Question for those who argue for so-called "same-sex marriage"

[CopticChristian]

I should have clarified. “There is not conflict between the mind and the structure of the genitalia” would have been a better way of putting it.
The rest of your argument is a straw man. One chooses to fulfill desires or not to, but has little control over whether to feel the desires at all.
And I frankly have no desire to argue against someone who does not also believe in evolution. It is a theory, yes, but anyone who does not believe it probably does not have a good enough understanding of modern biology to argue about its role in homosexuality.

River,

I would pit 4 years of College with a Bachelor of Science in Zoology at a secular State College where I studied, memorized and regurgitated Evolution as a THEORY, and an MD against any other that believes in the “THEORY” of evolution. It is a Theory.

I beg you to consider that I have a good enough understanding and state IT IS A THEORY!

 

[CopticChristian]

I should have clarified. “There is not conflict between the mind and the structure of the genitalia” would have been a better way of putting it.
The rest of your argument is a straw man. ** One chooses to fulfill desires or not to, but has little control over whether to feel the desires at all.**And I frankly have no desire to argue against someone who does not also believe in evolution. It is a theory, yes, but anyone who does not believe it probably does not have a good enough understanding of modern biology to argue about its role in homosexuality.

River,

Now that you have a good enough understanding of modern Biology of the Theory of Evolution I propose that you understand this.

Facts are Facts in Science.

Theory is Theory in Science.

The role of Homosexuality based on a Theory is not fact. No fact is substantiated based on a Theory. It becomes a Theory based on a Theory that equates to Fantasy. I suggest you consider your argument as a non-argument as without fact you have nothing more than a Theory based on a Theory.

I agree that desires/emotions come and go. We do have the ability to choose to respond to them. If you doubt this then I suggest you read L. Michael Hall, Dragon Slaying, a treatise on how to control your emotions and desires and not be a slave to them. You can choose to respond or not to respond. In fact you can choose to observe them and let them pass. If you are not your thoughts, you are not your actions, you are not your emotions and in that regard responding to your emotions is a choice.

If you do not understand that then it is possible that you do not have a good enough understanding of the workings of the mind. Your propositions must fit into some acceptable and workable, predictable model of the mind and they do not.

I once watched Marcus Wellby, M.D, on television, say to someone asking to engage in an argument…he said…“I understand you want to argue with me, I decline, for to do so would be like dueling with a one armed man”…I understand your reluctance to engage in debate.

 

[Elizabeth502]

River, The role of Homosexuality based on a Theory is not fact. No fact is substantiated based on a Theory. It becomes a Theory based on a Theory that equates to Fantasy. I suggest you consider your argument as a non-argument as without fact you have nothing more than a Theory based on a Theory.

read L. Michael Hall, Dragon Slaying, a treatise on how to control your emotions and desires and not be a slave to them. You can choose to respond or not to respond. In fact you can choose to observe them and let them pass. If you are not your thoughts, you are not your actions, you are not your emotions and in that regard responding to your emotions is a choice.

“I understand you want to argue with me, I decline, for to do so would be like dueling with a one armed man”…

 

[Jasmine6089]

Can you tell me why it always takes a man and a woman to have a baby? Why is this a universal norm in the world and always been so in human history?

It’s not really a “norm” so much as a biological imperative. As animals, we reproduce by sexual reproduction, or a male and a female. The same goes for humans as well as insects. Because sexual reproduction results in greater variation in the genome, which is beneficial to the species. Why was it made this way, and how did it evolve? The specifics are unknown. Perhaps a divine being made it this way, perhaps it was random chance.

If you say a lesbian couple can use the artificial insemination method, they could not have done it without a man donating his sperm to fertilize the female’s egg. And the child is and always will be his biological child whether the child ever knows him or not.

If you say two homosexual men can use a surrogate mother, again, they need the opposite sex for a baby to be produced by these artificial attempts at procreation.

If a homosexual couple adopts a child, that child is the product of the biological union of male to female.

This is true . . .

Why can’t two sperm produce a child without a female egg? Why can’t two female eggs produce a child without a male sperm?

Because of science. Like cannot fertilize like. Of course, it’s still largely a mystery.

And what does this have to do with legalizing gay marriage?

I understand that Catholicism views procreation as essential to marriage, but not everybody feels that way. Not everyone is Catholic. Two people can be madly in love without desiring children. (You may believe they shouldn’t get married then, but the fact is marrying without intending to have children is very much legal.) Also, there are many heterosexual couples that either are unable to have children, do not desire children, or are past the point of childbearing. Are we going to prohibit these couples from marrying too?

You are perfectly entitled to think homosexual marriage is immoral; you are not entitled IMO to prohibit their marriage because your religion (in this country with no established religion) believes it to be immoral. Why don’t we put people in jail for adultery or attempting a divorce? Or lying? I believe these to be immoral, but I don’t think they should be illegal. The list goes on and on.

My :twocents:

 

[RiverTam51]

River,

I would pit 4 years of College with a Bachelor of Science in Zoology at a secular State College where I studied, memorized and regurgitated Evolution as a THEORY, and an MD against any other that believes in the “THEORY” of evolution. It is a Theory.

I beg you to consider that I have a good enough understanding and state IT IS A THEORY!

I did not claim it was anything other than a theory. I stated that I do not want to argue with someone who does not share belief in this theory, because there is not enough common ground to have an argument based off of biology.

 

[RiverTam51]

River,

Now that you have a good enough understanding of modern Biology of the Theory of Evolution I propose that you understand this.

Facts are Facts in Science.

Theory is Theory in Science.

The role of Homosexuality based on a Theory is not fact. No fact is substantiated based on a Theory. It becomes a Theory based on a Theory that equates to Fantasy. I suggest you consider your argument as a non-argument as without fact you have nothing more than a Theory based on a Theory.

I agree that desires/emotions come and go. We do have the ability to choose to respond to them. If you doubt this then I suggest you read L. Michael Hall, Dragon Slaying, a treatise on how to control your emotions and desires and not be a slave to them. You can choose to respond or not to respond. In fact you can choose to observe them and let them pass. If you are not your thoughts, you are not your actions, you are not your emotions and in that regard responding to your emotions is a choice.

If you do not understand that then it is possible that you do not have a good enough understanding of the workings of the mind. Your propositions must fit into some acceptable and workable, predictable model of the mind and they do not.

I once watched Marcus Wellby, M.D, on television, say to someone asking to engage in an argument…he said…“I understand you want to argue with me, I decline, for to do so would be like dueling with a one armed man”…I understand your reluctance to engage in debate.

Nothing in that statement contradicts what I said about desire and emotion. Please realize that my earlier post on emotion, and this one, are only meant to clarify how I do not disagree with you. If you would like to debate it, then let’s find something we disagree on first.
And no, the role of homosexuality in evolution is not a scientific fact. It is a topic, and a topic which will often appear in threads about homosexuality.

 

[stewstew03]

It’s not really a “norm” so much as a biological imperative. As animals, we reproduce by sexual reproduction, or a male and a female. The same goes for humans as well as insects. Because sexual reproduction results in greater variation in the genome, which is beneficial to the species. Why was it made this way, and how did it evolve? The specifics are unknown. Perhaps a divine being made it this way, perhaps it was random chance.

If male/female reproduction is “not really a norm” I’d like to hear your operational definition of the term “norm.”

Of course, it’s still largely a mystery.

What, exactly, is a mystery…?

I understand that Catholicism views procreation as essential to marriage, but not everybody feels that way. Not everyone is Catholic.

You are surprised to visit a Catholic forum and hear Catholic views on the subject?

Two people can be madly in love without desiring children. (You may believe they shouldn’t get married then, but the fact is marrying without intending to have children is very much legal.) Also, there are many heterosexual couples that either are unable to have children, do not desire children, or are past the point of childbearing. Are we going to prohibit these couples from marrying too?

Your definition of marriage, then, is “two people who are madly in love,” correct?

You are perfectly entitled to think homosexual marriage is immoral; you are not entitled IMO to prohibit their marriage because your religion (in this country with no established religion) believes it to be immoral.

Are you entitled to re-define marriage?

Why don’t we put people in jail for adultery or attempting a divorce?

Adultery is a criminal offense in some states. But those laws primarily serve as a way to “penalize” the adulterer (or at least threaten to) during divorce proceedings.

Or lying?

Lying under oath is illegal… (and don’t forget libel/slander laws).

 

[CopticChristian]

I did not claim it was anything other than a theory. I stated that I do not want to argue with someone who does not share belief in this theory, because there is not enough common ground to have an argument based off of biology.

River,

I believe it is a Theory.

It is a theory, yes, but anyone who does not believe it probably does not have a good enough understanding of modern biology to argue about its role in homosexuality.

I have good enough understanding of modern biology.

It is a Theory.

Whatever role you postulate, did you catch that, postulate…what you postulate is theory.

The role in homosexuality is a figment of your imagination based on a theory.

 

[CopticChristian]

Nothing in that statement contradicts what I said about desire and emotion. Please realize that my earlier post on emotion, and this one, are only meant to clarify how I do not disagree with you. If you would like to debate it, then let’s find something we disagree on first.
And no, the role of homosexuality in evolution is not a scientific fact. It is a topic, and a topic which will often appear in threads about homosexuality.

The Catholic Church exists. This is a fact.

The Catholic Church has a Catechism with teachings. This is a fact.

The Catechism is printed and can be read. That is a fact and here is what it says.

Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. **Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,**141 **tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. **They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. **Under no circumstances can they be approved. **
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

This is the Catholic Answers forum. That is a fact.

Faithful Catholics adehere to the teachings of the Church. That is a fact.

There is nothing to argue.

 

[CopticChristian]

Nothing in that statement contradicts what I said about desire and emotion. Please realize that my earlier post on emotion, and this one, are only meant to clarify how I do not disagree with you. If you would like to debate it, then let’s find something we disagree on first.
And no, the role of homosexuality in evolution is not a scientific fact. It is a topic, and a topic which will often appear in threads about homosexuality.

River,

While you are pondering a response recognize this. You only have two sources of information in your mind.

Stored information retrieved through memory
and
Imagination

The Stored information that you retrieve through memory concerning your postulate on homosexaulity cannot be fact

therefore it has to emanate from your

Imagination.

Imagine all the people living life in peace…you may say that I am a dreamer, but I’m not the only one…someday we will live as one…or something like that

 

[mynamesjoe]

I understand that Catholicism views procreation as essential to marriage, but not everybody feels that way. Not everyone is Catholic. Two people can be madly in love without desiring children. (You may believe they shouldn’t get married then, but the fact is marrying without intending to have children is very much legal.) Also, there are many heterosexual couples that either are unable to have children, do not desire children, or are past the point of childbearing. Are we going to prohibit these couples from marrying too?

You are perfectly entitled to think homosexual marriage is immoral; you are not entitled IMO to prohibit their marriage because your religion (in this country with no established religion) believes it to be immoral. Why don’t we put people in jail for adultery or attempting a divorce? Or lying? I believe these to be immoral, but I don’t think they should be illegal. The list goes on and on.

My :twocents:

Once again on this forum this (DUMB) argument is being used. Two people being madly in love is fine. But it doesn’t follow whatsoever that they should be given state advantages.

Your second statement is a red herring and specious, A man and women getting married always have the possibilty to produce offspring either they do that by accident or some miracle occurs.

Thirdly, do you think it’s right to be FORCED to give money to the poor? But pretty much every government does this, because it benefits the society as a whole.

 

[RiverTam51]

The Catholic Church exists. This is a fact.

The Catholic Church has a Catechism with teachings. This is a fact.

The Catechism is printed and can be read. That is a fact and here is what it says.

This is the Catholic Answers forum. That is a fact.

Faithful Catholics adehere to the teachings of the Church. That is a fact.

There is nothing to argue.

I agree with the above facts and have no argument against them, but I’m trying to see where they lead. Are you trying to say that it is useless to support nonCatholic teachings on this website? If so, remember that the thread is titled “Question for those who argue for so-called “same-sex marriage”.”
I also don’t understand what you are trying to get across with the world at peace thing.
Overall, unless the Catholic facts post or world at peace post are meant to say something mind-blowing that I don’t see, I must agree that there is nothing to argue.

 

[CopticChristian]

It’s not really a “norm” so much as a biological imperative. As animals, we reproduce by sexual reproduction, or a male and a female. The same goes for humans as well as insects. Because sexual reproduction results in greater variation in the genome, which is beneficial to the species. Why was it made this way, and how did it evolve? The specifics are unknown. Perhaps a divine being made it this way, perhaps it was random chance.

This is true . . .

Because of science. Like cannot fertilize like. Of course, it’s still largely a mystery.

And what does this have to do with legalizing gay marriage?

I understand that Catholicism views procreation as essential to marriage, but not everybody feels that way. Not everyone is Catholic. Two people can be madly in love without desiring children. (You may believe they shouldn’t get married then, but the fact is marrying without intending to have children is very much legal.) Also, there are many heterosexual couples that either are unable to have children, do not desire children, or are past the point of childbearing. Are we going to prohibit these couples from marrying too?

You are perfectly entitled to think homosexual marriage is immoral; you are not entitled IMO to prohibit their marriage because your religion (in this country with no established religion) believes it to be immoral. Why don’t we put people in jail for adultery or attempting a divorce? Or lying? I believe these to be immoral, but I don’t think they should be illegal. The list goes on and on.

My :twocents:

Jasmine,

I am Catholic and I believe that homosexual marriage is immoral. I am as you say not allowed nor should I invoke my beliefs into the argument. In that regard I oppose same sex marriage and believe that it has no relationship to “The Right to Marry” as established by Skinner vs Oklahoma. This definition of the right to marry is “marry and procreate”. Now you don’t have to agree.

I agree with this definition and oppose same sex marriage for all the reasons stated in the ruling in Hawaii found here.

scribd.com/doc/102440860/Hawaii-Decision-Jackson-vs-Abercromnie

Page 64

Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942) (“Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”); Maynard, 125 U.S. at 211(“[Marriage] is an institution, in the maintenance of which inits purity the public is deeply interested, for it is thefoundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress

Although same-sex couples now have the ability to procreate with the assistance of technology and third-parties,there is nothing in the aforementioned Supreme Court cases toindicate the Supreme Court was considering anything other thannatural procreation. Furthermore, these cases were decidedbetween 1885-1978, the latter being at the infancy of theintroduction of artificial insemination as a viable option forwomen to conceive without engaging in intercourse. See EricaDavis, The Rise of Gestational Surrogacy and the Presiding Needfor International Regulation, 21 Minn. J. Intl. L. 120, 122(2012) (explaining that the advances in artificial inseminationin the 1980s “opened the door to . . . allowing single people andhomosexual couples access to assisted reproductive technology,including the surrogacy market”).

Same sex marriage is not deeply rooted in the History and Tradition of the USA

First, no party, nor anything in the legislativehistory indicates, that the civil unions law is meant to becompletely equal to marriage. See Abercrombie’s Mot. Mem. 62(“The title ‘marriage’ carries with it significant psychological,sociological, and cultural meaning, and provides a state-sanctioned ‘stamp of approval’ on opposite sex relationships.”).That is, the civil unions law confers all of the state benefitsand burdens of marriage on couples in a civil union, but thetitle “marriage” has social benefits and cultural meaning. AsHFF explains, despite that same-sex couples can get the legalbenefits of marriage through civil unions, the state’s purposesof inducing opposite-sex couples to marry are accomplished by theprestige of the institution of marriage

HFF asserts that throughout different societies, anoverriding purpose of marriage “is, and has always been, toregulate sexual relationships between men and women so that theunique procreative capacity of such relationships benefits ratherthan harms society.” HFF’s Mot. Mem. 21. HFF contends thatthrough the institution of marriage, societies seek to increasethe likelihood that children will be born in stable and enduringfamily units by the mothers and fathers that conceived them. Id.HFF states that because only sexual relationshipsbetween men and women can produce children, “such relationshipshave a potential to further – or harm – this interest in a way,and to an extent, that other types of relationships do not.”

Page 101 the discussion of stability, family and children is discussed.

So, while I believe that same sex marriage is immoral I have the right to voice approval of a ruling of a circuit court concerning Hawaii and opposition to same sex marriage.

 

[CopticChristian]

I agree with the above facts and have no argument against them, but I’m trying to see where they lead. **Are you trying to say that it is useless to support nonCatholic teachings on this website? **If so, remember that the thread is titled “Question for those who argue for so-called “same-sex marriage”.”
I also don’t understand what you are trying to get across with the world at peace thing.
Overall, unless the Catholic facts post or world at peace post are meant to say something mind-blowing that I don’t see, I must agree that there is nothing to argue.

River,

What is the non-Catholic teachings you are teaching or sharing? Here is what you say.

I will try to say this as clearly as possible. We homosexuals do not believe that we have a different gender from straight people. Lesbeans are still women and gays are still men. A gay’s sperm will still fertilize eggs, and a lesbean can still become pregnant. We can still perform coitus, and this may produce children. Gay or lesbean sex does not produce children. But this does not make us heterosexual. What** evolution **designed our bodies for is not what we desire. For whatever reason, we are attracted to our own gender. There is not a conflict with our bodies in this. Our bodies define our sex, not our attractions. And those of us who are not part of the religions forbidding gay marriage, see no reason that the love we feel towards each other is any different from the love straight people feel towards each other.

There is a difference between an answer and an argument. You propose an argument to justify your beliefs. This can be handled with…

I believe this because and I disagree with that because.

You do not do that. You imposed theory and theory and whatever nonsense you have in your head to justify your homosexuality. This is a CAF and the question is about procreation. You could have answered that in one post. You do not. You argue to promote your insane notion of a theory based on a theory. Is this what you are teaching?

Clarify what it is you call non-Catholic teaching and why it is relevant to the OP.

 

[bri89]

Maybe this is slightly off topic. What constitutes a family is not as absolute as some people make it out to be, The nuclear family, though regarded by some as though it has been around since time immemorial, is a modern institution, a by product of urbanization and the industrial revolution. As someone else mentioned, historically children were raised by the extended tribe, not mother and father exclusively. Families have always been more diverse than that.

 

[CopticChristian]

Maybe this is slightly off topic. What constitutes a family is not as absolute as some people make it out to be, The nuclear family, though regarded by some as though it has been around since time immemorial, is a modern institution, a by product of urbanization and the industrial revolution. As someone else mentioned, historically children were raised by the extended tribe, no mother and father exclusively. Families have always been more diverse than that.

Bri,

This may be relevant to something however in the context of USA law and court decisions it is not as evidenced in the Hawaii Circuit Court ruling. I suggest you read it and see if there is any reference to tribes as you say.

 

[bri89]

Bri,

This may be relevant to something however in the context of USA law and court decisions it is not as evidenced in the Hawaii Circuit Court ruling. I suggest you read it and see if there is any reference to tribes as you say.

Enshrining the nuclear family, as though it is natural, is one of the reasons that homosexuals are perceived as a threat. If we want to talk about what is most natural, segregation of the sexes is. The most natural arrangement is not man-woman-child, but women and children together and men with other men. Historically, women and children were always segregated from men except for the brief reproductive period. They satisfy their instinct to reproduce and then the sexes separate. That is natural. This arrangement is also observed within the animal kingdom, lionesses with other lionesses and their cubs, and the solitary male. The male, animal and human, is a lone creature. That is natural. Men, women, and children living together is not the most natural condition which is probably one of the reasons so many marriages fail. My point is that segregation of the sexes is actually the most natural condition. This is why I have trouble with the argument that homosexuality is unnatural.

 

[stewstew03]

Men, women, and children living together is not the most natural condition which is probably one of the reasons so many marriages fail.

Marriages fail because of the nuclear family?

 

[bri89]

Marriages fail because of the nuclear family?

No, but there is an eternal antagonism between the sexes that makes co-habitation extremely difficult.

 

[CopticChristian]

Enshrining the nuclear family, as though it is natural, is one of the reasons that homosexuals are perceived as a threat. If we want to talk about what is most natural, segregation of the sexes is. The most natural arrangement is not man-woman-child, but women and children together and men with other men. Historically, women and children were always segregated from men except for the brief reproductive period. They satisfy their instinct to reproduce and then the sexes separate. That is natural. This arrangement is also observed within the animal kingdom, lionesses with other lionesses and their cubs, and the solitary male. The male, animal and human, is a lone creature. That is natural. Men, women, and children living together is not the most natural condition which is probably one of the reasons so many marriages fail. My point is that segregation of the sexes is actually the most natural condition. This is why I have trouble with the argument that homosexuality is unnatural.

Bria,

Ok. Let us discuss the Animal Kingdom and your understanding of what you call natural and unnatural.

So, is it fair to say that you are comparing mammals in the Kingdom to Human behavior?