Pick a side on gay issue!

[Digger71]

fix:

The laws must not contradict reason and the natural law. If they do, they are not just laws.

Civil law does not have this limitaation.

fix:

Emotions are not reason and are no basis for law or perceiving reality correctly. Marriage is not simply about “feeling” a certain way, if that were true then when one stopped “feeling” that way the marriage would be no longer be a marriage. Such nonsense happens all the time and we see the results of such a poor understanding of marriage.

Clearly civil unions seek to make rights and duties permananent through contract and covenant. Marriages do not dissolve when the feelings change…that requires the activation of more civil laws.

I am not sure where you are comming from here, as I have clearly noted the legal framework that makes a marriage. Perhaps you are confused by having two discussions going on, one about the emotional content that leads peole to want to marry, and the other, that marriage has a legal framework that these people use to become married.

Is this a difficult concept? Or am I mistaken in thinking that people get married to the people they get married to (generally) because of their emotional committment?

 

[setter]

fix:

The laws must not contradict reason and the natural law. If they do, they are not just laws.

Emotions are not reason and are no basis for law or perceiving reality correctly. Marriage is not simply about “feeling” a certain way, if that were true then when one stopped “feeling” that way the marriage would be no longer be a marriage. Such nonsense happens all the time and we see the results of such a poor understanding of marriage.

Nicely stated in the context of this discussion. Those who persist in citing “emotions” or “feelings” as the basis and rationale for sanctifying illicit unions, i.e., those unions which transgress natural and moral law, do so because they cannot defend against what God has naturally and supernaturally revealed as truth.

 

[fix]

Digger71:

Civil law does not have this limitaation.

It certainly does. The state may allow slavery, that does not make it just or reasonable.

Clearly civil unions seek to make rights and duties permananent through contract and covenant. Marriages do not dissolve when the feelings change…that requires the activation of more civil laws.

I am not sure where you are comming from here, as I have clearly noted the legal framework that makes a marriage. Perhaps you are confused by having two discussions going on, one about the emotional content that leads peole to want to marry, and the other, that marriage has a legal framework that these people use to become married.

Is this a difficult concept? Or am I mistaken in thinking that people get married to the people they get married to (generally) because of their emotional committment?

You are arguing that folks marry based on emotion and that the laws should legitimize these emotions?

 

[fix]

setter:

Nicely stated in the context of this discussion. Those who persist in citing “emotions” or “feelings” as the basis and rationale for sanctifying illicit unions, i.e., those unions which transgress natural and moral law, do so because they cannot defend against what God has naturally and supernaturally revealed as truth.

Yes, I cannot understand the argument that emotions are good reasons for any law or any important action.

 

[Digger71]

fix:

It certainly does. The state may allow slavery, that does not make it just or reasonable.

You are arguing that folks marry based on emotion and that the laws should legitimize these emotions?

If the state does allow slavery, but slavery is neither just nor reasonable, you have simply demonstrated that laws do not have to be just or reasonable, not the other way around. You may mean ‘should’ as opposed to ‘must’.

No, again wrong. I am arguing people want to get married because of their emotional committment to eachother (to keep it simple), that marriage has benefits for both the participants and the rest of society (so should be encouraged), and that encouragement to form stable relationships is provided by the state via marriage.

 

[Digger71]

fix:

Yes, I cannot understand the argument that emotions are good reasons for any law or any important action.

Luckily, no such argument has been put forward.

 

[fix]

Digger71:

If the state does allow slavery, but slavery is neither just nor reasonable, you have simply demonstrated that laws do not have to be just or reasonable, not the other way around. You may mean ‘should’ as opposed to ‘must’.

I mean ought. The fact is civil laws may contradict the good, that is no argument that laws ought to contradict the good,or that unjust laws should not be abolished.

No, again wrong. I am arguing people want to get married because of their emotional committment to eachother (to keep it simple), that marriage has benefits for both the participants and the rest of society (so should be encouraged), and that encouragement to form stable relationships is provided by the state via marriage.

That may be your position, but it is not reasonable as it specifically leaves out important elements that go to the very nature of marriage and why civil laws must reflect that nature.

 

[BlindSheep]

Digger71:

Your list is entirely sexualised.

Monogamous = sex with each other only
permanent sexual relationship = explicitly sexual
one man + one woman = genital based/ or XX/XY
open to life = babies, one outcome of sex.

Once again, I have to point out that these things flow from the relationship and the quality of the emotions between the members of the couple. They are not usually the reason the couple formed:

Jane: “I want to have babies with a monogamous life-long sexually active man. What do you think about that?”

Joe: “I don’t love you, I think you’re ugly but I’m a real stud-muffin and want babies…lets do it! But don’t expect emotional support, I’m a stud, not a counsellor.”

The complete de-emphasis of the quality of the emotional relationship certainly does come from you. If you really value these, they seem diminished in what you have written.

Further, you deliberately conflate strong committed relationships with the peculiar (by quality and quantity) set of emotions that lead people to want to publicly commit to a permannent convenant and contract of mutual care. These feelings usually have a strong sexual component but not always.

Again we return to what you are writing. If you really cannot see falling in love and wanting to make a public legal committment is different to ‘just friends’ then we are seeing a pattern here:

1. Over empahsis on sex
2. Reversal of causative flow of emotions
3. Conflation of relationship types

This is lip-service to the emotional aspects, and sex obsessed, and despite your protestations to the contrary, your posts reflect this.

Now I do think gay relationships embody a deeper and more elevated form of friendship than ‘just friends’, note the adjectives ‘deeper’ ‘evelated’, these are used to distinguish the qualities from your pupative stereotypical friendship. So when you are talking about ‘freindship’, I am acutely aware that we are again talking about different things.

It sounds to me as though you want to deny the sexual nature of marriage, as well as the sexual nature of homo**sexual **relationships. I could make assumptions about your psychology and the state of your relationships based on this, but I won’t, since your personal life is not relevant to this discussion.
You say gay relationships are a “deeper” form of friendship. Whatever you mean by “deeper”, I know what “gay” means, and it refers to a sexual relationship, or at least to sexual (and romantic, which is related) feelings. Unless you are saying that two men or two women who have a very deep, devoted, lifelong friendship which is not sexual are gay, you are shifting the focus away from what makes homosexual relationships homosexual.
Are you arguing that a relationship which never had or was intended to have a sexual componant is a marriage? If so, I think your “evolved” definition has veered far enough away from the English language that there is little danger of anyone taking your position seriously.

 

[BlindSheep]

Digger71:

Not at all. I am merely reflecting back to you the implications of your post.

You know, I really don’t care what you think about me. You can imagine whatever you like.

Well, this will just lead to circular arguments about ‘definitions’ of marriage. Needless to say, there is no legal requirement to have children; there is no legal requirement to anul marriages that are child free; there is no legal barring of post-menopausal women or impotent men from marrying; there is no legal requirements against severely disabled people marrying.
They may not count as religious marriages, but certainly they have legal status. Where are the interminable threads about these groups? Where are your demands to end these sham marriages?

Actually, they do count as religious marriages, and you’ll note I said earlier that procreation was not the entire reason heterosexual relationships are different, but rather the most obvious evidence of it.
If you’ll read the previous posts, another poster also addressed this.

And, though I do not feel compelled to progress the adoption argument, the responsibilities of child rearing certainly can fall on the shoulders of same sex couples. Thus fulfilling your criteria.

Even if I felt such homes were appropriate, which I don’t, the fact still remains that the couple did not produce the child, and that the sexual nature of their relationship (which is what makes it “gay”) does not benefit the child in any way.

Not universally, as you well know.

And yet, homosexual relationships are universally infertile.

It’s not funny, it is one outcome of sex.

Heterosexual sex.

Well, you amply demonstrate your argument is just another version of “what if everyone turned gay?”
And, as I understand it if everyone became chaste/celibate for the right reasons, this would be a good outcome according to the church. The end of the human race through spiritual enlightenment.

I have never heard such a thing said by the Church. This is not consistant with what Christians believe about the end of the world, at the very least.
You still seem to think that I am painting a picture of some alarmist “doomsday” scenario of what will happen if homosexuality becomes fully accepted by society. Let me make it clear - I do not actually believe that will ever happen. I said it to illustrate that while heterosexual sex serves an objective purpose, homosexual sex does not, and therefore they cannot be called “equal”.

Oh, and simplistic, gay people have always been parents.

Not through being gay - in spite of it.

oh, and worse still, we know of species with near 100% homosexality that breed perfectly well.

And yet, they do not breed through homosexuality, do they? Nor are they human. I know of species that eat dirt, too.

And again, we are very, very clever, we dont need sex to produce embryos anymore.

And yet we still need a woman and a man, and we still do not produce embryos through homosexual activity.

while homosexual sex isn’t - all it results in is some momentary pleasure and the spread of STD’s, really
Again, all you do it focus on sex. “momentary pleasure”…as part of a committed long term relationship based on love.

That’s because I was talking about sex, not love. Love without sex does not = gay.

I have to assume you know the only real difference between gay relationships and straight relationships is one and only one, single, specific, outcome. Children. You know that is the only difference, and you also know aht this difference is not insurmountable.

Actually, I couldn’t disagree more. As I said, children are the most obvious difference. Homosexual relationships also lack the complementarity between the sexes, which has physical, emotional, sociological and spiritual aspects.

 

[Digger71]

BlindSheep:

It sounds to me as though you want to deny the sexual nature of marriage, as well as the sexual nature of homo**sexual **relationships. I could make assumptions about your psychology and the state of your relationships based on this, but I won’t, since your personal life is not relevant to this discussion.

This is silly tit-for-tat. I have made qualified statements because the reality of marriage and the relationships that lead up to them are far more varied and nuanced that you are want to admit.

I stand by my statements that your pots reflect a sexual obsession that seems quite out of character for the subject matter; and deminishes other aspects.

BlindSheep:

You say gay relationships are a “deeper” form of friendship. Whatever you mean by “deeper”, I know what “gay” means, and it refers to a sexual relationship, or at least to sexual (and romantic, which is related) feelings.

Well, you don’t know what ‘gay’ means, ‘gay’ is a social, sexual and political identify based on shared cultural artifacts and experiences.

But leaving aside such nuanced understanding of the socio-political identity that consitutes ‘gay’, I have never denied the sexual components, I just understand that it is not ‘essential’. There are a spectrum of behaviours in marriage, and some marriages are sexless (or very close to sexless), but remain marriages nevertheless.

I explained what I meant by deeper in another thread, or earlier in this one. Indeed, I think you responded to some of those posts.

Unless you are saying that two men or two women who have a very deep, devoted, lifelong friendship which is not sexual are gay, you are shifting the focus away from what makes homosexual relationships homosexual.

Maybe they are gay, maybe they are not, maybe just one is gay. Homosexual relationships can have sex, but just as in straight marriages they can turn sexless. It’s exactly the same story as above; there’s a spectrum.

Are you arguing that a relationship which never had or was intended to have a sexual componant is a marriage?

If all legal requirements are met then they are absolutely marriages in the ‘civil union’ sense.

If so, I think your “evolved” definition has veered far enough away from the English language that there is little danger of anyone taking your position seriously.

Use google.

Look-up sexless marriage, look up lavender marriage, look up companionable marriages…

Most tellingly, look up mail order brides. All your conditions will be met.

Opposite sex, sex included, willingness to have children…how could you complain?

Be thorough, read lots of resources.

 

[Digger71]

BlindSheep:

Actually, I couldn’t disagree more. As I said, children are the most obvious difference. Homosexual relationships also lack the complementarity between the sexes, which has physical, emotional, sociological and spiritual aspects.

It is the only difference you have managed to identify. Children.

Complimentaianism is a philosophical view of the sexes based simply on genitals and some secondary sexual characteristics. It posits a fundamental polarity and separation of attributes.

Sorry, it isnt true. Men and women are versions of the same organism, they share vastly more mental and physical similarities than differences. There are so many vast overlaps that complimentariansim must be considered mostly false.

Your claims are based on stereotypes, theories, and denial of all empirical facts, except for reproduction. And even this is countered by ‘breeding strategies’ which allow otherwise homosexual people to have children.

Yes, children ‘in spite’ of homosexuality…what an amazing concept! Truly minds must boggle. But is demonstrates well that homosexuality is not a bar to reproduction, so we can happily ignore ‘end of the world’ scenarios as poor arguments

 

[BlindSheep]

I’m going to have to end this discussion, since you have redefined several of the terms and therefore we are no longer even speaking the same language. In my understanding of the English language, “marriage” refers to a specific type of relationship existing indepentantly from the laws that relate to it, and one of the many attributes of that relationshp is that it is sexual. Also in the version of the English language with which I am familiar “gay” refers to sexual orientation. If you insist on arguing over the meaning or words, I don’t see how I can communicate with you. Whether you want to call it a marriage or a thingamabob, the relationship I am referring to s still a distinct entity fundamentally different from a homosexual relationship. That is what this is all about, though, isn’t it? It is about redefining marriage so broadly that it ceases to have any meaning at all. Your posts on this thread work very nicely to back up this statement from a Catholic Answers article:

Stanley Kurtz of the Hudson Institute offers a possible explanation. In the September 2000 edition of Commentary, he quotes radical homosexuals who state that their goal is not personally to be married, nor to achieve domestic equality with heterosexuals, nor even to attain social respectability, but rather to empty the institution of marriage of its meaning.71 Kurtz quotes their writings, which make clear they want to “destroy bourgeois marriage.”

catholic.com/library/gay_marriage.asp
You have created a very effective strategy of redefining your terms and attacking the opposition as being “sex obsessed” for daring to bring up the aspects of marriage you wish to gloss over. Begging the question and ad hominem, two logical fallacies. No doubt you and your ilk will get what you want, though. The groundwork has already been laid with the acceptance of premarital sex and cohabitation, and with no fault divorce - gay marriage is just the next step down the slope. I’m shaking the dust off my sandals, bye.

 

[BlindSheep]

Digger71:

It is the only difference you have managed to identify. Children.

Complimentaianism is a philosophical view of the sexes based simply on genitals and some secondary sexual characteristics. It posits a fundamental polarity and separation of attributes.

Sorry, it isnt true. Men and women are versions of the same organism, they share vastly more mental and physical similarities than differences. There are so many vast overlaps that complimentariansim must be considered mostly false.

Yes, children ‘in spite’ of homosexuality…what an amazing concept! Truly minds must boggle. But is demonstrates well that homosexuality is not a bar to reproduction, so we can happily ignore ‘end of the world’ scenarios as poor arguments

Oh, missed this post. You’ve managed to demonstrate a third logical fallacy - the straw man argument. Well done.

 

[Digger71]

BlindSheep:

I’m going to have to end this discussion, since you have redefined several of the terms and therefore we are no longer even speaking the same language.

Alternatively, you could check it out.

BlindSheep:

In my understanding of the English language, “marriage” refers to a specific type of relationship existing indepentantly from the laws that relate to it, and one of the many attributes of that relationshp is that it is sexual.

Is looking stuff up on google so very difficult? My terms have not been redefined, I have always known there are a variety of marriages legally and practically in their internal arrangements show a wide variety of behaviours. This awareness is clearly lacking in your posts.

BlindSheep:

Also in the version of the English language with which I am familiar “gay” refers to sexual orientation. If you insist on arguing over the meaning or words, I don’t see how I can communicate with you.

You negotiate a common language.

In this instance you characterised all homosexual men as ‘gay’, many are not and reject the name calling themselves (for example) ‘queer’, or ‘motsser’, and even a few who say ‘homosexual’. They do not have the same meaning.

Whether you want to call it a marriage or a thingamabob, the relationship I am referring to s still a distinct entity fundamentally different from a homosexual relationship. That is what this is all about, though, isn’t it? It is about redefining marriage so broadly that it ceases to have any meaning at all.

I think it has been adequately demonstrated that you have failed to recognise anything True about marriage except reproduction. And, I think you have singularly succeeded in demonstrating that all you need is different genders. You actually cant get much broader than that.

Your posts on this thread work very nicely to back up this statement from a Catholic Answers article:
catholic.com/library/gay_marriage.asp
You have created a very effective strategy of redefining your terms and attacking the opposition as being “sex obsessed” for daring to bring up the aspects of marriage you wish to gloss over.

Redefining terms isnt needed. The arguments are based on obvious truths. You have talked about sex, I have talked about love. You have talked about children, I have talked about committment.

Begging the question and ad hominem, two logical fallacies. No doubt you and your ilk will get what you want, though. The groundwork has already been laid with the acceptance of premarital sex and cohabitation, and with no fault divorce - gay marriage is just the next step down the slope. I’m shaking the dust off my sandals, bye.

Bye.

 

[BlindSheep]

“that all you need is different genders”

this type of deliberate misunderstanding (it can only be deliberate, because he persists despite numerous corrections) is why conversation with Digger is futile. I naver said I was arguing that other things were not needed - I said that this (different genders) was one of the neccessary attributes. I am not the one who is arguing to *remove *one of the requirements for marriage, Digger is.
I think anyone reading this thread (except him) can probably understand that.

 

[setter]

Digger71:

It is the only difference you have managed to identify. Children.

Complimentaianism is a philosophical view of the sexes based simply on genitals and some secondary sexual characteristics. It posits a fundamental polarity and separation of attributes.

Sorry, it isnt true. Men and women are versions of the same organism, they share vastly more mental and physical similarities than differences. There are so many vast overlaps that complimentariansim must be considered mostly false.

Your claims are based on stereotypes, theories, and denial of all empirical facts, except for reproduction. And even this is countered by ‘breeding strategies’ which allow otherwise homosexual people to have children.

Yes, children ‘in spite’ of homosexuality…what an amazing concept! Truly minds must boggle. But is demonstrates well that homosexuality is not a bar to reproduction, so we can happily ignore ‘end of the world’ scenarios as poor arguments

Your post evidences some serious self-delusion or serious denial of reality in order to make your redefinition “fit” your proposed paradign in service of the gay activists agenda.

Here is the unequivocal reality (note the use of “fit” to denote the gender complementary):

“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. Then the LORD God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” Gen.1:27, 2:18

As a Catholic, per your profile, you will appreciate these two citations from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2332 *Sexuality * affects all aspects of the human person in the unity of his body and soul. It especially concerns affectivity, the capacity to love and to procreate, and in a more general way the aptitude for forming bonds of communion with others.

2361 “Sexuality, by means of which man and woman give themselves to one another through the acts which are proper and exclusive to spouses, is not something simply biological, but concerns the innermost being of the human person as such. It is realized in a truly human way only if it is an integral part of the love by which a man and woman commit themselves totally to one another until death.”

 

[Digger71]

“that all you need is different genders”

this type of deliberate misunderstanding (it can only be deliberate, because he persists despite numerous corrections) is why conversation with Digger is futile. I naver said I was arguing that other things were not needed - I said that this (different genders) was one of the neccessary attributes. I am not the one who is arguing to *remove *one of the requirements for marriage, Digger is.
I think anyone reading this thread (except him) can probably understand that.

I find it difficult to comprehend you. Generally I have done nothing but qualify your absolute or inaccurate statements to bring them closer to reality. But let’s try another one. “broadening to definition of marriage so as to become meaningless”. Well, let’s ignore variations such as “sexless marriages” and “companionable” marriages, and lets pretend all marriages are fully sexual. It’s not a harsh change, it is simply a lie useful for the purposes of this debate.

So, given a natural species wide rate of 2% for homosexuality, we see that marriage is available to 98% of people.

That strikes me as pretty broad and available. Any definition that can include 98% of the population is already achieving ‘meaninglessness’ through lack of differentiation.

So, if you want ‘meaning’ to come back, tread the trail of exclusion. Argue about the infertile, the disabled, and argue for the anulment of all childfree couples. Perhaps you would like to introduce dowrys and bride-prices again? Oh wait, lets introduce bride-prices, fathers permission, a bar on anyone engaged for less than 2 years, mandatory IQ tests, mandatory virginity tests, and lets brand the couple with eachothers names at the point of union.

That will help make marriage ‘meaningful’, and exclude a further 1%-99% depending of what constitutes a ‘pass’ mark.

Oh, and incidently, a rate of 100% is possible if gay people and other decideto lie about their sexuality.

Does that sound good to you? Would this make marriage ‘meaningful’?

 

[Digger71]

setter:

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. Then the LORD God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” Gen.1:27, 2:18

As a Catholic, per your profile, you will appreciate these two citations from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2332 *Sexuality * affects all aspects of the human person in the unity of his body and soul. It especially concerns affectivity, the capacity to love and to procreate, and in a more general way the aptitude for forming bonds of communion with others.

2361 “Sexuality, by means of which man and woman give themselves to one another through the acts which are proper and exclusive to spouses, is not something simply biological, but concerns the innermost being of the human person as such. It is realized in a truly human way only if it is an integral part of the love by which a man and woman commit themselves totally to one another until death.”

I do appreciate it, a very great deal. It is simply not an accurate biological description, and, of course, the church seeks to separate sexuality from sexual orientation. I understand, it is simply not bourne out by empirical data from the real world.

As I said, a Copernicus/Galileo/Darwin moment is coming.

 

[setter]

Digger71:

I do appreciate it, a very great deal. It is simply not an accurate biological description, and, of course, the church seeks to separate sexuality from sexual orientation. I understand, it is simply not bourne out by empirical data from the real world.

As I said, a Copernicus/Galileo/Darwin moment is coming.

No the Church does not. You need to reread the above CCC citations. The clearly is stating the correct understanding that our sexuality is integral to the whole of our person, with sexual orientation as simply a facet of or human sexuality, i.e., psychosexual identity in psychology terms. Unless of course you can provide Church documentation to clearly demonstrate otherwise.

BTW – If you identify yourself as Catholic,why all the emphasis of what the Church says versus what those other than the Church say? Whose side are you on? Christ does demand a pledge of allegiance fromfolks identifying themself as catholic to the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church.

 

[Digger71]

setter:

No the Church does not. You need to reread the above CCC citations. The clearly is stating the correct understanding that our sexuality is integral to the whole of our person, with sexual orientation as simply a facet of or human sexuality, i.e., psychosexual identity in psychology terms. Unless of course you can provide Church documentation to clearly demonstrate otherwise.

Integral,unless your gay.

setter:

BTW – If you identify yourself as Catholic,why all the emphasis of what the Church says versus what those other than the Church say? Whose side are you on? Christ does demand a pledge of allegiance fromfolks identifying themself as catholic to the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church.

I’m Neutral Good, by alignment.

But if something is not accurate, it is not accurate, and no amount of word play or lip-service will diminish the lack of accuracy.