- Status
R
Rau
Guest
If you can explain why enjoying chewing gum, back massages or touching the prostate is a basis for choosing a marital partner, I’ll be further enlightened.
What little knowledge of the prostate I do have relates to its role in the production of seminal fluid, and we all know why men produce that, don’t we?
From WebMD
The prostate secretes fluid that nourishes and protects sperm. During ejaculation, the prostate squeezes this fluid into the urethra, and it’s expelled with sperm as semen.
R
rossum
Guest
No I do not, since I do not see the ability to procreate as essential to marriage. It is for those who see the ability to procreate as a requirement for marriage to explain why all marriages should not terminate upon one or other partner becoming infertile.
It is worth noting that the Catholic Church does not see procreation as required for marriage. An annulment cannot be granted solely on the grounds of infertility. Hence the Church recognises infertile marriages as valid. Arguing against SSM on grounds of inability to procreate gives rise to a great many problems, such as the one you mention.
rossum
A
AyJSimon
Guest
I’m sorry, but you’re the one who’s presupposing that sex is the basis of marriage. The prostate is a critical part of the “sexual apparatus.” Rather than address my question, you change the subject to back rubs and gum-chewing. Maybe these have nothing to do with a choosing a martial partner - since they have nothing, in principle, to do with sex. Which brings us back to the prostate. Why did God design is this way?
J
jilly4ski
Guest
Considering that there is not such thing as “pleasure nerve endings” it is really not that hard to explain. Ever part of the body has nerve endings, some more than others. It is how your brain processes the signals from the nerve endings that determine whether you find such things as painful or pleasureful (or you don’t feel it at all, which is a disorder).
A
AyJSimon
Guest
Bones don’t have sensory receptors in themselves. Neither does brain tissue in itself. So, there’s no reason, in principle, why the prostate should have nerve endings at all, or have them in such a concentration that one would feel marked pleasure from having it stimulated. Again, a strange design from a God who insists that homosexual acts are sinful.
R
Rau
Guest
I detest the doctor touching mine. Nerve endings appear copiously across the body.
I don’t presuppose sexual complementarity as the basis of marriage - it evidently is! If not, what else?
I’d suggest that the nerve endings on one’s prostate also have nothing to do with choosing a marital partner. What about you?
R
Rau
Guest
The role of the prostate was explained above by a medical source. Nourishing sperm.
A
AyJSimon
Guest
If you insist that sexual complementarity is the basis of marriage, self-evidently, then you’re presupposing it. I’m fine with that (for the purposes of this specific discussion), but I want to clear that is what you’re doing.
I’d suggest that you’re still not addressing the subject. You’re saying the design of our sexual anatomy suggests the basis for marriage and sexual morality in general. I’m only asking you the logical implications of the fact that the prostate gland is designed with sensory nerve endings and can be easily accessed and stimulated through the anus. You seem to not want to answer this in a way that doesn’t completely contradict your basic thesis.
And it also has nerve endings, by design. Why?
R
Rau
Guest
I no more presuppose the nature of marriage than I do the laws of gravity. I know both - no assumptions or suppositions involved. There are things I presuppose, but these aren’t among them. I presuppose my father also fathered my sister - I don’t recall anyone telling me that, but I presuppose it.
Sensory nerve endings are copiously spread across the body. Testicles hurt when you bump them. You apparently like the prostate being touched, I hate it, a dreadful sensation. I don’t seek to explain any of these things. But I understand why men produce sperm, why the prostate exists, why women produce eggs, why men have a penis, why women a vagina.
R
Rau
Guest
No…it seems quite clear to me when read in context.
R
Rau
Guest
I’m sorry, it is the best wording I can do.
I
Ilovejesus1234
Guest
Ok, what happened to the topic, the main subtopic I am on is that, what if two homosexuals get married because they love each other, you guys said that doesn’t really matter, only sexual relationships and procreation does…Well, what it the lady is infertile, or the man cannot produce sperm, is procreation out of the equation and now is it only about sexual relationships, not saying that is a bad thing, making love is beautiful.
But what if they cannot procreate, is the intention of getting married, hearby destroyed. I am sorry I am just sorta confused haha.
Cheer up though, this is a calm discussion not a war-zone, Jesus loves all of you but just calm down and lets just talk about this peacefully without getting too excited
But what if they cannot procreate, is the intention of getting married, hearby destroyed. I am sorry I am just sorta confused haha.
Cheer up though, this is a calm discussion not a war-zone, Jesus loves all of you but just calm down and lets just talk about this peacefully without getting too excited
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
This does not address the OP topic, which was a consideration of rights that homosexuals miss out on. You and those you are arguing with are both addressing the question of the fundamental justification for the societal recognition of a state called “marriage”. While I’ll grant it is an interesting topic, it is not the topic of this thread, for even if the justification of marriage were totally arbitrary, one can still ask the question of what rights are being missed out on because of those arbitrary justifications.
I
Ilovejesus1234
Guest
Can you reword that I am having a hard time understanding your wording, I am sorry.
I
Ilovejesus1234
Guest
The point is this isn’t an argument, a court case, or a war.
This is a family, and as Catholics we are united to be a family, not argue but be one. I remember a priest told me that your home shouldn’t be a court room, but should be like a confessional. The point of the matter is that this quote I used was for a different subject I was troubled with at the time, but what I am trying to say we should be like a family and treat others with respect. Not yell or be hard on others.
This applies for Buddhists, atheists, agnostics and other religions or beliefs, we should always try to be nice with each other and treat other people with kindness especially here, I do have to say nobody is perfect and sometimes I am unkind and pushy, heck I was with my mom tonight.
But we should all just try to catch ourselves and stop ourselves from indulging in the manner we are in right now. Hope this makes sense, I may be kind of wrong in some areas, but by reading the forum thread I could tell, a lot of tension is going on
This is a family, and as Catholics we are united to be a family, not argue but be one. I remember a priest told me that your home shouldn’t be a court room, but should be like a confessional. The point of the matter is that this quote I used was for a different subject I was troubled with at the time, but what I am trying to say we should be like a family and treat others with respect. Not yell or be hard on others.
This applies for Buddhists, atheists, agnostics and other religions or beliefs, we should always try to be nice with each other and treat other people with kindness especially here, I do have to say nobody is perfect and sometimes I am unkind and pushy, heck I was with my mom tonight.
But we should all just try to catch ourselves and stop ourselves from indulging in the manner we are in right now. Hope this makes sense, I may be kind of wrong in some areas, but by reading the forum thread I could tell, a lot of tension is going on
P
Pat_M
Guest
I think the responder might have made a mistake when they responded to you, ilovejesus1234, either intending to respond to a different poster, or not realizing that you are in fact the OP.
At any rate, you are totally right, ilovejesus1234 - we have wandered far afield of your original question, which was:
I would respond YES to the bolded part of your question - same-sex couples should not be legally equated to husband-wife marriage for the simple reason that THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING. When you institute a falsehood with respect to observable reality into the law you are asking for all kinds of subsequent problems when the illogic plays out in the legal process. When evaluating all the other arguments, a good way to cut through the confusion and differentiate between the arguments that make sense, and the arguments that are just nonsense, is to center everything around the observable reality that man+woman is a special relationship with special properties, and same-sex duos are a different kind of combination. Once that fact is front and central, it makes much more sense why marital benefits have evolved over time to accommodate - surprise! - MARITAL relationships.
Hope that helps.
I
Ilovejesus1234
Guest
Wow so just as abortion illegalization revolves around the fact you’re killing somebody whether or not they are inside the womb. The same applies for gay marriage, what revolves around this is pretty much that it isn’t a marriage because it isn’t with a true man and true woman, I say true because of the possibility of a transvestite. But yea is this the case for gay marriage ? After this I may want to ask a few more questions, so I can settle down on a final conclusion
- Status