Non-religous arguments against gay marriage

[RyanL]

Entirely depends on the people in question. There are same sex couples whose “life-long sexual activities” are incredibly conservative and tame compared to the “life-long sexual activities” of some heterosexuals, even if the couples are monogamous. As I said before, there are possibly two or three specific sexual interactions that I can think of in which homosexuals may choose to engage that heterosexuals really can’t because of anatomy.

Again, we do not base the availability of civil marriage in this country on a questionnaire about the specific sexual activities (current or potential) of a heterosexual couple, so why should we for a same sex couple? In neither case are any of the potential sexual activities illegal when between unrelated consenting adults in private.

You’ve completely missed the point of the post.

Driving a car sometimes kills you, shooting yourself in the face with a 12-gauge always kills you.

Heterosexual sex is sometimes infertile, homosexual activities are always infertile.

It should be apparent that there’s a difference.

And you didn’t tell me if you’ve ever heard the old maxim that “hard cases make bad laws”.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[KarenNC]

That’s not why I quoted him. You were going on about all moral objections being religious, so I presented a non-religious figure with a moral objection. Since it’s not terribly relevant to the thread, I’d just as soon dismiss the matter.

Nope, sorry, that would have been someone else. I very definitely stated early on that morality is not the bailiwick of one particular religion or of religion at all.

Again, it’s not terribly relevant to the thread, but yes. You really should read Aquinas on this point, or at least think about common words like “animate” (anima = soul in Latin) and the implications it might have. You also might consider looking into the works of Suarez (1548-1617), since his works were hugely influential in forming the basis of modern conceptions of social justice.

If you want to argue that anything that is animate has the same sort of soul as a human being as understood by Christian theology, okay, but I would be a bit surprised if that was the standard Catholic or even general Christian theological viewpoint. I don’t really see a theological implication that Scooby Doo requires salvation because he is an “animated” character.

 

[KarenNC]

You’ve completely missed the point of the post.

Driving a car sometimes kills you, shooting yourself in the face with a 12-gauge always kills you.

Heterosexual sex is sometimes infertile, homosexual activities are always infertile.

It should be apparent that there’s a difference.

I quite understand the difference. I simply do not see that it is relevant. Heterosexual civil marriage is not predicated on fertility.

And you didn’t tell me if you’ve ever heard the old maxim that “hard cases make bad laws”.

Nope. More familiar with things like “what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander”, “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”, etc.

 

[RyanL]

If you want to argue that anything that is animate has the same sort of soul as a human being as understood by Christian theology, okay, but I would be a bit surprised if that was the standard Catholic or even general Christian theological viewpoint. I don’t really see a theological implication that Scooby Doo requires salvation because he is an “animated” character.

Seriously? … Seriously?

Scooby Doo salvation?

That’s what you think Aquinas teaches?

You didn’t even bother to google before you shot back?

You, who would chastize me (wrongly, I might add) for making “unwarranted assumptions”?

Your post shows an extreme ignorance of both Aristotelian and historical Christian thought, and demonstrates clearly what everyone else seems to already know – namely, you don’t care what we have to say. You neither consider the merits of our arguments nor allow us to explain. You’re stuck knee-jerk, nit-picking and never substantively engage us.

In short, you’re exceedingly close-minded while simultaneously lacking the background knowledge with which to make an intelligent, informed opinion on matters religious or political/legal-philosophical. What’s worse – you don’t even care!

I offered you the opportunity to engage in more enlightened dialog several posts back and, for my efforts, received a reply of “maybe later” (which never came, despite several flurries posts from you) and the present rather ridiculous reply about Scooby Doo, mocking a straw-man theology with narry a second thought.

Unless you do something remarkably out of character, I’m afraid I’m done here.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[Ferdinand_Mary]

Thank you to all who participated – this thread is now closed.

Mane Nobiscum Domine,
Ferdinand Mary