Secular argument against gay marriage

[stewstew03]

…

So what if you masturbate and also engage in wholesome, monogamous, heterosexual sex? What accounts for the sinfulness of masturbation in cases where it isn’t replacing sex?

This is a non sequitur.

 

[Acrossthedesert]

What secular principle would lead anyone to think that chewing is not ordered toward nutrition, while at the same time leading them to think that sex is ordered toward reproduction?

So what if you masturbate and also engage in wholesome, monogamous, heterosexual sex? What accounts for the sinfulness of masturbation in cases where it isn’t replacing sex?

All actions are in the context of love open to life. Masturbation is closed to life and therefore has as its ends pleasure alone. Masturbation mixed into the conjugal act may be simply a perversion of the holy act of marital copulation. An immature man may not have his sexual formation/confidence to love his wife fully. It takes trust and love to grow in faith.

 

[Eleve]

Well, as I appealed to religion/God/theology how many times in this discussion, (answer: zero)

I think your question rather odd.

My question is, why don’t you think that chewing is ordered toward nutrition? How do you decide what is ordered toward what?

 

[Eleve]

This is a non sequitur.

I disagree. But anyone can say “This is irrelevant,” “No it’s not,” and so on, until the sun sets.

What I’m asking is why chewing gum is only bad if it replaces eating food, when you don’t say the same thing about masturbation and sex. Are there different principles driving the prohibition on masturbation that don’t apply to gum-chewing? If so, what are they?

 

[PRmerger]

My question is, why don’t you think that chewing is ordered toward nutrition? How do you decide what is ordered toward what?

You have got to be kidding.

Chewing gum is not for nutrition.

I am simply astonished that you would even posit the possibility that there’s some nutritional value to gum.

 

[Eleve]

I didn’t suggest that chewing gum is for nutrition; I just never said that. What I’m suggesting is that chewing is, at least at first glance, for breaking food down so that we can eat it, and thus for nutrition.

 

[stewstew03]

I disagree. But anyone can say “This is irrelevant,” “No it’s not,” and so on, until the sun sets.

What I’m asking is why chewing gum is only bad if it replaces eating food, when you don’t say the same thing about masturbation and sex. Are there different principles driving the prohibition on masturbation that don’t apply to gum-chewing? If so, what are they?

In case you haven’t been following, here is the context of the current discussion:

1. The state has an interest in acts that result in procreation.
2. Homosexual acts are never ordered towards procreation (thus state has no interest in protecting/encouraging homosexual marriage).
   
   2a. Question about “ordered towards”
   2b. Analogy of eating food/chewing gum used to explain “ordered towards”
   [*]Sinfulness of masturbation​

Number 3 is where you come in. As I said… non sequitur. If you want to start a new thread on masturbation, please do so.

 

[Eleve]

OK, I see. I was mistaken about the argument that CandideWest was making. Mea culpa, and sorry for the misinformed interruption.

 

[CandideWest]

Agreed. Chewing gum, when it replaces the “ordered” act of chewing food, is disordered.

By the way - some people actually do chew gum instead of food. Some people chew food, swallow it, and immediately regurgitate it. Correct me if I’m wrong but it seems like you are suggesting that there is no such thing as an “eating disorder.”

Once again you are twisting the argument. The argument was that eating (not merely chewing) was ordered towards providing nutrients to the body, so an attempt to use the process of eating for, say, recycling paper or reprocessing asphalt into tar would be disordered and likely sinful. Mouths, teeth and lips are multifunctional - they can be used for whistling, talking, breathing, etc. - but the digestive system and the process of eating taken in total is not. The reproductive system and its use in sexual intercourse as a complete activity, is, likewise, ordered towards the creation of new life. The fact that new life is constantly being killed in the womb should be taken as an indicator that the “system” is being misused and that misuse is morally offensive.

Chewing AND swallowing (attempting to digest) toxic items such as poisons or other non-food items, perhaps even gum, is disordered and could very well be sinful if intended harm results.

Ok, so lets go through this a step at a time for clarity, my understanding of the argument being given with regards to homosexual sex being disordered is as follows (please correct me if i’m wrong):

1. The primary evolutionary purpose (or designed purpose if you prefer) of the act of sex is reproduction.
2. Therefore the act of sex is “ordered towards” reproduction.
3. Using an act for a purpose it is not “ordered towards” is disordered and immoral
4. Homosexual sex does not result in reproduction and is therefore not “ordered towards” reproduction.
5. Therefore homosexual sex is disordered and immoral.

Is that about right? Now lets try the same structure with chewing gum.

1. The primary evolutionary purpose (or designed purpose if you prefer) of the act of chewing is breaking down food in preparation for digestion.
2. Therefore the act of chewing is “ordered towards” breaking down food in preparation for digestion.
3. Using an act for a purpose it is not “ordered towards” is disordered and immoral
4. Chewing gum does not break down food in preparation for digestion and is therefore not “ordered towards” breaking down food in preparation for digestion.
5. Therefore chewing gum is disordered and immoral.

Now, if I’ve made any errors in the above by all means lets get them tidied up and then you good folks can demonstrate for me why the argument works for one and not the other. How’s that sound?

 

[stewstew03]

You have got to be kidding.

Chewing gum is not for nutrition.

I am simply astonished that you would even posit the possibility that there’s some nutritional value to gum.

Don’t encourage this behavior…

 

[stewstew03]

Ok, so lets go through this a step at a time for clarity, my understanding of the argument being given with regards to homosexual sex being disordered is as follows (please correct me if i’m wrong):

1. The primary evolutionary purpose (or designed purpose if you prefer) of the act of sex is reproduction.
2. Therefore the act of sex is “ordered towards” reproduction.
3. Using an act for a purpose it is not “ordered towards” is disordered and immoral
4. Homosexual sex does not result in reproduction and is therefore not “ordered towards” reproduction.
5. Therefore homosexual sex is disordered and immoral.

Is that about right? Now lets try the same structure with chewing gum.

1. The primary evolutionary purpose (or designed purpose if you prefer) of the act of chewing is breaking down food in preparation for digestion.
2. Therefore the act of chewing is “ordered towards” breaking down food in preparation for digestion.
3. Using an act for a purpose it is not “ordered towards” is disordered and immoral
4. Chewing gum does not break down food in preparation for digestion and is therefore not “ordered towards” breaking down food in preparation for digestion.
5. Therefore chewing gum is disordered and immoral.

Now, if I’ve made any errors in the above by all means lets get them tidied up and then you good folks can demonstrate for me why the argument works for one and not the other. How’s that sound?

Sounds great. You failed to describe the purpose of chewing, you described its function.

Hope this helps.

 

[stewstew03]

OK, I see. I was mistaken about the argument that CandideWest was making. Mea culpa, and sorry for the misinformed interruption.

No problem!

 

[PRmerger]

Don’t encourage this behavior…

http://media.tumblr.com/8af3aa7a936c2f422b42c42539a88c43/tumblr_inline_mj9h54pvua1qz4rgp.gif

 

[Acrossthedesert]

Ok, so lets go through this a step at a time for clarity, my understanding of the argument being given with regards to homosexual sex being disordered is as follows (please correct me if i’m wrong):

1. The primary evolutionary purpose (or designed purpose if you prefer) of the act of sex is reproduction.
2. Therefore the act of sex is “ordered towards” reproduction.
3. Using an act for a purpose it is not “ordered towards” is disordered and immoral
4. Homosexual sex does not result in reproduction and is therefore not “ordered towards” reproduction.
5. Therefore homosexual sex is disordered and immoral.

Is that about right? Now lets try the same structure with chewing gum.

1. The primary evolutionary purpose (or designed purpose if you prefer) of the act of chewing is breaking down food in preparation for digestion.
2. Therefore the act of chewing is “ordered towards” breaking down food in preparation for digestion.
3. Using an act for a purpose it is not “ordered towards” is disordered and immoral
4. Chewing gum does not break down food in preparation for digestion and is therefore not “ordered towards” breaking down food in preparation for digestion.
5. Therefore chewing gum is disordered and immoral.

Now, if I’ve made any errors in the above by all means lets get them tidied up and then you good folks can demonstrate for me why the argument works for one and not the other. How’s that sound?

I believe a better analogy to sex is eating.
Sex is to procreation, as eating is to nutrition.

Eating
If we eat only for pleasure then eating may lead to over-eating (obesity-a disorder), or to eating and purging (bulimia-a disorder).

Sex
In a similar manner if we have sex only for pleasure, then sex may lead to sado-masochism (a disorder), or to chronic masturbation (a disorder), or oral sex (a disorder), or anal sex (a disorder). These disorders are usually referred to as perversions of the sexual act. So homosexuality is simply included under the genus of disordered sexual acts… akin to masturbation and the like.

Natural acts are those actions congruent with our human nature. Our nature 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. As a rational being we are expected to know the objective ends and not simply act upon our material urges. We should know and will nutrition, and we should know and will proCreation.

Sex is good; Sex is only evil (lacking the good) when it is removed from the context of love and proCreation (its ends)

 

[CandideWest]

Sounds great. You failed to describe the purpose of chewing, you described its function.

Hope this helps.

??? Not really no.

You appear to be trying to argue that while the function of chewing is breaking down food ready for digestion, it actually has some other “purpose”. What out of interest do you think the evolutionary purpose of chewing is if not breaking down food in preparation for digestion?

 

[CandideWest]

I believe a better analogy to sex is eating.
Sex is to procreation, as eating is to nutrition.

…

But that’s irrelevant. I’m talking about the act of chewing here.

The same argument that shows that homosexual sex is “disordered and immoral” seems to show that chewing gum is “disordered and immoral”.

If I have made an error or misunderstood something then by all means please identify the error.

 

[stewstew03]

??? Not really no.

You appear to be trying to argue that while the function of chewing is breaking down food ready for digestion, it actually has some other “purpose”. What out of interest do you think the evolutionary purpose of chewing is if not breaking down food in preparation for digestion?

The purpose of chewing food is to obtain sustenance.

The function of chewing is to break down food.

Does that make sense?

 

[stewstew03]

…

If I have made an error or misunderstood something then by all means please identify the error.

I already did…

It would be like saying - “I chew gum so that I can soften up the gum.”

The purpose of chewing is not to soften the gum, but to derive some sort of pleasure in its taste, or to freshen your breath, etc.

You are confusing function with purpose.

 

[josh987654321]

I could do I guess, but to be honest I’m struggling to find the time to reply to those writing to me on this thread as it is, without introducing a whole new set of discussion points. And secondly, such arguments would be off topic.

Okay, I understand because these posts are getting quite long, i’ll try and make it easier by dropping a few arguments of mine in this reply.

Thank you for your replies, you are doing a good job at getting to them.

I’m sorry, I couldn’t follow your logic through that. Perhaps you could break the logic down into steps from “homosexuals can get married” to “therefore people don’t need to get married to have sex”.

The two things seem to be if not contradictory then at least opposing each other.

My apologies, i’ll try and articulate it more accuratly for you.

1. You must ask yourself, why are the sexual acts of homosexuality seen as moral? The majority of it is because people say about sex that “If it’s not hurting anyone than whats wrong with it?” So thus the “consent” factor is the primary basis of reasoning for seeing such sexual activity as moral.
2. If people have that attitude towards sex, which is the “consent” factor (“If it’s not hurting anyone than whats wrong with it?”) Than a whole vast range of sexual activity will be seen as “moral” with that same reasoning. Thus when the sexual acts of homosexuality are seen as moral by society, all sexual activity with “consent” will be considered moral, which will include fornication, promiscuity, polygamy and a whole vast range of sexual activity.

Currently the sexual acts of homosexuality are seen as moral by some people and immoral by others, now if they legalise same sex marriage, it will be publicly announcing that such sexual acts are apparently in line with moral family life and will be making it moral for society through our legal system.

Like I said, what does an adolsecent say to themselves about sexual morality when the sexual acts of homosexuality are apparently a societal norm? that such acts are apparently a part of normal family life? obviously it is saying to society that as long as there is consent, there is no such thing as sexual morality.

Soceity thinks there is something wrong with virginity, that a vigin has something wrong with them or is not normal. People laugh at pre-marital sex, fornication, masturbation, pornography and contraceptions being considered immoral, so that tells you how far from sexual morality we have already gone.

Because if you wish you could set a single clear rule that says “people should only have sex if they are married” and apply it to everyone. That would actually be a more consistent and thus stronger position than the current one with the exceptions.

Pre-marital sex is immoral. The only time sex is moral, is in a marriage and when it is targeted towards procreation, so even if they are infertile it is still the same sexual act that unifes the couple.

Not by the terms that I’ve seen “ordered towards” explained as so far. To date it appears that either both homosexuality and infertility are excluded or neither.

There again the only definition I’ve been given of “ordered towards” is rather weak to say the least. Perhaps you have a clearer one?

Also as Peter Plato has shown, by the given use of the term thus far chewing gum is “disordered and immoral”. As such presumably it is as sinful as homosexual sex.

I don’t think your looking at it right, homosexuality and infertility are different because you have not taken into account the nature of such infertility.

Homosexuals are normally fertile, but the act is infertile, heterosexuals may be infertile, but the act itself is not infertile, the infertility is not a result of the act.

Nor as far as we can tell any indication that there is anywhere a “reason for its existence”.

It’s saying that the first cause must be non-physical, it must be something that is infinite, something finite cannot be a first cause because it requires something else to explain it’s own creation. Thus God being infinite, non-physical, has no biginning nor end is the only first cause there can be.

Haunted??? Not haunted at all, as far as we can tell. Not sure what you’re referring to here.

If you disbelieve in God, than life has no meaning. Thus is a haunted existance without meaning.

As for the cause of the universe, we are still working on determining that. There are many hypotheses, (various gods are among these), none of these hypotheses are well supported thus far.

It is impossible to find a physical first cause for this universe, something finite cannot explain something finite, you need an infinite first cause.

Many people find this hard because infinity is a hard concept, thus why people say “edge of the universe” our minds cannot comprehend infinity.

Which is why enzymes do not form by chance. But of course nobody believes enzymes come into existence by hurling a bunch of chemicals together. Enzymes, like the rest of us are a product of evolution, not chance.

Yes they are, A product of Theistic Evolution, in which God created us to naturally evolve into humankind during our creation (not darwins theory from apes though). So such evolution did not occur through something random, we did not come about humankind through some incredibly lucky or random sequence of events, like I said the chances of that is 1 in 10^40000, but by the exact right sequence of events. Not even the Big Bang Theory explains life.

Please continue to next post -

 

[josh987654321]

Continued from above post -

Already covered. It means there is no “absolute” morality. So we shouldn’t feel justified in imposing our morality on say bats or chimps or wolves, it doesn’t mean we can’t establish** a valid system of morality for our entire species**.

If there is no “absolute” morality how do you think people establish a system of morality for our entire species? In the eyes of the Nazis, they established a valid system of morality for their society too.

For example one “Absolute” morality, is the sanctity and value of human life. Thus “If you think someone as worthless, you will be in danger of the fires of hell.”

If you think there is no “absolute” morality, than you also think there is no “absolute” value to human life, and thus moral subjectivism justifies all evil.

And of course other religions can and do argue either that they answer those questions better, or that they answer different questions better.

No they don’t, they might argue it, but as you can see Christianity is the largest religion world wide and those that follow behind are those that spring from the same God, the one of Issac, abraham and jacob.

Besides, if atheism is correct, than over 90% of the entire world is delusional. So if there is no God, than how can over 90% of humankind be so delusional?

If these arguments are not even convincing to those who share the initial premise (that there is a god or gods) then how would you expect them to be convincing to someone who does not share that premise?

They are convincing, why do you think Christianity is the largest religion in the world?

Sorry, appears you misunderstood my question, I was asking which is morally BETTER (or worse whichever way you prefer to answer).

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.

So your answers might be “a” is morally better in the first and “b” in the second. Or vice verse etc.

Your question assumes that I have moral subjectivity.

All of them are Immoral … end of story.

Your question is the same as this one:

If murdering one innocent person would save the lives of hundreds, would you do it? My answer would be most definatly No.

Because the value of human life is a moral absolute. And these are the exact questions that justify evil and wrongs.

Consent is necessary but not sufficient. So it depends.

Okay.

Really? My review of history led me to the conclusion that believing utterly in religion to the point where people will do anything in its name has led to many horrors. For example crusades, jihads, witch hunts, human sacrifice, the inquisition… Etc.

I’m just glad that at those points in history people didn’t have access to modern weapons. For example, if “Richard the Lionheart” had access to nuclear weapons I strongly suspect he would have used them without hesitation. Fortunately we live in less violent times now.

Maybe this might help - youtube.com/watch?v=VUV7Llizrp0

Been there, done that I’m afraid. A careful and extensive reading of the bible was one of the things which put me off Christianity.

Im glad you have read it, may I ask why or what about it put you off please?

???Er, I suppose it would be. But who on earth are you talking about?

I was talking in relation to you, because your religion says none so I am assuming Athiest?

But it is not ordered to procreation. To use PRMerger’s analogy - they cannot possibly ever score a run.

To use her analogy aswell, “but they are still playing baseball.”

Please continue to next post -