” That’s like saying prostitution is a fact, so part of “natural law” when virtually every prostitute has been sexually victimized as a child. What are you doing to protect women and children? Homosexual males are among the richest, and most legally privileged demographic in America. What are you doing to protect the poorest and most legally endangered demographic, women and children? The proposal to include pregnant women under hate crimes was rejected. Is that natural? What are you doing for the disenfranchised?
Click to expand...
  1. For a long time in the news there were constantly legal battles about how LG couples were denied being able to adopt children so clearly some were interested in it.
  2. White homosexual males are on average wealthier due to higher education levels.
 
Joie_de_Vivre said:
  1. For a long time in the news there were constantly legal battles about how LG couples were denied being able to adopt children so clearly some were interested in it.
  2. White homosexual males are on average wealthier due to higher education levels.
Click to expand...
Regarding point 1, not only were gays and Lesbians interested in adopting, they (or their supporters) were able to get laws changed that put them on par with married couples as to adopting. As a result, many faith based adoption agencies were prevented from continuing to offer adoption services. I think this is wrong and not in the best interests of the child.

Regarding #2, also white homosexual males in a partnership generally have two income earners, again as you said with a higher educational level, a higher income.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top