Secular argument against gay marriage

[CandideWest]

Unless I missed it (and maybe I did), I don’t recall you actually demonstrating that this particular argument is “weak.”

Can you point me to the relevant post(s)?

Well I’m not alone with this one, but I have repeatedly pointed out in many different variations of the theme) that if marriage is all about the children, and infertile people cannot have children any more than homosexuals can, then infertile people should not be permitted to marry by the same argument.

At this point most people simply abandon the claim or start pretending that infertile people can have children really, but choose not to etc.

 

[CandideWest]

Are you saying that Homosexuals were denied the right to vote?
Are you saying that they were segregated?
Are you saying people enslaved homosexuals? Are you serious?

The comparison of the Civil Rights struggle with the LGBT movement is a classical fallacy of false analogy.

One has to do with unalienable rights, and the other has to do with social acceptance.

Again, it would really help if you actually read my post before replying to it. I said

"You don’t believe that homosexuals in the US have been intimidated and even killed for being homosexual? You don’t believe they have suffered violence, hatred and discrimination?

Seriously?

If so then I can only suggest you need to do a little more research on the topic."

Because you clearly tried to claim that homosexuals were not intimidated, murdered etc. Which is quite obviously completely false.

Now if you want to back off that claim and only stand by “homosexuals were never legally banned from voting” and “homosexuals weren’t enslaved” then of course I won’t object.

 

[CandideWest]

Hanging on a thread there CandideWest.
Man is both spiritual and material.
The Spirit is being that has the power of knowing and willing. Matter is being that has not these powers. One cannot fault the infertile couple due to their matter, it is not their will nor knowledge which causes this infirmity. However, Homosexuality involves will and knowing, and this makes this sinful. Understand?

Those are your religious beliefs and that’s fine in itself, but it is not a secular argument.

If you want to write a religious argument then the above works, but you don’t need any it because you can always just quote the bible or the Catechism.

However, if you wish to write a secular argument none of the argument above is valid.

 

[CandideWest]

I want the Truth. The truth is a person, Jesus Christ. I thought I made that very clear.

Righto.

In any event, “argumentum ad populum” is also a classical fallacy. It truly is not logical to appeal to the majority in determining moral clarity. At one time most people believed the world was flat; That did not make the world flat.

Indeed, just to be clear however, it was your “argumentum ad populum”, not mine. Remember? You said “If the majority of people believe…”

All I’ve done in my reply was agree that in practice the majority get what they want whether its right or wrong. Which is more or less what you wrote above. And secondly note that you may well not be in the majority.

You are correct. Many Catholics are not completely formed in the faith. That is what the New Evangelization is all about!

Righto.

 

[CandideWest]

Ontologically, yes.

It means its actions are directed towards its ends. Everything that is done is done in order to set the stage for the goal.

Hmmm, so in what way is infertile sex setting the stage for procreation (which by definition cannot happen) while homosexual sex is not setting the stage for procreation?

 

[CandideWest]

Just so we know where we both stand on the issue of same sex marriage would you advocate same sex marriage or discourage it? and what is the conclusion for such advocation/discouragment?

I see no reason to discourage gay marriage and some to support it, so I guess you would say I’m an advocate for it. But that isn’t my purpose on this thread. The topic here is secular arguments AGAINST gay marriage.

I think that the places you see my writing as presenting arguments in favour, I see as demonstrating the failings of arguments against. That’s all I’ve aimed to do.

It is also the reasoning behind same sex marriage that is indirectly advocating other sexual immoralities such as fornication etc. aswell.

This is a strange one for me, surely encouraging everyone to get married is arguing against fornication, and preventing people in sexual relationships from getting married is advocating fornication.

I don’t see how you would get from

“homosexuals can get married”

to

“therefore other couples SHOULDN’T get married and still have sex”.

Could you explain?

…
Reproductive sexual acts can only be done with a man and a woman.

Right, but reproductive sexual acts can only occur between a fertile man and a fertile woman. By definition if the couple are infertile then any sexual act cannot result in reproduction.

…It is still immoral in my opinion…

Fair enough, I think we’re back to the old “I disagree” point and I don’t suppose either of us is going to change the mind of the other on this one.

Would you mind if we dropped this secular argument? I don’t think it’s working and I will become lost in it because I don’t know enough about evolution to keep it going, if you feel you are onto something here than I am happy to try and continue with it, just bring it up in the next reply.

Sure, consider it dropped, you asked so I was just trying to help clarify how things that look initially like an evolutionary disadvantage are not necessarily so.

True. however could you please view this link - youtube.com/watch?v=EonZXFd0Afw

Hmmm, I’m afraid the link doesn’t work for me, it says there was an error in validation, whatever that means.

Yup, it is also very hard with such studies because there are so many variables, but if you look at it not statistically but from a logical/ethical point of view, would you say that the wide acceptance and encouragment of fornication has been more harmful to society than beneficial?

That particular element of the sexual revolution I would argue has been on balance more harmful. Of course unpicking what the causes of that effect were from those which were on balance beneficial is of course likely to be impossible.

Incidentally, I’m curious about something, which of the following would you say are morally better (or least immoral if you prefer).

a). A heterosexual couple having sex using contraception outside of marriage
b). A heterosexual married couple having sex using contraception.

And the same question for the following two:

a). A homosexual couple having sex outside of marriage
b). A homosexual married couple having sex.

I think that would be fantastic, however I don’t have very good secular arguments for someone non religious when it comes to sexual morality, do you see fornication as immoral?

Sex outside of marriage is not in itself necessarily immoral, no. In some cases it is of course, because it causes harm, suffering etc. but in other it is not because it creates both short and long term happiness.

The problem with this “suffering is bad” and “happiness is good” is that it’s all subjective. It does not explain or account for conscience.

Actually the part of this system which is subjective is one of the strengths of it. Because it allows it to flex to the differences between people.

Lets take a frivolous example. Imagine a person who suffers enormously listening to Beethoven (think Alex after the treatment in a Clockwork Orange). It would be highly immoral to lock him in a room and play Beethoven, because it would cause him enormous suffering, it would be a form of torture. The fact that it wouldn’t cause MOST PEOPLE suffering to do so is not relevant.

Also, if there is no God, there is no moral law giver and if there is no moral law giver, there is no moral law and without moral law there is no distinction between right or wrong or good or evil, it is all subjective to the individual.

Not quite, the correct thing to say is that there is no ABSOLUTE morality, no ABSOLUTE measures of right and wrong. That doesn’t reduce it to subjectivity to the individual. We can still create moral systems that work for our entire species (ie the one I explained above) just as some other species do for that matter.

It just means that human laws of morality don’t apply to bats and bats laws of morality don’t apply to humans.

The other thing I don’t understand is that when people say God doesn’t exists, how do they explain getting something from nothing?

Why would we need to? Has someone found a nothing someone got something from?

Like I mentioned before, I am curious to see your view on other sexual activities, because if you see nothing wrong with the sexual acts of homosexuality than it should follow that there is nothing wrong with all sexual activities that have consent, such as fornication, incest, polygamy etc.

Having sex outside of marriage I have explained I do not find immoral in itself (although it is in some cases). The other two I have explained why I don’t have an opinion to give you. I’m not sure that I can help you further from here really.

 

[CandideWest]

Men and women are capable of the reproductive sexual act though.

Not if they’re infertile though. To use previously used terminology, they can imitate reproductive sexual acts, but as these acts cannot themselves be reproductive.

So what about two close friends in a commited friendship? such as roommates, or siblings living together.

As far as I know there’s nothing in the marriage law right now that would prevent roommates doing so. However, the legal obligations that places on them in their relationship along with the social implications of marriage tend to mean people don’t do it in practice.

Maybe there are people out there right now doing it though, how would we know? The only time married relationships get scrutinised to the level where it might be discovered is in cases of security clearance and permission to remain in the country.

But for example some countries recognise same sex marriage and others don’t, what happens there? do the countries who have not legalised same sex marriage have to recognise such couples as a marriage when they come from another country that does?

I believe that the arrangements internationally is that countries generally respect the marriage of people from other countries. For example a homosexual couple married in France who emigrate to the US would still be considered to be a married couple.

But I must admit I’m not sure on that but it seems a ridiculous idea that two people could get on a plane as a married couple and without doing anything get off it unmarried, then drive across another border and be married again…

Well for example when it comes to adoption, I don’t think it should be wrongful discrimination or unlawful for them to take into account the lack of a father figure or mother figure, that would be illogical, I think in this case it would be a just and neccessary discrimination, wouldn’t you?

I think adoption services should take account of all relevant factors, and sometimes that will determine that this heterosexual couple are better than that homosexual couple, and sometimes it will determine that this homosexual couple is better than that heterosexual couple. The key is in ensuring that the agency applies standards evenly.

… Everyone is still clearly against it and it’s not fadding away/out simply because it became law. The opposition of no-fault divorce and abortion will never go away just like same sex marriage, …

Two points, first very far from “Everyone” opposes divorce and abortion.

Secondly it’s far too soon to make that judgement with any level of reliability I’m afraid. It took centuries before banning slavery was accepted everywhere after it was first banned. And I’m sure even 50 years after that people were still arguing in favour of it. Another 50 years later it was rare… now it’s more or less extinct.

They need to be male and female, because the two genders go together, just like pair bonding because there are two genders.

But if you cannot support why that requirement and not one of the others then the requirement is arbitrary or based purely on religious beliefs. Neither of which constitutes a secular argument.

You would be mistaken to think that, just look at no-fault divorce and abortion.

Same sex marriage will be one of those when it is legalised. As Christians morality is not subjective and will not change depending on society.

??? Of course Christians morality changes with society. Do you think all those slave owners in the US were members of some other religion? Back then most Christians happily accepted the morality of slavery and as I said even used the bible as support to that position.

Now Christians, along with everyone else believe that slavery was wrong. Christian morality has moved on.

Pair bonding makes sense for me because God created men and women…

Sure, I know you believe that. And pair bonding makes sense from a secular point of view because its how we evolved.

In any case I wouldn’t have a very good secular argument against them, but I am against incest and polygamy, primarily religious beliefs though, in the design of men and women.

Fair enough.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[PRmerger]

Well I’m not alone with this one, but I have repeatedly pointed out in many different variations of the theme) that if marriage is all about the children, and infertile people cannot have children any more than homosexuals can, then infertile people should not be permitted to marry by the same argument.

And has already been pointed out, infertile couples’ marital acts are still ordered towards procreation, therefore there is nothing immoral about their unions, as it is with homosexual unions.

 

[PRmerger]

Hmmm, so in what way is infertile sex setting the stage for procreation (which by definition cannot happen) while homosexual sex is not setting the stage for procreation?

I think this analogy, borrowed from the wickedly funny yet orthodox and trenchant Catholic blogger, Marc Barnes, limns the difference quite well:

Imagine a senior citizens baseball team that shows up to play the 2011 World Series champs, the St. Louis Cardinals. They have absolutely no chance of achieving the proper end of baseball (gaining more runs than the other team), but so long as they play according to the rules** their play is still ordered toward its proper end.**

But in the case of homosexual unions, the play itself is changed. It would be like showing up at the game without bats, wanting to play with their backs to each other, so that even if they have the intent of winning a baseball game, what they are doing can’t possibly be ordered toward that end because they are, quite simply, no longer playing baseball.

 

[Monkey1976]

Well I’m not alone with this one, but I have repeatedly pointed out in many different variations of the theme) that if marriage is all about the children, and infertile people cannot have children any more than homosexuals can, then infertile people should not be permitted to marry by the same argument.

As far as I can discover, the only 100% accurate method for diagnosing infertility in a heterosexual couple is the actual absence of the gonads. Personally, I know two couples who were both told that they had absolutely zero chance of having children. I’m godfather to the son of one couple, and the other is currently expecting their second child. Marital relations result in children unless there is some kind of impediment.

This is not the case for same-sex couples. Their sexual activity is guaranteed to be infertile, and there is presently no way around the fact that a child requires a biological father and mother. Ideally, these would be the same people who will raise the child. Same-sex “marriages” where the couple “wants children” are explicitly saying that children need only fathers or only mothers.

At this point most people simply abandon the claim or start pretending that infertile people can have children really, but choose not to etc.

Or they point out that 100% infertile heterosexual couples are the rare exception. For a male/female pair, infertility means that something is broken, but might be corrected through proper treatment. For same-sex couples, infertility is the unavoidable norm.

 

[tonyrey]

*A beautiful example of a combined evasion and an argumentum ad hominem!

Marriage is defined by the vows **at present **but your respect for “passing fashions” can surely overcome that minor obstacle. Isn’t morality relative?

For the same reason you can’t marry your hat-stand and other diverse objects (of either gender).

I’m amazed you’re departing from your principle of absolute equality for all genders. But then it is inconsistent with your moral relativism, isn’t it? On the other hand we have to modify our views to reach our desired conclusions. Otherwise we would lose the battle!

I’d advise you seek professional counseling if these desires persist.

I’m not the one who is advocating novel forms of marriage… perhaps with an ulterior motive!

And what determines right or wrong in the **undesigned **

scheme of things?The same as always:

*Do to others as you would have them do to you.

If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that. And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full. But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.**
Luke 6*

Unfortunately you have rejected Design - which rules out an appeal to the teaching of Jesus (who pointed to the beauty of the lilies as evidence of divine purpose and love).

Moreover the topic is secular arguments against gay marriage which rules out an appeal to the religious basis of morality - unless you believe in one law for you and another for your opponents…

 

[JimG]

Infertility is not the point. Same sex couples cannot have marital sex! It’s impossible for them.

 

[PRmerger]

Infertility is not the point. Same sex couples cannot have marital sex! It’s impossible for them.

True, dat.

 

[josh987654321]

I think it may be exactly the reverse.

The idea that marriage is a license to have sex and procreate was challenged by the sexual revolution, with many deciding marriage was obsolete - why bother getting married if that’s all it stands for?

What is needed is a counter-revolution which reaffirms that the prime purpose of marriage is neither sex nor procreation but a life-long union. Gay marriage is part of that counter-revolution, since it explicitly denies that marriage is about procreation.

You will think I am repeating this question again, but I want you to answer it with refference to your above comments, since you think gay marriage is a revolution that will explicitly deny marriage being about procreation. which you are quite correct by the way.

Why would polygamous relationships and incestuous relationships be unable to marry? because like you have said marriage has nothing to do with sex, it is a life long union, so for example family members should be allowed to have a life long union so why can they not marry one another?

Not quite sure I agree, but I see your point now.

Okay.

A number of CAF posters believe in some form of designer but your Church doesn’t teach that. Your Church teaches what I think is known as theistic evolution:

This view is generally accepted by major Christian churches, including the Catholic Church, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Episcopal Church USA, and some other mainline Protestant denominations; virtually all Jewish denominations; and other religious groups that lack a literalist stance concerning some holy scriptures. - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

My view is similar to your Church.

I have already answered this, hahaha, I think I know why you feel you are repeating yourself.

See below.

I think I’ve now answered in a reply to you yesterday - both can be a sin depending on the circumstances.

hahaha, you did, dejavu anyone?

Always a pleasure.

Likewise

It’s estimated there are 17 billion Earth-size planets in our galaxy and there are thought to be over 170 billion other galaxies in the visible universe.

I’m not overly impressed with the notion that God designed every life-form that there might be on all those planets.

As posted early in #822, my beliefs are pretty standard for many Christians, what I think is called theistic evolution.

hahaha, I believe the Big Bang Theory, I also believe Theistic Evolution (Not darwins theory that we evolved from apes though, I think his theory from apes is rediculous.)

Let me quote you something from your same source you provided me with on Theistic Evolution -

A theory of theistic evolution (TE) — also called evolutionary creation — proposes that God’s method of creation was to cleverly design a universe in which everything would naturally evolve. Usually the “evolution” in “theistic evolution” means Total Evolution — astronomical evolution (to form galaxies, solar systems,…) and geological evolution (to form the earth’s geology) plus chemical evolution (to form the first life) and biological evolution (for the development of life) — but it can refer only to biological evolution.[1]

Can you see it now? Creation and Design, you do not get a creation without a design, just like the dictionary didn’t come about by an explosion in a printing press.

Id also like to include this fact.

If you take the composition of the enzyme in the human component, the enzyme being the building block of the gene and the gene being the building block of the cell.

The possibility of the human enzyme comming together by random is 1 in 10^40000, which is more than the number of atoms in this universe, it is timewise and mathematically impossible.

I think it is safe to say that we were designed

Thus my question comes back to here - #768

I thought I answered this yesterday, maybe not. Fornication just means sex outside marriage, it’s just a word. If someone rapes his wife it’s not fornication but it is immoral. Incest is immoral for reasons gone into many times now. As also said before, polygamy is deemed moral in some societies and religions but I think it is incompatible with the vows to what we would both call marriage.

I’m surprised that you guys keep on about sex all the time. I mean when did you last hear someone say “Jim and Jane are getting married, they’ll be able to have lots of sex, how nice for them”. Can you give me just one example of any normal person in the real world thinking marriage is about sex?

Have you heard of anyone saying “Jim and Jane are getting married, they’ll be virgins forever, how nice of them”? can you give me an example of any normal person in the real world who thinks marriage has nothing to do with sexual intimacy?

Like I said before, marriage isn’t just about sex, but it isn’t exclusive of sex either, thus why same sex marriage is absolutley advocating the sexual acts of homosexuality.

I think one of the reasons why people are increasingly in favor of gay marriage must be they hear the opponents talking about sex all the time and don’t want to be seen with them.

haha, probably.

We are talking about sex all the time because people seem to be ignoring that aspect of marriage, if it was not for the sexual acts, no one would have a problem with same sex marriage, it is the sexual acts of homosexuality that are advocated and normalised for society with same sex marriage that we are all againt.

Please continue to next post -

 

[josh987654321]

Continued from above post -

I think it’s not just harm to others but harm to each other, e.g. rape is harming the other person, but …

:clapping: exactly, I absolutley agree with you, I am just so glad you can see that they harm each other, because I find it hard to produce a secular argument to show people that and it is the core of why we are in such opposition to the sexual acts of homosexuality.

So thus, you must ask yourself, why does fornication/promiscuity harm those both involved and the sexual acts of homosexuality doesn’t?

yikes, can we talk about something other than sex!

Somewhat off-topic as well, seems like the kind of thing they discuss over in the Social Justice section.

No, you are so close, we have to talk about sex because you are ignoring it and I think all of those in support of same sex marriage must also be ignoring it, it’s the underlying truth of homosexuality that makes it so immoral.

Why can people buy assault weapons in the USA? Why can people buy tobacco products? Because people are not computers.

Your on the right track, people can buy those things, but we absolutley should not advocate the purchase of such things.

You got a bit incoherent there, who is advocating sexual acts?

Anyone who supports same sex marriage is advocating the sexual acts of homosexuality and if the sexual acts of homosexuality are seen as moral because of consent, than fornication and promiscuity should also follow as moral because they have the same “consent” reasoning.

Why do you think not calling homosexuals immoral would mean not calling rapists immoral?

Could you refrase that question please? and we don’t call homosexuals immoral, we call the sexual acts of homosexuality immoral. We call the sexual acts they desire immoral.

Sounds like one rule for the rich and another for the poor, also known as post-rationalization.

Could you please explain or elaborate.

Because society doesn’t want it.

True, but if “society” decided that incestuous marriage should be legalised, would you support it?

If you’re allowing it to continue and we can all see you’re allowing it to continue then you have allowed it to become normal, which is what normalized means.

Just because you “allow” something to continue doesn’t mean you have normalised it and when it comes to same sex marriage and the sexual acts of homosexuality, we are against such acts being a part of “family life.” Which would be “normalising” such acts with family life.

Now hang on here, where does Jesus say homosexuality is immoral? I don’t mean those verses you quoted before about divorce, I mean where does Jesus say it out loud and give His reason. And it’s still not a secular argument.

It isn’t a secular argument but it’s important.

I found a great post on this from Elizabeth502 and I have been searching for it for a while and found this one (#212) that is very close to it.

Aren’t they immoral whether or not they are called fornication?

We are going round in circles. You think the “homosexual act” is immoral, I think the morality is similar to the “heterosexual act”. You think marriage is about sex, I don’t.

I think the sexual acts of homosexuality is immoral

You think the morality is similar to the sexual act of heterosexuals? please explain how?

You think marriage isn’t about sex? I don’t think marriage is just about sex, but I know that sexual intimacy is a part of marriage, to say that marriage has nothing to do with sex is just as illogical as it is for me to try and claim that marriage is only about sex.

I got lost.

The sexual acts of homosexuality are seen as moral because of consent, than fornication and promiscuity should also follow as moral because they have the same “consent” reasoning.

I am hoping that you see fornication and promiscuity as immoral.

If you think contraception is 100% effective, think again.

True.

Please go back over my previous posts about polygamy and incest. Sorry but I’m not going to keep repeating the same answers over and over again.

The questions are in relation to marriage having nothing to do with sex.

Have a look at that article on theistic evolution I linked earlier, I think it has links to vatican.va documents too. Maybe also reflect that the bible doesn’t talk about a designer god but it does call God the Creator.

How does God accomplish creation without design?

"Those of us who believe in God believe that God is the designer of our human body including our sexual organs."

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

I think this analogy, borrowed from the wickedly funny yet orthodox and trenchant Catholic blogger, Marc Barnes, limns the difference quite well:

Imagine a senior citizens baseball team that shows up to play the 2011 World Series champs, the St. Louis Cardinals. They have absolutely no chance of achieving the proper end of baseball (gaining more runs than the other team), but so long as they play according to the rules** their play is still ordered toward its proper end.**

But in the case of homosexual unions, the play itself is changed. It would be like showing up at the game without bats, wanting to play with their backs to each other, so that even if they have the intent of winning a baseball game, what they are doing can’t possibly be ordered toward that end because they are, quite simply, no longer playing baseball.

:clapping: haha, great way of putting it.

 

[PRmerger]

:clapping: haha, great way of putting it.

:tiphat:

 

[Peter_Plato]

I’m curious, what do you think “ordered towards” means?

In the same way that eating food is “ordered towards” providing the body with nutrients, sex is the normal biological means by which new human beings are produced. So sex is ordered towards procreation of new human life.

If some individuals began to stuff food bits into their ears or up their nose we would say that such actions are not in accord with the natural means by which nutrients are designed to enter into a human body. Likewise, individuals who insert their sexual parts into places not intended by nature have a disordered view of the way in which sexual parts are designed by nature to function.

Now if enough individuals began to use other orifices of their bodies for the consumption of food, they may gain some degree of support from others who don’t really understand design in nature, and probably the more pleasurable the experience, the more support will be garnered, but popularity is not a reliable criterion by which form and function are properly understood and related to each other.

 

[josh987654321]

I see no reason to discourage gay marriage and some to support it, so I guess you would say I’m an advocate for it. But that isn’t my purpose on this thread. The topic here is secular arguments AGAINST gay marriage.

I think that the places you see my writing as presenting arguments in favour, I see as demonstrating the failings of arguments against. That’s all I’ve aimed to do.

Okay. My point being that the argument presented here will either be in favor of same sex marriage or against it. So when you shoot down our secular arguments against it, it would be good if you could provide us with your secular arguments for same sex marriage aswell.

Because I don’t think we will get anywhere if people put views forward to be shot down and the other side doesn’t do any presenting of views.

This is a strange one for me, surely encouraging everyone to get married is arguing against fornication, and preventing people in sexual relationships from getting married is advocating fornication.

I don’t see how you would get from

“homosexuals can get married”

to

“therefore other couples SHOULDN’T get married and still have sex”.

Could you explain?

My apologies I should have made that clearer.

I am separating fornication and promiscuity from the sexual acts of homosexuality.

I am saying that if you percieve the sexual acts of homosexuality to be moral because of consent, than the same should follow for fornication and promiscuity.

So I am saying that same sex marriage advocates the sexual acts of homosexuality and people see the sexual acts of homosexuality as moral because of the “consent” factor and thus they will view fornication and promiscuity the exact same way because of the “consent” reasoning, thus it will advocate a whole range of sexual immorality.

What does a person say about sexual morality (acting on their own sexual desires) in this world, when the sexual acts of homosexuality are considered moral?

How could any society advocate the sexual acts of homosexuality yet discourage fornication and promiscuity?

Anyway this was in the hope that you would find fornication and promiscuity immoral. Thus I would like to continue the debate on fornication and promiscuity.

Right, but reproductive sexual acts can only occur between a fertile man and a fertile woman. By definition if the couple are infertile then any sexual act cannot result in reproduction.

Okay, we didn’t clear things up in our previous posts.

I wont use reproductive sexual acts. PRmerger, is using the terminology that I was trying to use.

Infertile couples’ marital acts are still ordered towards procreation.

So I guess I’ll use the term “sexual act ordered towards procreation.”

I am saying it is the sexual act that is ordered towards procreation, thus even if a man and a woman are infertile the sexual act is still the same, it just doesn’t result in procreation, it’s the sexual act that involves X and Y fitting together. It’s the sexual act you learn in sex education.

If there is a term for that sexual act than please let me know, it will make it alot easier for me to explain my view to you.

Fair enough, I think we’re back to the old “I disagree” point and I don’t suppose either of us is going to change the mind of the other on this one.

Hopefully we will understand both our arguments and than make an informed decision on the issue and you never know what views we might change for each other during this.

Sure, consider it dropped, you asked so I was just trying to help clarify how things that look initially like an evolutionary disadvantage are not necessarily so.

Yea it wasn’t a very good secular argument on my part.

Thanks.

Please continue to next post -

 

[josh987654321]

Continued from post above -

Hmmm, I’m afraid the link doesn’t work for me, it says there was an error in validation, whatever that means.

No worries, I can basically write it out for you because it’s not long.

I apologise for the off-topic nature of this, but Id very much like to share this with you CandideWest and I think it will help with this argument, if you want to reply to it just PM me so that we keep this thread on topic.

God is the only logical choice for any sane person who thinks about the big questions in life.

This is from Ravi Zacharias on the illogicality of Atheism.

There are 3 steps you take in establishing the existance of God.

1. However you section physical reality, you take the physical universe how you see it, how ever you slice it down to it’s most minute form, the fact of the matter is you end up with a physical entity or quantity that does not have the reason for it’s existance in itself.

Ultimatly the physical universe reduced in any form, cannot explain it’s own origin, it has to expand it’s explanation outside of itself, which means the first explanation of a universe as we see it, has to have something that is non physical as a first cause.

Therefore an athiest has a kind of haunted universe without knowing what the first cause is.

1. If you take the composition of the enzyme in the human component, the enzyme being the building block of the gene and the gene being the building block of the cell.

The possibility of the human enzyme comming together by random is 1 in 10^40000, which is more than the number of atoms in this universe, it is timewise and mathematically impossible.

1. Explanation of morality, conscience.

If there is no God. Than there is no moral law giver and if there is no moral law giver. Than there is no moral law and if there is no moral law. Than there is nothing to distinguish between right & wrong or good & evil, therefore if they do not believe in God than there is no right & wrong or good & evil. So if you believe in good and bad or right and wrong, than you are contradicting yourself.

Hopefully this gets you to Agnostic , now if all religions claim to be the truth, than how can Christianity make that claim and be correct?

Many Agnostic’s claim that all religions a fundamentally the same and superfically different, which isn’t true. All religions are fundamentally different and at best superfically similar.

Only in the judeo-christian world view will you find these 4 questions answered with corresponding truthfullness and with the coherance of a world view.

1. Origin
2. Meaning
3. Morality
4. Destiny

The judeo-christian is not the only one that claims exclusivity, but it’s the only one that takes those four questions with corresponding answers that are truthfull and coherant answers that stand the test of time and the ultimate answer of the resurrection of the dead that gives you hope and meaning.

This is all from Ravi Zacharias who explains these things very well, I also found another website that has “Six questions to ask an athiest” the link is here - rzim.org/media/questions-answers/

That particular element of the sexual revolution I would argue has been on balance more harmful. Of course unpicking what the causes of that effect were from those which were on balance beneficial is of course likely to be impossible.

True. Not sure if you have answered yet, but would you view fornication and promiscuity as immoral or moral? and why?

Incidentally, I’m curious about something, which of the following would you say are morally better (or least immoral if you prefer).

Okay.

a). A heterosexual couple having sex using contraception outside of marriage

Immoral. Such a couple is coming together to mutually appease their own sexual desires, such a relationship is a “love of eros” in which does not bear any fruit so to speak, other than their own selfish mutual gratification from one another.

b). A heterosexual married couple having sex using contraception.

Immoral. The sexual act should always be open to the gift of new life in marriage, too many in this day and age see sex as harmless fun and children as some kind of unwanted side effect, I think planned parent hood is a very bad idea, no one is ever “ready” to have children. And again such attitude I think is to use the partner in marriage to mutually appease sexual desires.

And the same question for the following two:

a). A homosexual couple having sex outside of marriage

Immoral. Not only is it to selfishly and mutually appease their sexual desires, but such sexual acts are intrinsically disordered, they are acts of grave depravities, it is a miss use of our sexual organs.

Also when I say a miss use of sexual organs, I understand that you will probably deny it.

b). A homosexual married couple having sex.

Morally Right. Provided it’s the sexual act ordered towards procteation, it is the only sexual act that bears any real fruit and unfies such a couple.

Sex outside of marriage is not in itself necessarily immoral, no. In some cases it is of course, because it causes harm, suffering etc. but in other it is not because it creates both short and long term happiness.

So really according to you fornication and promiscuity is moral as long as both parties are in consent? and Im not talking about anything more than unmarried people sleeping around with one another with complete consent and agreement.

Please continue to next post -