Pick a side on gay issue!

[trustmc]

fix:

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.

Yes, very well put. I should have used the word homosexual to make my point clear.

Mike

 

[setter]

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.

Religious based = not admissible to debate. We are all familiar with this mantra.

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.

Sexual prefernce is the entire basis for these illicit unions. Period. Take away the sexual pleasure/gratification aspect, the “need” for these unions evaporates. You cannot say the same for complementary function and purpose of marriage which is a unique feature of heterosexuality.

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.

Lifestyle based on a disordered sexual preference is NOT a disadvantaged class of folks. I have natural law on my side for this assertion.

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

As I stated, humor is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Digger71]

rlg94086:

Once again, your talent for suspending all logical reasoning is scary.

Logical reasoning must be based on accurate understanding of empirical data, thus I quite expect it to disturb people.

But it is congenital.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger_syndrome

rlg94086:

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.

‘Proper’ is a subjective word and a biologist would not use it if being purely factual. ‘Function’ is also a subjective term. An objects function is what it is used for, it may have other potential uses, but these are theoretical until actually used in that fashion. Function also expands with experienc, imagination and necessity.

rlg94086:

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.

I would be most pleased to recieve it.

 

[rlg94086]

Digger71:

‘Proper’ is a subjective word and a biologist would not use it if being purely factual. ‘Function’ is also a subjective term. An objects function is what it is used for, it may have other potential uses, but these are theoretical until actually used in that fashion. Function also expands with experienc, imagination and necessity.
.

Really? A biologist would not tell you what the proper function of a heart is? Isn’t it to pump blood throughout our body? If it is beating irregularly, wouldn’t your doctor tell you it wasn’t functioning “properly?” What other use is there for a heart?

That is the most ridiculous thing you have said, so far. But, I’m sure you’ll come up with something else.

 

[Digger71]

trustmc:

Yes, this is the official teaching of the Catholic Church. A propensity or desire (temptation) to commit a sin is not sinful.

Indeed, I was being sloppy.

trustmc:

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:

I do not think it’s down to denomination, I think it has much more to do with personal preference.

trustmc:

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.

I submit that that many genes can be activated (or otherwise lie quiescent) until the correct environmental stimulus set them off so identical twins must share more than just the womb. I submit there are several phenotypes identified (hypermasculinisation, birth order as examples). I also submit life is a bit more complicated than you indicated.

trustmc:

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

Mike

Well, dont sprain anything.

 

[Digger71]

rlg94086:

Really? A biologist would not tell you what the proper function of a heart is? Isn’t it to pump blood throughout our body? If it is beating irregularly, wouldn’t your doctor tell you it wasn’t functioning “properly?” What other use is there for a heart?

That is the most ridiculous thing you have said, so far. But, I’m sure you’ll come up with something else.

As far as I can tell the heart has one function, but has been co-opted in the past to speedily distribute drugs through a body, and sometimes concentrated nutrients. These functions are based on the obvious function, and potentially always existed, but only became real when someone did it.

Other parts of the body have primary and co-primary functions. Is the mouth for eating, breathing, talking… And if someone refuses to talk (frustrating it co-primary purpose) is this sinful?

It is clear, looking at the genitals they do have other functions, and clearly simply disaproving of the use does not mean that use (and therefore function) does not exist.

I’m glad you think this is stupid, it simply highlights the difference between opinion and empiricism.

 

[rlg94086]

Digger71:

It is clear, looking at the genitals they do have other functions, and clearly simply disaproving of the use does not mean that use (and therefore function) does not exist.

Yes. I use mine to hammer nails.

 

[Digger71]

setter:

1. Religious based = not admissible to debate. We are all familiar with this mantra.

2.1 Sexual prefernce is the entire basis for these illicit unions. Period. Take away the sexual pleasure/gratification aspect, the “need” for these unions evaporates.

2.2You cannot say the same for complementary function and purpose of marriage which is a unique feature of heterosexuality.

3.1 Lifestyle based on a disordered sexual preference is
3.2 NOT a disadvantaged class of folks.

1. I have natural law on my side for this assertion.
2. As I stated, humor is in the eye of the beholder.

1. If the cap fits…

2.1 No, many of these relationships are based on deep and abiding love. You cannot accept this becuase you would have to accept a certain level of parity. If the feelings are the same (and they are) that leaves you only reproduction.
2.2 Yes I can. As thefeelings are the same, all you have is reproduction. The urge to reproduce is a powerful drive and I could easily write a description that would be highly inflamatory, very insulting, and could reframe your belief system in rudely animalistic ways. I wont.

3.1 Calling it disordered does not make it so. It is one of the natural range of God given human expressions of love.
3.2 love the sinner hate the sin, 100% heterosexuality. Which is the bigger myth?

1. Natural law…ok, if you say so.
2. Thanks

 

[Digger71]

rlg94086:

Yes. I use mine to hammer nails.

I thought I was the only one who did that…

 

[MikeinSD]

Digger71:

I thought I was the only one who did that…

How about an emergency floatation device?

 

[trustmc]

rlg94086:

Yes. I use mine to hammer nails.

digger71:

I thought I was the only one who did that…

MikeinSD:

How about an emergency floatation device?

Alright boys, let’s keep this clean, especially for our women readers. You’re not going to sway anyone with your locker room humor.

Mike

 

[rlg94086]

Sorry. Mine was to illustrate the absurdity of the argument. (and to lighten the tone of our disagreement)

trustmc:

Alright boys, let’s keep this clean, especially for our women readers. You’re not going to sway anyone with your locker room humor.

Mike

 

[trustmc]

rlg94086:

Sorry. Mine was to illustrate the absurdity of the argument. (and to lighten the tone of our disagreement)

I had to LOL at the exchange myself. But I’m a guy! And in the Army no less I can appreciate the barracks humor.

I just didn’t want the girls to be, like, huh? Like, I don’t get it. Will someone, like, please explain it to me? :ehh:

And then when someone does explain it, the moderator will jump on board and say something like: Dudes, not cool. I’ll shut you down!

This discussion is way too cool to go down on such a negative note like that.

Mike

 

[setter]

1. If the cap fits…

2.1 No, many of these relationships are based on deep and abiding love. You cannot accept this becuase you would have to accept a certain level of parity. If the feelings are the same (and they are) that leaves you only reproduction.

I suggest the book “The Four Loves” by C.S. Lewis as you confuse eros with friendship and mistake the infusion of erotica for agape love which is the highest form of love, that is love for the sake of love, feelings aside.

2.2 Yes I can. As thefeelings are the same, all you have is reproduction. The urge to reproduce is a powerful drive and I could easily write a description that would be highly inflamatory, very insulting, and could reframe your belief system in rudely animalistic ways. I wont.

I see that you attempt to side step the distiguishing reality of the fecundity (procreative) and integrity (complementary union) of married conjugal love. BTW – feelings do not determine reality, they simply offer us reports on what one would register as reality–sometimes accurate, other times quite missing the mark.

3.1 Calling it disordered does not make it so. It is one of the natural range of God given human expressions of love.

That clash of world views and beliefs, wherein some recognize and acknowledge the design of God, others do not.

3.2 love the sinner hate the sin, 100% heterosexuality. Which is the bigger myth?

In actuality, we are all disadvantaged and fall short of the glory of God. Why a special class for those so afflicted with SSA?

1. Natural law…ok, if you say so.

As well stated by fix:

Originally Posted by 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. Once this fundamental truth is rejected then we enter in a world of moral relativism that leads to chaos.

1. Thanks

My beholder is held in the gaze of my Beloved.

 

[BlindSheep]

Digger71:

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)

Not exactly. I believe, first of all, that it is not the government’s business to pass judgement on, or reward people for, the quality of their relationships (sexual or platonic). I believe that the reason marriage exists as a legal institution is primarily because it is desireable for procreation - that is, it creates a stable enviromment for raising children and grants them a more secure legal, financial and social position. Raising a family is hard work; it takes a great deal of time and resources, and children usually benefit from the involvement of both parents. Therefore, it is in the interests of society that parents have stable, commited relationships. To take privledges and benefits intended for those who are working hard to raise the next generation and giving them to David and Bob, who have a double income, no kids, and already have loads of excess time and money (there’s a reason gay couples are so frequently featured in home & garden magazines) is outrageous. What Dave & Bob do in their bedroom may give them pleasure, but it isn’t benefiting society in any way (at least in any way that society wouldn’t be helped by Dave & Bob living seperately and chastely). There aren’t any more sodomy laws to prevent them from having their sexual relationship; there are certainly no laws which say they cannot have an exclusive, lifelong relationship if they wish. But this alone is not enough to entitle them to any special benefit from the government. What on earth for?

 

[MikeinSD]

“Raising a family is hard work; it takes a great deal of time and resources, and children usually benefit from the involvement of both parents. Therefore, it is in the interests of society that parents have stable, commited relationships. To take privledges and benefits intended for those who are working hard to raise the next generation and giving them to David and Bob, who have a double income, no kids, and already have loads of excess time and money (there’s a reason gay couples are so frequently featured in home & garden magazines) is outrageous.”

Of course yr argument falls apart when applied to Carol and Maria raising their kids. Or if David and Bob have 3 kids. So it is the presence of children that determines whether a couple, str8 or gay, gets any public benefits. Like inheriting pension benefits, social security, sharing health care benefits. etc. Well, ok. I’m for that. No heteros get the financial benefits of marriage until they breed. No couples with one sterile partner get marriage benefits. No couples that get married after the woman’s menopause or a man’s sterilization get benefits. If the public support of marriage is mainly to support children then let’s enact laws that reflect that.

BTW, home & garden mags usually feature well to do white hetero couples showing off their new digs. Both are often on their 2nd marriages. I guess that is outrageous. Hope it doesn’t hit too close to home.

 

[Digger71]

setter:

I suggest the book “The Four Loves” by C.S. Lewis as you confuse eros with friendship and mistake the infusion of erotica for agape love which is the highest form of love, that is love for the sake of love, feelings aside.

Of course, the counter argument is that you prefer to believe gays have eros and friendship mixed up so that you can pretend gays are confused, and their feelings are different to yours (meaning yours are correct).

Everything I know about the subject informs me the feelings are the same. Denial of this fact by doctrine puts the doctrine in to question.

setter:

I see that you attempt to side step the distiguishing reality of the fecundity (procreative) and integrity (complementary union) of married conjugal love. BTW – feelings do not determine reality, they simply offer us reports on what one would register as reality–sometimes accurate, other times quite missing the mark.

Firstly, feeling normally define reality in the human spehere, people act or refrain from actions based on their feelings bringing about changes in the environmnent in accordance with their will. If someone does not want to have children, for example, generally they wont either by active or passive intervention. Feelings also act as a filter on perception, perception, being the doorway to the mind means feelings define your reality by filtration and interpretation.

As for the distinguishing reality? All you seem to be saying to me is “WE BREED, DAMMIT!”, and as I have noted before, so do fish, flies, and dogs, the difference being animals havent taken it to fetish/totem status, and non-breeding member are not treated as pariahs.

setter:

That clash of world views and beliefs, wherein some recognize and acknowledge the design of God, others do not.

And indeed some do see it, and deny it, calling it a confusion of eros and friendship.

In actuality, we are all disadvantaged and fall short of the glory of God. Why a special class for those so afflicted with SSA?

As far as I can tell, gay people (what is SSA?) want the same civil rights.

Why oh why do people insist that equality before the law and identical rights are ‘special’, it is not as if there is a limited pool of civil and legal rights and you will get less if they get more.

 

[rlg94086]

The argument doesn’t fall apart at all. The only reason government should encourage and support the institution of marriage is for the raising of children. The best way for that to occur is with a married man and woman who have children and stay together to raise them, so the kids have a mother and father. Therefore, you set up support for the ideal scenario.

Beyond that, the government should not get involved in the minutia (i.e. sterility, age of the two people, etc.). They do get involved in the divorce, when it comes to custody and child support, but divorce is not encouraged. As same sex parents are also not the ideal, this should not be encouraged either.

Are there problem heterosexual family situations - abuse, divorce, etc.? Yes. That would be no different in a same sex marriage, so please don’t bring up the canard that a loving same sex couple would be better than x, where x=(worst case heterosexual family).

“Raising a family is hard work; it takes a great deal of time and resources, and children usually benefit from the involvement of both parents. Therefore, it is in the interests of society that parents have stable, commited relationships. To take privledges and benefits intended for those who are working hard to raise the next generation and giving them to David and Bob, who have a double income, no kids, and already have loads of excess time and money (there’s a reason gay couples are so frequently featured in home & garden magazines) is outrageous.”

Of course yr argument falls apart when applied to Carol and Maria raising their kids. Or if David and Bob have 3 kids. So it is the presence of children that determines whether a couple, str8 or gay, gets any public benefits. Like inheriting pension benefits, social security, sharing health care benefits. etc. Well, ok. I’m for that. No heteros get the financial benefits of marriage until they breed. No couples with one sterile partner get marriage benefits. No couples that get married after the woman’s menopause or a man’s sterilization get benefits. If the public support of marriage is mainly to support children then let’s enact laws that reflect that.

BTW, home & garden mags usually feature well to do white hetero couples showing off their new digs. Both are often on their 2nd marriages. I guess that is outrageous. Hope it doesn’t hit too close to home.

 

[pnewton]

Digger71:

Now apply that same eye to detail to the supposed anti-gay passages in the bible. You will discover there is no blanket ban on homosexuality,… Thus the condemnation of homosexuality is not universal, despite somewhat shrill claims they are.

You have illustrated why the Bible is meaningless, or at least subject to abuse and twisting, without a divinely authoritative interpretor. The position of the Catholic Church is unequivicable, based on the same Bible. Homosexual acts are universally condemned as gravely sinful.

 

[BlindSheep]

MikeinSD:

Of course yr argument falls apart when applied to Carol and Maria raising their kids. Or if David and Bob have 3 kids.

Except that they aren’t “their” kids. The sexual relationship between them has nothing to do with the existance of the kids. The kids are only “theirs” by contract, and in either case are being deprived of a father, a mother, or both.
Concerning whether benefits should be applied to childless heterosexual couples: they are part of the same system of the foundation of a family consisting of one male and one female. Procreation affirms this natural arrangement, but it is not the only feature of it. It is in the nature of heterosexual relationships to be fertile, if nothing interferes - however, that potential is not part of a homosexual relationship, no matter what. No matter how young or healthy Carol and Marie are, they cannot have any children together, because it is not in the nature of a pair of women to procreate.

BTW, home & garden mags usually feature well to do white hetero couples showing off their new digs. Both are often on their 2nd marriages. I guess that is outrageous. Hope it doesn’t hit too close to home.

How many do you subscribe to? I subscribe to about 4, and 90% of the featured homes and gardens I’ve seen belonged to gay couples.
Yes, 2nd marriages are bad. No, it doesn’t hit close to home. I’m a separated mother of three living on a very modest income. No plans to divorce and remarry, since it would be wrong.