Is lack of the ability to procreate the sole reason homosexual activity is a sin?

[gama232]

You didn’t answer the question. There is a difference between married men and women engaging in sex and two men and two women engaging in sex. The sex organs of men and women are naturally ordered for each other.

 

[Rau]

It would just be hard to get from here to ‘being Irish is immoral’.

Being Irish is no more or less immoral that being attracted to persons of the same sex. Any question of immorality attaches to acts. Gay parades in some cases declare and advertise behaviours with pride - behaviours many would find immoral.

 

[Rau]

How is two people you don’t even know having a sexual relationship an ‘affront’ to you?

The affront is that the State of which I’m a citizen endorses the sexual relationship of two men!

A man having sex with another man is not rejecting that model, he’s abstaining from it, the same as a heterosexual couple who chooses not to have children.

He’s not abstaining - he’s engaging his sexual capacity in a manner incongruent with his body.

 

[Rau]

I don’t see where one can derive the argument that something with multiple uses must only be used for one,

That argument isn’t being made. Men ejaculate semen in the ordinary course of a sexual act. I think it is generally accepted that this gives a strong clue as to the appropriate venue in which that sexual act is to occur. We know this from simple “observation”.

Of course these are rhetorical questions. I just always find the responses to them interesting.

Given their absurdity, I was going to ignore them. But then it occurred to me that plunging a knife into a man’s heart is not a murder that should be imputed to the one wielding the knife. After all, if God didn’t want that man harmed, he’d be fine.

 

[po18guy]

Except even the church recognizes there are non-reproductive purposes to sex, such as unity.

Of course! But, look at the first word you typed: “Except” - that is the exception. And “unity” is defined the same as marriage, right?

 

[Dan123]

The affront is that the State of which I’m a citizen endorses the sexual relationship of two men!

And? You still aren’t part of that relationship.

He’s not abstaining - he’s engaging his sexual capacity in a manner incongruent with his body.

They’re abstaining from procreation, the same as a fertile man marrying an infertile woman, which no one seems to have an issue with.

That argument isn’t being made. Men ejaculate semen in the ordinary course of a sexual act. I think it is generally accepted that this gives a strong clue as to the appropriate venue in which that sexual act is to occur. We know this from simple “observation”.

But men ejaculate semen regardless of how they reach orgasms, suggesting nature doesn’t care how one goes about doing that. And again just because a body part has multiple uses how does that make it immoral under any kind of ‘natural law’ to use it for other purposes?

And what then is the argument against two women being in a sexual relationship?

Of course! But, look at the first word you typed: “Except” - that is the exception.

I was indicating the argument made doesn’t hold up since no one claims sex only has one purpose.

 

[ZMystiCat]

In the media, a photo of two men I don’t know threatening to leave a state, and causing a brain drain, because that state does not recognize same-sex marriage.

That’s not being louder. If anything, I know nothing more about their private life than what I’d know about any heterosexual couple who talks publicly about being married. It’s them responding to a perceived injustice.

It appears that now that the US Supeme Court has legalized same-sex marriage that events leading up to it can be ignored.

Maybe because fighting for equal legal rights doesn’t follow from:

I’m sure my parents had sex but they never talked about it. However, LGBT people seem to think others must know about what they do in private.

 

[gama232]

Legalizing gay sex was the goal. Homosexual persons have that. What more do they want?

 

[ZMystiCat]

Legalizing gay sex was the goal. Homosexual persons have that. What more do they want?

Legalizing gay marriage was the biggest legal hurdle prior to mid-2015, and even to date it is still probably the biggest legal victory for the LGBT community, but it of course was never the only matter, and I’m not sure there were many in the community who claimed as much. This article from just a year after the Supreme Court decision showcased that there were still many ongoing battles, both legally and culturally.

 

[gama232]

The cultural aspect identifies what human sexuality is. Attempts to distort that meaning will be met by reasonable opposition. Any 5 year old asking mom or dad about two dads or two moms will need to tell their boy, at a proper age, the actual story. At 5 years of age, the parents should not encourage their son to bother any such group of people. They can live in peace. And violence is never allowed.

Transgender is a topic that will continue to come up with children and young adults. Either there are two separate restrooms and changing areas or more reasonable opposition. No biological girl should ever expect a biological young man in either area. Creating a sense of victimhood over this will be met with clear definitions of what constitutes being a biological male and female.

 

[Thorolfr]

Dan123:

How is two people you don’t even know having a sexual relationship an ‘affront’ to you?

The affront is that the State of which I’m a citizen endorses the sexual relationship of two men!

The state of which I’m a citizen does all sorts of things to which I object. But that’s not surprising since I doubt that anyone is a citizen of a state and supports all of its laws and policies. You might find same-sex marriage an affront, but you’re probably in a minority nowadays. The most you can do, if you live in a democracy, is to try and convince a majority of your fellow citizens to change the law.

 

[Rau]

They’re abstaining from procreation, the same as a fertile man marrying an infertile woman, which no one seems to have an issue with.

That is less than half the story of what they are doing.

But men ejaculate semen regardless of how they reach orgasms, suggesting nature doesn’t care how one goes about doing that.

Can “nature” care? Is nature intellectual? As I stated - the appropriate venue for for the act is evident. Was I addressing morality or just making an obvious observation about our nature?

And what then is the argument against two women being in a sexual relationship?

I make no argument (based on simple observation) other than to ponder why sexual desire in women is greatest at the time of ovulation. Does this suggest anything?

 

[Neithan]

They’re abstaining from procreation, the same as a fertile man marrying an infertile woman, which no one seems to have an issue with.

A man and woman are sexually unitive and capable of conjugal intercourse. If either were incapable of intercourse they could not have a valid marriage. And even a sterile man or infertile woman must be open to life in principle. Their infertility is relative to circumstances, either because of age or some other extraordinary defect. The infertility of two people of the same sex is absolute under any circumstances, they could not possibly be open to life or procreative. They are also absolutely incapable of a sexually unitive act since they’re the same sex.

 

[flamingpuppet]

Actually Scripture is very specific: homosexual intercourse is an abomination. All the way from the Pentateuch through Revelation. It ranks just below bestiality in wickedness.

 

[Freddy]

Sexual activity among gay men is the focus. Isn’t that the point of same-sex marriage?

You do seem to focus on what men do, Ed.

The point of same sex marriage is to allow two people of the same sex to enter into a lifetime comittment to each other. And that would include women as well.

 

[Neithan]

The point of same sex marriage is to allow two people of the same sex to enter into a lifetime comittment to each other. And that would include women as well.

The point was to give them the same legal rights as married couples. The grounds were liberty and equality. Obergefell was a split decision written by Justice Kennedy, the mastermind of Planned Parenthood v Casey which stated that people can decide what is real for themselves. It’s a philosophy that could, theoretically, legitimize any view of the world that has no ontological basis as long as enough people agree that it gives some people more liberty and equality. Now it’s an awkward precedent that U.S. common law has to contend with.

A legal reality of course is not the same thing as a natural reality. We have legal persons that are not natural persons. Now we have legal marriage that is not natural marriage.

 

[Freddy]

I make no argument (based on simple observation) other than to ponder why sexual desire in women is greatest at the time of ovulation. Does this suggest anything?

And men are built to desire sex almost every waking moment. Especially at a young age. Some error in the design there surely? Or is it accepted as being ‘entirely natural’? In which case abstinence would be against natural law.

 

[QContinuum]

Within 24 hours, in an event unprecedented in the history of the Church, Catholic theologians, going far beyond their authority, took out a full page ad in the New York Times to ‘correct’ the Pope.

Well, it’s a good thing nobody publicly corrects the Pope anymore.

 

[Freddy]

Actually Scripture is very specific: homosexual intercourse is an abomination. All the way from the Pentateuch through Revelation. It ranks just below bestiality in wickedness.

The small patter of applause you hear in the background is recognition that we achieved over 70 posts before bestiality was mentioned.

 

[QContinuum]

A man paralyzed in a way that destroys his sexual function technically can’t marry either.

He can’t consummate, you see.

Seems very reductionist.