Scared of speaking out Against Gay marriage?

[alchemist3]

I enjoy a back scratch too

The doc touches my prostate from time to time. Not pleasant!

That the male prostate also have a sexual function unrelated to procreation. You may not like having your prostate stimulated, but many men do and there are the nerve endings present that simply by stimulating them can lead to orgasm. So why is this function present? It seems that is solely related to sexual pleasure.

Also, please address why oxytocin and the binding effect is produced through all sexual conduct, irregardless of whether it is same sex or opposite sex conduct? You keep posting how sexual conduct between a male and female in the act of procreation increases bonding, but this effect seems incidental to sexual conduct period and has nothing to do with procreative sex.

 

[cena]

There is also a bonding effect produced from homosexual sex, and also from oral sex, hetero or homo, as orgasm and just intimate touching in general creates an increase in oxytocin which produces feelings of intimacy and bonding. Again if procreation was sex’s only purpose, surely we would be designed to only get this oxytocin effect from heterosexual sexual intercourse. Seeing however that this can be produced from a plethora of sexual conduct, I think this again works against your argument.

I definitely think that pleasure is a proper result of sex, but fail to see how that equates with all sexual functions as being good. I think all sexual functions are in essence morally neutral, it is how we use them that determines whether we are engaging in immoral conduct. I see nothing inherently immoral about homosexual conduct between two committed men or women. However I think it is much more immoral for a married man to view pornography as he is cheating on his wife in his heart and mind.

Homosexual actions are wrong regardless of the consequences. Consequences do not determine the morality of an action
If two adult family members were committed to each other would it be wrong to strengthen their bond by sex if they were infertile and they had no other living family members?
It’s still wrong because incest is wrong regardless of consequences

I think homosexual actions are considered to be more serious than adultery
I read somewhere incest is worse than adultery and homosexual actions are worst than opposite sex incest that was consensual

 

[Rau]

There is also a bonding effect produced from homosexual sex, and also from oral sex, hetero or homo, as orgasm and just intimate touching in general creates an increase in oxytocin which produces feelings of intimacy and bonding. Again if procreation was sex’s only purpose, surely we would be designed to only get this oxytocin effect from heterosexual sexual intercourse. Seeing however that this can be produced from a plethora of sexual conduct, I think this again works against your argument.

I definitely think that pleasure is a proper result of sex, but fail to see how that equates with all sexual functions as being good. I think all sexual functions are in essence morally neutral, it is how we use them that determines whether we are engaging in immoral conduct. I see nothing inherently immoral about homosexual conduct between two committed men or women. However I think it is much more immoral for a married man to view pornography as he is cheating on his wife in his heart and mind.

I agree with most of that. I just point out again that the fruits of sex, including the procreative one, seem to be bound together. The male orgasm incorporates or is bound to the potential for procreation. This says something about the type of person one should share it with, I would have thought?

 

[alchemist3]

Homosexual actions are wrong regardless of the consequences. Consequences do not determine the morality of an action
If two adult family members were committed to each other would it be wrong to strengthen their bond by sex if they were infertile and they had no other living family members?
It’s still wrong because incest is wrong regardless of consequences

I think homosexual actions are considered to be more serious than adultery
I read somewhere incest is worse than adultery and homosexual actions are worst than opposite sex incest that was consensual

I would love to see your sources for this? A mortal sin is a mortal sin is a mortal sin. I think you, or whoever you read that from just thinks that they are worse, there is zero official church teaching on this point of view.

 

[alchemist3]

I agree with most of that. I just point out again that the fruits of sex, including the procreative one, seem to be bound together. The male orgasm incorporates or is bound to the potential for procreation. This says something about the type of person one should share it with, I would have thought?

So what about the female orgasm? It is not bound to procreation, so does this in any way change your view on female to female homosexuality.

Also, I am not in disagreement with you that most likely the “primary purpose” of male sexual function is indeed procreative. My problem is that I no way view primary purpose as being the only legitimate purpose for it, or the only “natural purpose” for it. I think our sexuality is multi-purpose, having a primary purpose, which is procreative, secondary which is pair bonding (hetero or homo) and tertiary which is purely for pleasure. I do not think that the exercise of any of these “functions” is unnatural or runs contrary to their “purpose”. Just because you are not using something for its primary purpose, in no invalidates all other purposes for it.

Example a Semi-Auto Rifle is made for self defense. Primary Purpose
I can also use it for hunting ( Secondary purpose - not a best use but it still works)
I can also use it purely for target practice at the gun range (tertiary purpose solely for pleasure)
Just because I am using my rifle for something other than its primary purpose does not mean I am misusing my gun.

Now it would be immoral and a misuse of my handgun to go out and shoot someone simply for fun. That is when I misuse my gun.

 

[cena]

I would love to see your sources for this? A mortal sin is a mortal sin is a mortal sin. I think you, or whoever you read that from just thinks that they are worse, there is zero official church teaching on this point of view.

Augustine says (De adult. conjug. [The quotation is from Cap. Adulterii xxxii, qu. 7. Cf. Augustine, De Bono Conjugali, viii.]) that “of all these,” namely the sins belonging to lust, “that which is against nature is the worst.”

newadvent.org/summa/3154.htm#article11

sins against nature are more offensive to chastity than other sins like adultery

Rape would violate justice more than sodomy
pathsoflove.com/blog/2009/06/aquinas-on-sexual-sins-dangers-of-speaking-formally/

 

[alchemist3]

Augustine says (De adult. conjug. [The quotation is from Cap. Adulterii xxxii, qu. 7. Cf. Augustine, De Bono Conjugali, viii.]) that “of all these,” namely the sins belonging to lust, “that which is against nature is the worst.”

newadvent.org/summa/3154.htm#article11

sins against nature are more offensive to chastity than other sins like adultery

Rape would violate justice more than sodomy
pathsoflove.com/blog/2009/06/aquinas-on-sexual-sins-dangers-of-speaking-formally/

That is fine if Augustine said that but that does not make it official Catholic Doctrine. The teaching is that a mortal sin is a mortal sin. Augustine also said that all unbaptized children would go to hell, and the Church definitely does not teach that. So please show me where it is official Catholic Teaching that homosexuality is worse than incest.

 

[Rau]

So what about the female orgasm? It is not bound to procreation, so does this in any way change your view on female to female homosexuality.

I’ve not thought about the case. Lack of active lesbian women posters I suppose. But men and women are different, so an analogous observation may not be available. Note: I have not been proffering a “definitive reason for why homosexual relations are wrong” - just an observation that ought to at least cause some to think about our nature.

Also, I am not in disagreement with you that most likely the “primary purpose” of male sexual function is indeed procreative. My problem is that I no way view primary purpose as being the only legitimate purpose for it, or the only “natural purpose” for it. I think our sexuality is multi-purpose, having a primary purpose, which is procreative, secondary which is pair bonding (hetero or homo) and tertiary which is purely for pleasure. I do not think that the exercise of any of these “functions” is unnatural or runs contrary to their “purpose”.

You’ve repeated this point a few times, but please note I’m not relying on the primacy of any “primary” purpose. I am saying that the sexual act binds together it’s procreative potential and the other aspects. They arise together (in men) essentially always, unless steps are taken to nullify one, or ill health or age intervenes. Sperm are always delivered at the climax of the act. Does this suggest, does it give a slight hint at, the “designed in” nature of the partner with whom the act is to be shared?

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

The author confuses the good of a loving relationship with the misuse of sexuality - the latter acts (if present) diminish what is otherwise Good.

He is correct that the relationship was not intrinsically disordered

And “homosexuality” is also a made up word that did not exist before the 19th century.

Don’t forget that heterosexuality is a made up word that is a social construct.

Homosexual actions are wrong regardless of the consequences. Consequences do not determine the morality of an action
If two adult family members were committed to each other would it be wrong to strengthen their bond by sex if they were infertile and they had no other living family members?
It’s still wrong because incest is wrong regardless of consequences

I think homosexual actions are considered to be more serious than adultery
I read somewhere incest is worse than adultery and homosexual actions are worst than opposite sex incest that was consensual

Gay sex is intrinsically disordered… just like fornication, masturbation, incest and adultery, clearly we should stone all of them.

So what about the female orgasm? It is not bound to procreation, so does this in any way change your view on female to female homosexuality.

Also, I am not in disagreement with you that most likely the “primary purpose” of male sexual function is indeed procreative. My problem is that I no way view primary purpose as being the only legitimate purpose for it, or the only “natural purpose” for it. I think our sexuality is multi-purpose, having a primary purpose, which is procreative, secondary which is pair bonding (hetero or homo) and tertiary which is purely for pleasure. I do not think that the exercise of any of these “functions” is unnatural or runs contrary to their “purpose”. Just because you are not using something for its primary purpose, in no invalidates all other purposes for it.

Example a Semi-Auto Rifle is made for self defense. Primary Purpose
I can also use it for hunting ( Secondary purpose - not a best use but it still works)
I can also use it purely for target practice at the gun range (tertiary purpose solely for pleasure)
Just because I am using my rifle for something other than its primary purpose does not mean I am misusing my gun.

Now it would be immoral and a misuse of my handgun to go out and shoot someone simply for fun. That is when I misuse my gun.

Guns are for shooting bullets and what bullets are for depends on the type.

What does the Church teach on same sex love? Let us examine something written by Gregory of Nazianzen a Doctor of the Church.

Basil and I were both in Athens. We had come, like streams of a river, from the same source in our native land, had separated from each other in pursuit of learning, and were now united again as if by plan, for God so arranged it.

I was not alone at that time in my regard for my friend, the great Basil. I knew his irreproachable conduct, and the maturity and wisdom of his conversation. I sought to persuade others, to whom he was less well known, to have the same regard for him. Many fell immediately under his spell, for they had already heard of him by reputation and hearsay.

What was the outcome? Almost alone of those who had come to Athens to study, he was exempted from the customary ceremonies of initiation, for he was held in higher honor than his status as a first-year student seemed to warrant.

Such was the prelude to our friendship, the kindling of that flame that was to bind us together. In this way we began to feel affection for each other. When, in the course of time, we acknowledged our friendship and recognized that our ambition was a life of Christian perfection, we became everything to each other: We shared the same lodging, the same table, the same desires, the same goal. Our love for each other grew daily warmer and deeper.

Our single object and ambition was virtue, and a life of hope in the blessings that are to come; we wanted to withdraw from this world before we departed from it. With this end in view we ordered our lives and all our actions. We followed the guidance of God’s law and spurred each other on to virtue. If it is not too boastful to say, we found in each other a standard and rule for discerning right from wrong.

“We Wanted to Be Christians Together,” Gregory of Nazianzen: Oration 43: In Praise of Basil the Great. Excerpted from The Liturgy of the Hours, ©1974, The International Committee on English in the Liturgy, Inc. All rights reserved.

As we can see, same sex love is not a sin, nor is sharing the same lodging, the same table or the same desires. We can also see that such a relationship can assist us in obtaining Christian perfection.

 

[Rau]

…What does the Church teach on same sex love? Let us examine something written by Gregory of Nazianzen a Doctor of the Church.
…
As we can see, same sex love is not a sin, nor is sharing the same lodging, the same table or the same desires. We can also see that such a relationship can assist us in obtaining Christian perfection.

Wonderful quote. And I assume neither sex nor marriage (at least, not with each other) were on their agenda.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Wonderful quote. And I assume neither sex nor marriage (at least, not with each other) were on their agenda.

Correct, also St. Basil the Great and St. Gregory of Nazianzen have a joint feast day on January 2nd.

I think it is useful to show gay people that the Church neither insists that gay people live and die alone nor does She claim that same sex love does not exist, indeed She has praised same sex love. It also serves to illustrate that real love need not be expressed sexually, something much of society struggles with.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Guns are for shooting bullets and what bullets are for depends on the type.

A gun can also be hung on the wall for decoration, which does not involve its “primary purpose” of shooting bullets.

For an example involving the human body, the primary purpose of the lungs is to breathe oxygen into the blood. Yet the lungs can also be used to blow air into a saxophone, or deliver a drug like nicotine.

So using something for other than its intended purpose is sometimes OK.

 

[alchemist3]

I was trying to refrain from this argument but Joie forced me into it. It could just as well be stated that the purpose of the penis is just discharging sperm, the target is optional. I know that is vulgar and gross and apologize, but the analogy is an apt one.

Again, I am not denying that the purpose of male sexuality is primarily procreative, but it obviously serves other functions that are not related to its primary purpose. So why exactly are secondary and tertiary uses “unnatural”. Something is not necessarily used unnaturally just because it is not being used for its primary purpose. Would someone please address this.

 

[alchemist3]

Correct, also St. Basil the Great and St. Gregory of Nazianzen have a joint feast day on January 2nd.

I think it is useful to show gay people that the Church neither insists that gay people live and die alone nor does She claim that same sex love does not exist, indeed She has praised same sex love. It also serves to illustrate that real love need not be expressed sexually, something much of society struggles with.

And I think it is completely appropriate for the Church to teach whatever it wants concerning SS activity. That is not my issue. I want to know why it is considered “unnatural” or violates natural law?

 

[petra22]

And that must gnaw at such people, knowing active homosexuality is not socially acceptable, not deep down inside, to many, even to themselves … because it is naturally written in man’s heart.
,

:sad_yes:

 

[cena]

And I think it is completely appropriate for the Church to teach whatever it wants concerning SS activity. That is not my issue. I want to know why it is considered “unnatural” or violates natural law?

There are things people naturally find repulsive. Incest, lying, being mean, etc. are all things we can figure out are wrong on our own.

Self preservation and survival is natural. Someone Wanting to kill or harm themself do not have a natural desire, suicide is unnatural.

 

[alchemist3]

There are things people naturally find repulsive. Incest, lying, being mean, etc. are all things we can figure out are wrong on our own.

Self preservation and survival is natural. Someone Wanting to kill or harm themself do not have a natural desire, suicide is unnatural.

People were also repulsed by mixed-race marriages and claimed they were unnatural. Also apparently not everyone is repulsed by same sex conduct, in fact millions upon millions of people find it very attractive. Your personal repulsion in no way is determanative of something being unnatural. Lying is also acceptable under certain circumstances, there is nothing immoral about lying to save the lives of others. That would be a completely moral lie. Being mean might be called for in certain instances, though admittedly rare. Drill instructors are pretty mean people, but it is necessary for training a soldier. Incest is a tricky one, because I also get an innate feeling of disgust from it and it does indeed seem wrong to me and the incest argument definetly presents some problems. However we all obviously can not figure out what is wrong on our own because we obviously have very divergent agreements about it. I am completely heterosexual and have absolutely no attraction to any man, and while I have no personal attraction to men, it does not bother me if other men are attracted to each other and engage in private sexual conduct. Heck I am even so vain that I could care less if a homosexual man is attracted to me, I might even be insulted if he wasn’t because maybe he thinks I am ugly I am much more repulsed by the idea of obese people having sex than I am two men having sex, but obviously my repulsion should not be a deciding factor in what is and what is not moral behavior. You are arguing from mere social convention, not something that is innately inherent in all people. Classical Greece and P Rome and Feudal Japan and China all found homosexual conduct perfectly natural, now how is this possible if everyone is repulsed by it? Because it has nothing to do with its innate morality, it is simply social convention.

 

[alchemist3]

I think I might just make a separate thread for the natural law arguments as this discussion has really forced me to think about this issue. Rau you present some good arguments and I am not in disagreement with you, I agree that Procreation is sexual conducts primary, maybe even best purpose, I simply disagree that this invalidates all other sexual conduct.

 

[cena]

People were also repulsed by mixed-race marriages and claimed they were unnatural. Also apparently not everyone is repulsed by same sex conduct, in fact millions upon millions of people find it very attractive. Your personal repulsion in no way is determanative of something being unnatural. Lying is also acceptable under certain circumstances, there is nothing immoral about lying to save the lives of others. That would be a completely moral lie. Being mean might be called for in certain instances, though admittedly rare. Drill instructors are pretty mean people, but it is necessary for training a soldier. Incest is a tricky one, because I also get an innate feeling of disgust from it and it does indeed seem wrong to me and the incest argument definetly presents some problems. However we all obviously can not figure out what is wrong on our own because we obviously have very divergent agreements about it. I am completely heterosexual and have absolutely no attraction to any man, and while I have no personal attraction to men, it does not bother me if other men are attracted to each other and engage in private sexual conduct. Heck I am even so vain that I could care less if a homosexual man is attracted to me, I might even be insulted if he wasn’t because maybe he thinks I am ugly I am much more repulsed by the idea of obese people having sex than I am two men having sex, but obviously my repulsion should not be a deciding factor in what is and what is not moral behavior. You are arguing from mere social convention, not something that is innately inherent in all people. Classical Greece and Pagan Rome found homosexual conduct perfectly natural, now how is this possible if everyone is repulsed by it? Because it has nothing to do with its innate morality, it is simply social convention.

Some people were raised to believe mixed race marriageswas unnatural, they didn’t figure it out on their own.

It’s immoral to lie, but you can use mental reservations
newadvent.org/cathen/10195b.htm read more on that here
Classical Greece thought homosexuality was okay between men and boys, but once the boy became a man it was not acceptable. I guess that’s perfectly okay since the Greeks thought it was.
Also, they valued marriage more than we ever will. It was always one man and one woman.

People are using the Qu’ran to justify raping little girls. They could argue that laws against rape are just a social construction and it is not part of natural law because they find nothing wrong in it. They personally find it attractive to enslave girls and since prostitution has been around for thousands of years not everyone is naturally repulsed by it.

What if someone wanted to have sex with their cousin or their dog? It’s their personal life so why should we stop them? People used to marry their cousins so why should we stop them now? Since we apparently made up the concept of incest being wrong?

 

[cena]

I think I might just make a separate thread for the natural law arguments as this discussion has really forced me to think about this issue. Rau you present some good arguments and I am not in disagreement with you, I agree that Procreation is sexual conducts primary, maybe even best purpose, I simply disagree that this invalidates all other sexual conduct.

If the primary purpose of sex is procreation
Why endorse a type of sex that will under any circumstances produce children