Pick a side on gay issue!

[Digger71]

BlindSheep:

However, if you wish to define marriage in this way, take the next step and explain why commited sexual relationships are so important that the govenment should actively encourage and recognise them.

I would say because committed relationships improve the health of both partners, they stabalise, they reduce excesses (such as alcohol consumption), they reduce casual sex. Economically speaking ‘married’ couples are cheaper needing less health care and taking fewer days off work. In terms of communities a stable committed relationship is a great example to set kids, gay or straight.

As I have said before, those who oppose same-sex unions are deliberately creating an unstable sub-class and denying the known benefits of a stable relationship to the same-sex couples, and to society as a whole.

 

[Digger71]

BlindSheep:

Can I ask you to do me a favor and stop using the condescending term “breeding”? It is offensive.

Is it? I’m not the one who keeps holding up babies and saying ‘it’s not valid unless it creates these!’. Well, the objective non-emotional term to use for this is ‘breeding’. And the more breeding is going to be held up as a strident condemnation of same-sex relationships, the more I will point out that you are talking about breeding. Cats, flies, horses, plants, and fish do it.

I am not deriding the activity. I do deride it when viewed as the only important factor in marriage, because of course, I value love, loyalty, courage, support, kindness and so on. Reproduction is part of most marriages, but it is not universal.

 

[Digger71]

BlindSheep:

No, it was you who misunderstood me.

Oh, I’m sorry, I thought you wrote the folowing:

This is what marriage really is, and so in this sense two men have no more “right” to marry than they have to get pregnant or breastfeed

Clearly men do not get pregnant but they clearly do fall in love and form permanent couples. The application of the word ‘right’ in your description is odd. Rights are defined by the legal framework and the ability to enforce that frame work.

Regardless of what a government decreed, men would not get pregnant, likewise regardless of what a government decrees, same-sex couples form.

Empirically your examples are flawed, I am not sure that you understand the word ‘right’ in the context, and some men do lactate.

So, I don’t think I misunderstood you. I think I took you literally.

 

[BlindSheep]

Digger71:

Oh, I’m sorry, I thought you wrote the folowing:

This is what marriage really is, and so in this sense two men have no more “right” to marry than they have to get pregnant or breastfeed

Clearly men do not get pregnant but they clearly do fall in love and form permanent couples. The application of the word ‘right’ in your description is odd. Rights are defined by the legal framework and the ability to enforce that frame work.

Regardless of what a government decreed, men would not get pregnant, likewise regardless of what a government decrees, same-sex couples form.

Empirically your examples are flawed, I am not sure that you understand the word ‘right’ in the context, and some men do lactate.

So, I don’t think I misunderstood you. I think I took you literally.

No, because that is precisely my point. Men do not get pregnant, and they do not form marriages with other men. They have sexual relationships with other men, but marriages are more than just sexual relationships.
Regarding your previous posts, I’ll answer in one post. Monogamy has been shown to improve health for heterosexuals. For homosexuals, there is not enough of it to say anything about it, since “commited” homosexual relationships are usually NOT exclusive. Furthermore, an open sexual relationship between two men does NOT set a good example, it sets an example of sexual license and self indulgence even when it is exclusive. Can you list any “benefits” of homosexual “marriage” that do not occur with homosexual chastity? Reducing promiscuity is not a benefit of “marriage”, since promiscuity can be avoided without it.
And the term breeding is most certainly not an objective, unemotional term as you claim. It is a loaded term when used to refer to humans, and carries a connotation of disgust and disdain for parents and for children. I would not engage in an ad hominem attack by claiming that you hate children and families, but I suggest that if you don’t you shouldn’t use words that imply it.
By the way, I too value love, loyalty, courage, support, kindness. I just do not think this is the definition of marriage. It could just as easily be the definition of friendship - do you think the govenment should officially recognise friendships?

 

[Digger71]

BlindSheep:

No, because that is precisely my point. Men do not get pregnant, and they do not form marriages with other men.

I find your logic a bit tortured, your first point is clearly true but being unable to get pregnant is incidental, not wilful, to their love.

The second point is clearly false as several countries have same-sex marriage, and its not just just lesbians doing the marrying.

The problem here is that I am refering to the legal framework and emotional content of a marriage, while I suspect your definition has other prerequisites.

BlindSheep:

They have sexual relationships with other men, but marriages are more than just sexual relationships.

Which is my point exactly.

BlindSheep:

Regarding your previous posts, I’ll answer in one post. Monogamy has been shown to improve health for heterosexuals. For homosexuals, there is not enough of it to say anything about it, since “commited” homosexual relationships are usually NOT exclusive.

I know several exclusive gay-male relationships, in fact most are monogamous. I do know a couple of open-relationships, which I will comment on after you next quote.

BlindSheep:

Furthermore, an open sexual relationship between two men does NOT set a good example, it sets an example of sexual license and self indulgence even when it is exclusive.

As you assertion about most stable gay relationships are ‘open’ is not proven, the follow-up statement (‘not a good example’) is highly suspect because it is not clear that is the example that would be set.

Even it was true the example set would be “this is how to have a stable relationship if you are gay”. People need stability in their lives, and if the choice is between “unstable, sexual self indulgence” and “stable sexual indulgence” then I know which is(margianlly) better.

BlindSheep:

Can you list any “benefits” of homosexual “marriage” that do not occur with homosexual chastity? Reducing promiscuity is not a benefit of “marriage”, since promiscuity can be avoided without it.

Unfortunately, we know from direct experience of excluding people from the benefits of society and it’s institutions that we create unstable sub-cultures, drive people to extreme behaviour, increase anomie, and so create the very behaviour that we then use to justify exclusion.

You have also conflated the sexual activity in an open relationship (which in the examples I know of is low-moderate) to the activities at saunas, darkrooms, and specialist clubs (which is high to “How Many!!!”)

BlindSheep:

And the term breeding is most certainly not an objective, unemotional term as you claim. It is a loaded term when used to refer to humans, and carries a connotation of disgust and disdain for parents and for children.

That is not how I see the term. But you have dismissed my arguments about loyalty, fidelity, intimacy, and commitment; you return to holding up children as being the defining characteristic of a marriage. As you dismiss higher feelings it seems perfectly reasonable to me that we should call the activity ‘breeding’.

When you recognise there is more to marriage than children, I will change my language.

BlindSheep:

By the way, I too value love, loyalty, courage, support, kindness. I just do not think this is the definition of marriage. It could just as easily be the definition of friendship - do you think the govenment should officially recognise friendships?

You see, you keep insisting marriage means children, and nothing else will do. Well, that’s your perogative, but I do not accept or agree that children are a precondition.

Oh, and I would actually support civil-unions for some types of friendships.

 

[Digger71]

BlindSheep:

Can you list any “benefits” of homosexual “marriage” that do not occur with homosexual chastity? Reducing promiscuity is not a benefit of “marriage”, since promiscuity can be avoided without it.

just for fun

Ecclesiastes 4:9-11 “Two are better than one; because they have a good reward for their labour. For if they fall, the one will lift up his fellow: but woe to him that is alone when he falleth; for he hath not another to help him up. Again, if two lie together, then they have heat: but how can one be warm alone?”

 

[setter]

Digger71:

just for fun

Ecclesiastes 4:9-11 “Two are better than one; because they have a good reward for their labour. For if they fall, the one will lift up his fellow: but woe to him that is alone when he falleth; for he hath not another to help him up. Again, if two lie together, then they have heat: but how can one be warm alone?”

Your humor is lost on me and I find it a bit tortured.

I note how those enslaved or sympathetic to the gay activist camp see and interpret and apply (and find funny) homosexual meaning where there is none.

“Either make the tree good, and its fruit good; or make the tree bad, and its fruit bad; for the tree is known by its fruit. You brood of vipers! how can you speak good, when you are evil? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. The good man out of his good treasure brings forth good, and the evil man out of his evil treasure brings forth evil. I tell you, on the day of judgment men will render account for every careless word they utter; for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.” Matt.12:33-37

 

[setter]

Digger71:

Of course, laws can reflect morality, but they can also reflect immorality. Ethics strikes me as a better grounding.

Laws without firm grounding in the Ten Commandments and natural law can reflect immorality. Ethics is a certain way to circumvent revealed morals and leave legislation suspectible to the arbitrary reasoning of man apart from reference to absolutes.

Moral theology, correctly understood, means the science of supernaturally revealed morals. Hence, they cannot speak of moral theology who reject supernatural Revelation; the most they can do is to discourse on natural ethics. But to distinguish between moral theology and ethics is sooner or later to admit a science of ethics without God and religion. That this contains an essential contradiction, is plain to everyone who analyzes the ideas of moral rectitude and moral perversion, or the concept of an absolute duty which forces itself with unrelenting persistency on all who have attained the use of reason. Without God, an absolute duty is inconceivable, because there is nobody to impose obligation.

new advent – ethics+morals+catholic

 

[setter]

Originally Posted by** Digger71**
I would say because committed relationships improve the health of both partners, they stabalise, they reduce excesses (such as alcohol consumption), they reduce casual sex. Economically speaking ‘married’ couples are cheaper needing less health care and taking fewer days off work. In terms of communities a stable committed relationship is a great example to set kids, gay or straight.

Legitimizing “committed relationships” that are based solely on sexual preference simply puts a band aid over the symptoms of a psychopathology of disordered attraction and desire. This does no one any favors. It denies and neglects the far more important eternal well being of each of God’s creatures. God’s laws are unchanging and immutable and to violate them brings upon one and society negative consequences. No “great example” in legitimizing sin choices for purporting to offer temporal relief of symptoms.

As I have said before, those who oppose same-sex unions are deliberately creating an unstable sub-class and denying the known benefits of a stable relationship to the same-sex couples, and to society as a whole.

Those choosing to engage in licentiousness now qualify as a disadvantaged, victim status “sub-class”? I do not buy it and wonder what empirical evidence that you have to substantiate the contention that society as a whole would benefit from legitimizing and condoning a sinful sexual lifestyle. The real solution is for those committing the sin and incurring the consequences for their sinful choices to take ownership and make amends to society in both temporal and spiritual terms.

 

[Digger71]

Setter, thanks for your posts but they do not add to debate. It may be the tone; perhaps you dont see that as I and many others do not consider homosexuality to be a sin, or evil, that your quote about evil is, to many, a better description of religious based homophobia.

Of course, in supporting same-sex civil unions we are not legitimising based soley on sexual preference (an accusation that could be leveled squarly at opposite sex marriages), but a recognition of the depth of love, loyalty and committment between people. This is of course the argument with BlindSheep, his argument is that these are good but not sufficient, or indeed needed, reproduction is sufficient. Obviously I believe the results of marriage are far more than ‘just’ children)

Of course, you do manage to blame the victims too. But you take look at any number of studies of disadvantage to see the effects of exclusion. Your tirade that these victims of homophobia should be disadvantaged on earth (as well asgoing to hell) reminds me that hate the sin, love the sinner is as distant an ideal as 100% heterosexuality.

Finally, I’m sorry my senseof humour is lost on you. But rest assured it was funny.

 

[rlg94086]

Digger71:

Setter, thanks for your posts but they do not add to debate. It may be the tone; perhaps you dont see that as I and many others do not consider homosexuality to be a sin, or evil, that your quote about evil is, to many, a better description of religious based homophobia.

Main Entry: ho·mo·pho·bia webster.com/images/audio.gif
Pronunciation: "hO-m&-'fO-bE-&
Function: noun
: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals

Please explain how a religious belief that homosexual acts are a sin and therefore, same-sex unions are a sin, is irrational.

As Catholics, we look to our Church and the Catechism to define sin. Heretics look to their own personal opinion to justify sin.

 

[fix]

Digger71:

Setter, thanks for your posts but they do not add to debate. It may be the tone; perhaps you dont see that as I and many others do not consider homosexuality to be a sin, or evil, that your quote about evil is, to many, a better description of religious based homophobia.

Truth is hate, to those who hate truth.

Of course, in supporting same-sex civil unions we are not legitimising based soley on sexual preference (an accusation that could be leveled squarly at opposite sex marriages), but a recognition of the depth of love, loyalty and committment between people. This is of course the argument with BlindSheep, his argument is that these are good but not sufficient, or indeed needed, reproduction is sufficient. Obviously I believe the results of marriage are far more than ‘just’ children)

That is because you fail to grasp the the two sexes exist for a reason and are ordered the way they are for a purpose. Once this fundamental truth is rejected then we enter in a world of moral relativism that leads to chaos.

Of course, you do manage to blame the victims too. But you take look at any number of studies of disadvantage to see the effects of exclusion. Your tirade that these victims of homophobia should be disadvantaged on earth (as well asgoing to hell) reminds me that hate the sin, love the sinner is as distant an ideal as 100% heterosexuality.

Victims? Why do folks employ this tactic? One chooses to act out in a way that is morally incorrect and then they claim victimhood?

 

[rlg94086]

fix:

That is because you fail to grasp the the two sexes exist for a reason and are ordered the way they are for a purpose.

You don’t even need the Church to figure that out…Biology 101 will do the trick.

 

[trustmc]

fix:

One chooses to act out in a way that is morally incorrect and then they claim victimhood?

Before anyone wastes any more key strokes replying to this, let’s make one thing clear as Catholics: We don’t believe that homosexuals choose to be attracted to the same sex anymore than heterosexuals choose to be attracted to the opposite sex. But we do believe that one can always choose to act on those desires. I don’t think fix meant to imply that people choose to be gay. But they do choose to act gay.

Hello Digger71. I haven’t forgotten about this thread. Your rebuttals require more time for a response than I have right now. More to follow…

Mike

 

[Digger71]

rlg94086:

You don’t even need the Church to figure that out…Biology 101 will do the trick.

Arguments from design are theology, not biology. Organs can have primary, co-primary and redundant functions and expactation (for example) demonstrates that function is somewhat variable. You can infact say the function of an organ is what it does or is used for.

Of course, those sorts of topics are not covered in biology 101. 101 is for kids isn’t it?

 

[rlg94086]

Once again, your talent for suspending all logical reasoning is scary. Yes, there are a couple of other uses biologically for the reproductive organs, but certainly a biologist can explain to you the proper function and use of these organs.

Biology 101 would be an entry-level college course. However, I’m pretty certain my Middle School student at home could explain the biological functions of the reproductive organs. If you would like, I will have her write an essay explaining it to you.

Digger71:

Arguments from design are theology, not biology. Organs can have primary, co-primary and redundant functions and expactation (for example) demonstrates that function is somewhat variable. You can infact say the function of an organ is what it does or is used for.

Of course, those sorts of topics are not covered in biology 101. 101 is for kids isn’t it?

 

[Digger71]

trustmc:

Before anyone wastes any more key strokes replying to this, let’s make one thing clear as Catholics: We don’t believe that homosexuals choose to be attracted to the same sex anymore than heterosexuals choose to be attracted to the opposite sex. But we do believe that one can always choose to act on those desires. I don’t think fix meant to imply that people choose to be gay. But they do choose to act gay.

Well, with respect, that is not universally true is it? Some actually do believe it is a choice (that is sexual orientation). This view is dying out, true, as evidence of the congenital nature of at least some homosexual phenotypes is revealed, and I expect to vanish completely in the future.

But I do accept your point I that many people do not think homosexuality itself is sinful, but acting on it.

trustmc:

Hello Digger71. I haven’t forgotten about this thread. Your rebuttals require more time for a response than I have right now. More to follow…

Mike

That’s OK, I have been looking out for you.

 

[fix]

trustmc:

Before anyone wastes any more key strokes replying to this, let’s make one thing clear as Catholics: We don’t believe that homosexuals choose to be attracted to the same sex anymore than heterosexuals choose to be attracted to the opposite sex. But we do believe that one can always choose to act on those desires. I don’t think fix meant to imply that people choose to be gay. But they do choose to act gay.

Hello Digger71. I haven’t forgotten about this thread. Your rebuttals require more time for a response than I have right now. More to follow…

Mike

Well, more specfically people do choose to be “gay” That word is a contrived term that represents a political and cultural movement, not an objective biological state.

In any event, I think it is understood that one who is attracted to the same sex is not sinning, although such an attraction is not ordered correctly.

 

[fix]

Digger71:

Arguments from design are theology, not biology. Organs can have primary, co-primary and redundant functions and expactation (for example) demonstrates that function is somewhat variable. You can infact say the function of an organ is what it does or is used for.

Of course, those sorts of topics are not covered in biology 101. 101 is for kids isn’t it?

Is this reasonable? You imply organs can have multiple functions intending every act is simply a biologic function that is part of our nature.

 

[trustmc]

Digger71:

Well, with respect, that is not universally true is it? Some actually do believe it is a choice (that is sexual orientation). This view is dying out, true, as evidence of the congenital nature of at least some homosexual phenotypes is revealed, and I expect to vanish completely in the future.

But I do accept your point I that many people do not think homosexuality itself is sinful, but acting on it.

Yes, this is the official teaching of the Catholic Church. A propensity or desire (temptation) to commit a sin is not sinful. Other Christian traditions are not theologically sophisticated enough to make this distinction. And, unfortunately, many Catholics aren’t learned enough in their own faith to know this.:banghead:

As for the congenital nature of homosexuality, I would submit that studies of identical twins with different sexual orientations disproves the inborn origin of this particular behavior.

Now back to work for me! I don’t get paid to surf the net.:tsktsk:

Mike