Secular argument against gay marriage

[CandideWest]

I didn’t see anything enlightening in that post, I’m afraid.

Methinks you presume a tad too much.

Well I’m afraid I don’t know if I can make it any clearer for you. If you struggle with a particular part of it let me know and I’ll do my best to help out.

 

[Lochias]

If you look back, the actual claim was first that only God ought to mete out justice (post #908) and then that this doesn’t preclude God acting through “properly ordained human instruments” (post #976). The claim is therefore that those “properly ordained human instruments” being acted upon by God rather than their own free will, which is what might be called a novel theology - there’s a difference between saying someone is inspired by God and saying someone is God’s robot.

Interesting as these excursions might be, they remain off-topic.

I think you’re just being semantic for the sake of arguing. If it’s off-topic, why bring it up in the first place?

 

[tonyrey]

The remark “if you’re actually concerned about the well-being of children if you’re actually concerned about the well-being of children rather than just scoring debating points” is an ad hominem. Please refrain from making personal remarks.

The remark “if you’re actually concerned about the well-being of children if you’re actually concerned about the well-being of children rather than just scoring debating points” remains an ad hominem.

I have found no research with relevant statistics about the well-being of children. Have you? If so please specify the article(s).

In any case it would be discriminatory to require that to be placed with homosexuals children must be “more content, more developed and more fulfilled” than with heterosexuals.

Would you claim to be an adequate substitute for a child’s mother? Or is it necessary to be homosexual to fulfil that role?

The simple fact that children are at greater risk when they are adopted by homosexuals is sufficient reason not to legitimise gay marriage - especially when taken in conjunction with the attempt to destroy the basic unit of family life.

You keep ignoring the fact that gay marriage won’t change the number of children placed with homosexuals by adoption agencies, and that those agencies wouldn’t place them if there was a higher level of risk.

You are assuming that none of the individuals who work in adoption agencies are homosexuals and/or fail to recognise that children are at greater risk and that the basic unit of family life will be destroyed by encouraging gay marriage .

A ridiculous attempt at ridicule based on a desperate expedient!

You’re the one who claimed that “children are put at greater risk when they are adopted by homosexuals than by the vast majority of heterosexuals” and you’ve still not provided any evidence whatsoever.

The higher incidence of HIV and other venereal diseases among homosexuals is incontrovertible evidence that children are put at greater risk.

A person who is confident of success wouldn’t hesitate for one moment to pursue the subject…

You’re the one hesitating to meet my request to provide evidence for your claim that (a) there are universal differences in the way that men and women think and behave, and (b) those differences are biological and don’t vary by culture.

Does the function of the woman to bear, suckle and care for her child vary by culture?

The fact that there is homophobic discrimination is irrelevant to the reality of paternal and maternal instincts, the physical and psychological needs of adolescents and the evolution of male and female characteristics.

How does that square with your claim that two women are never as good as a man and a woman at caring for children?

How does your question square with your claim that two men are as good as a man and a woman at caring for children?

The fact remains that two men cannot be parents.

One man can be a parent but two can’t?

To be precise, two men or two women cannot be - or fulfil the same functions as - the father and mother.

The fact remains that Confucius, Pittacus, Thales and Sextus were concerned with equality - not the unselfish love to be found in the life, death and teaching of Jesus.

Please provide evidence for your claim that Confucius, Pittacus, Thales and Sextus were only concerned with equality and were unconcerned about love.

The onus is on you to produce evidence that Confucius, Pittacus, Thales and Sextus were concerned about love and that the teaching of Jesus was not original - a fact recognised by Richard Dawkins but clearly not by everyone who claims to be a Christian.

To imply that the argument for gay marriage has nothing to do with morality is consistent with the view that morality is determined solely by passing fashions, the laws of the state and the behaviour of the majority - which is not only unChristian but at odds with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

You said “The issue is whether gay marriage is morally justified” to which I asked “So why do you keep going off-topic?”, so I’m glad you agree that gay marriage is a moral issue.

Your belief that gay marriage is a moral issue merely signifies that it is determined by passing fashions, the laws of the country and the way people behave…

You also need to produce evidence that two men can understand an adolescent girl as well as a woman, two women can understand an adolescent boy as well as a man and the evolution of the two sexes occurred as without difference between them or between their roles regarding the needs, interests and development of their children.

Would you agree that marriage has been no more than the “archaic notion” of “a socioeconomic contract to legally bind a breeding pair” which should be extended to those who wish practise polyamory and other expressions of “free” love? If not why not?

Article 16 of the UDHR upholds the family as the natural and fundamental unit in society. How do you interpret that use of the term "natural"? Do you regard every sexual relationship as natural? If not why not?

Do you believe children have any rights regarding the choice of the persons who will adopt them?

 

[stewstew03]

This is rather silly, you already wrote those things. Here I’ll quote it for you.

There, see?

It’s a pretty dodgy definition to be honest as the former is so vague as to be more or less worthless.

But even so the logic still holds because chewing gum (obviously) neither obtains sustenance nor breaks down food. Therefore chewing fails both the purpose and the function of chewing. Thus following the previous logic it is disordered and immoral.

Ah, I see where you are confused now. The analogy that was offered was eating food, but then you brought up chewing gum, which is not eating food. It went down the rabbit hole from there…

 

[CandideWest]

Ah, I see where you are confused now. The analogy that was offered was eating food, but then you brought up chewing gum, which is not eating food. It went down the rabbit hole from there…

No, I’m afraid it seems to be you who is confused. Firstly as I have already said, I am not offering an analogy, I’m simply applying a logical argument (one which is used to argue that homosexuality is disordered and as such immoral) to a different act.

Secondly the argument I have presented is quoted below. If you would like to answer it then go ahead, but please don’t pretend we’re talking about something else, that’s just disingenuous.

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.

 

[davidv]

No, I’m afraid it seems to be you who is confused. Firstly as I have already said, I am not offering an analogy, I’m simply applying a logical argument (one which is used to argue that homosexuality is disordered and as such immoral) to a different act.

Secondly this the argument you need to answer here is quoted below. If you would like to answer it then go ahead, but please don’t pretend we’re talking about something else, that’s just disingenuous.

Both of the arguments presented are valid,but unsound because premises 1 and 2 are incomplete and the conclusion 5 requires them to be exclusive of other options, which in untrue.

 

[tonyrey]

To read what you’re saying, one would assume that you have strong feelings against single parent adoption. Is that an accurate statement?

No! It is better than not being adopted.

As far as I know, however, Catholic organizations are not at all against single-parent adoption, even though – by the standards by which you define it – this involves “deliberately” depriving a child of having two parents, thus depriving them either of a father, or a mother.

It is not an unnecessary deprivation of having two parents but a matter of necessity which is beyond their control and they act in accordance with the principle of choosing the lesser evil: one parent or no parents at all.

Adoption by a same sex couple, by this standard, is preferable to single parent adoption, because single parent adoption deprives children both of having two parents, and of either a father or a mother. A same sex couple who adopts, on the other hand, is at least giving a child the benefit of having two parents or guardians.

You are assuming a child should be exposed to homosexual sexuality in its daily life in the home regardless of its welfare and wishes.

What I think you are really saying is that, aside from depriving a child of a “mother or a father” – which single parent adoption blatantly does – same sex adoption is giving a child one mother, or father too many And, of course, are potentially “confusing” the child, regarding what is the “normal” relationship between the sexes.

Single parent adoption is better than not being adopted at all but to subject a child to adoption by two practising homosexuals is certainly not normal simply from a biological point of view.

This speaks to underlying differences in perspective as to what constitutes the origin of homosexuality; is it is genetic? Is it environmental?

… Getting back to the actual terms of your argument, I think it is necessary for a single parent who adopts to find some role model for the children, who belongs to the opposite gender of that parent. For example, if a single woman adopts, perhaps her brother will be the child’s godfather, and will take a more significant role in the child’s life, than he would have otherwise. Perhaps that role model could be the grandfather, if he is still living; or, perhaps, it would be a godfather who was one of the mother’s friends, or perhaps a first cousin.

Just so, if two women are raising a child, they will want to ensure that this child has some kind of father figure in his life (and the same, of course, would ideally apply in the case of a widow, whose husband died when the children were young), even if that father figure is not the biological father.

I would imagine that the majority of same sex parents would give their (presumably) heterosexual child a benefit that they never had, when they themselves grew up in a heterosexual family, and an emphatically heterosexual society. That is, they would tell the child, “some people are homosexual, and others are heterosexual. Neither should be forced on you.” That child may see his same sex parents displaying affection, in the household; yet, when they go to the local restaurant, even if he is a toddler, he will see a preponderance of heterosexual couples engaging in “public displays of affection.” He will see it on television and movies; he will see on billboards; when he goes to school, he will see that this is, indeed, the “norm.” I would argue that, even with same sex parents, that child will feel a good deal of social pressure to take an interest in the opposite sex.

Intelligent, caring same sex parents will not try to “hide” that from the child, and will not try to “program” him to think that being gay is right, and that being heterosexual is wrong.

One can argue over this, but I believe that the child will simply be given an opportunity to take a “mature” outlook on things, in terms of having a greater recognition of difference and diversity of perspective; just as a mixed-race child (like Obama) will grow up with the recognition that most people around him look differently than he; just as a Jewish child will grow up with the recognition that he is living in a Christian-dominant society, and that he is different; just like an adopted child, will realize that he is living in a society where most children live with their biological parents; just as a bilingual child, will realize that the language he speaks with his parents at home, is very different than the language being spoken by the majority of the society in which he lives.

There is a vast difference between the subjection of a child to differences of race, language or religion and physical homosexuality which is more conducive to HIV and venereal disease. It is impossible to conceal from them the fact that the function of the genital organs is not only gratification but also reproduction. To think otherwise is to reject a biological fact and to distort their understanding of sexuality on the pretext of giving them an opportunity to take a “mature outlook” which they can obtain without having it thrust upon them throughout their childhood and without considering their wishes. It also overlooks natural repugnance of the misuse of the rectum - which is for the expulsion of faeces and inevitably associated with dirt and disease. To attempt to teach children to have a “mature outlook” on such biologically abnormal behaviour is not only foolish but futile! It is more likely to make them regard all sexual activity as dirty and disgusting given that the reproductive organs also serve to excrete toxic waste from the body.
.

 

[stewstew03]

No, I’m afraid it seems to be you who is confused. Firstly as I have already said, I am not offering an analogy, I’m simply applying a logical argument (one which is used to argue that homosexuality is disordered and as such immoral) to a different act.

I know you didn’t offer the analogy, Peter Plato did; namely, the act of eating food is to sustenance as sex is to procreation.

Secondly the argument I have presented is quoted below. If you would like to answer it then go ahead, but please don’t pretend we’re talking about something else, that’s just disingenuous.

Okay, fine… hopefully if I spend a little more time on this I won’t have to waste much more.

1. The primary evolutionary purpose (or designed purpose if you prefer) of the act of chewing is breaking down food in preparation for digestion.

NO - the analogy that was offered was this: Eating is to Sustenance as Sex is to Procreation. Sustenance (the body gaining important nutrients) and procreation (the creation of life) are the ends. Eating and sex, in this analogy, are the means.

1. Therefore the act of chewing is “ordered towards” breaking down food in preparation for digestion.

Fallacy of division - you want to pick apart the analogy by isolating a part of the process.

1. Using an act for a purpose it is not “ordered towards” is disordered and immoral

Yes. Here, you seem to grasp the concepts being proposed. Well done. Keep in mind that the “acts” in the analogy are eating and sex. The purposes (in the analogy) are sustenance and procreation.

1. Chewing gum does not break down food in preparation for digestion and is therefore not “ordered towards” breaking down food in preparation for digestion.

Oops. Okay, you’ve gone from mischaracterizing the analogy to making huge leaps in your argument. You might as well have said - “Grinding teeth at night does not break down food in preparation for digestion and is therefore not ordered towards breaking down food in preparation for digestion.” Or, “Licking your lips does not help break down food in preparation for digestion and is therefore not ordered towards breaking down food in preparation for digestion.”

Now, if you’re trying to say “the act of eating gum” is not “ordered towards” the purposes of gaining sustenance, then I would agree with you. Some might call that an “eating disorder.”

1. Therefore chewing gum is disordered and immoral.

Perhaps, but only if the act of eating gum is used for the purposes of gaining sustenance.

Does this help?

 

[Acrossthedesert]

It isn’t an analogy, it’s simply applying a logical argument (one which is used to argue that homosexuality is disordered and as such immoral) to a different act.

It’s relevance is that arguments were raised that homosexual sex is disordered and thus immoral. So I am exploring that argument.

I’m trying to understand the way Catholics on this forum understand / use the term “disordered”. Thus far it appears that both homosexual sex and chewing gum are “disordered”.

Who said anything to the contrary?

Maybe you can glean the meaning of DISORDER from the context of the Catholic Catechism. Just trying to help.

Offenses against chastity

2351 Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.

2352 By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. "Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action."138 “The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose.” For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of "the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved."139

To form an equitable judgment about the subjects’ moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability.

2353 Fornication is carnal union between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman. It is gravely contrary to the dignity of persons and of human sexuality which is naturally ordered to the good of spouses and the generation and education of children. Moreover, it is a grave scandal when there is corruption of the young.

2354 Pornography consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties. It offends against chastity because it perverts the conjugal act, the intimate giving of spouses to each other. It does grave injury to the dignity of its participants (actors, vendors, the public), since each one becomes an object of base pleasure and illicit profit for others. It immerses all who are involved in the illusion of a fantasy world. It is a grave offense. Civil authorities should prevent the production and distribution of pornographic materials.

2355 Prostitution does injury to the dignity of the person who engages in it, reducing the person to an instrument of sexual pleasure. The one who pays sins gravely against himself: he violates the chastity to which his Baptism pledged him and defiles his body, the temple of the Holy Spirit.140 Prostitution is a social scourge. It usually involves women, but also men, children, and adolescents (The latter two cases involve the added sin of scandal.). While it is always gravely sinful to engage in prostitution, the imputability of the offense can be attenuated by destitution, blackmail, or social pressure.

2356 Rape is the forcible violation of the sexual intimacy of another person. It does injury to justice and charity. Rape deeply wounds the respect, freedom, and physical and moral integrity to which every person has a right. It causes grave damage that can mark the victim for life. It is always an intrinsically evil act. Graver still is the rape of children committed by parents (incest) or those responsible for the education of the children entrusted to them.

Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that **“homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”**142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

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

 

[Acrossthedesert]

It isn’t an analogy, it’s simply applying a logical argument (one which is used to argue that homosexuality is disordered and as such immoral) to a different act.

It’s relevance is that arguments were raised that homosexual sex is disordered and thus immoral. So I am exploring that argument.

I’m trying to understand the way Catholics on this forum understand / use the term “disordered”. Thus far it appears that both homosexual sex and chewing gum are “disordered”.

Who said anything to the contrary?

Here is another part of the Catholic Catechism regarding disorder. Divorce is also seen as disordered.

2385 Divorce is immoral also because it introduces disorder into the family and into society. This disorder brings grave harm to the deserted spouse, to children traumatized by the separation of their parents and often torn between them, and because of its contagious effect which makes it truly a plague on society.

 

[CandideWest]

Both of the arguments presented are valid,but unsound because premises 1 and 2 are incomplete and the conclusion 5 requires them to be exclusive of other options, which in untrue.

Ok, would you like to have a go at restating the argument showing that homosexuality is “disordered and immoral” ?

Alternatively if nobody fancies using it any more then we can always drop the “homosexuality is disordered” argument. I’m happy either way.

 

[CandideWest]

I know you didn’t offer the analogy, Peter Plato did; namely, the act of eating food is to sustenance as sex is to procreation.

…

NO - the analogy that was offered was this: Eating is to Sustenance as Sex is to Procreation.

…

Does this help?

No, not at all.

See the problem is that you haven’t answered my argument, you’ve answered some sort of weird hybrid between my argument and Peter Platos analogy and pretended its my argument.

As I said already, the argument I presented is quoted below. If you would like to answer it then go ahead, but please don’t try to change my argument then argue against that, that’s just disingenuous.

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.

 

[CandideWest]

Maybe you can glean the meaning of DISORDER from the context of the Catholic Catechism. Just trying to help.
…

Thanks for the attempt, much appreciated.

However, in the text you have quoted it appears there are several distinct and different uses of the word “disordered” or “disorder”, and they don’t really seem to give any clarity on the meaning of the term.

Do you know if the catechism defines the term “disordered” anywhere?

 

[Acrossthedesert]

Thanks for the attempt, much appreciated.

However, in the text you have quoted it appears there are several distinct and different uses of the word “disordered” or “disorder”, and they don’t really seem to give any clarity on the meaning of the term.

Do you know if the catechism defines the term “disordered” anywhere?

The Church uses the word disorder in its common meaning.
dis·or·der
/disˈôrdər/
Noun
A state of confusion.
Verb
Disrupt the systematic functioning or neat arrangement of.
Synonyms
noun. confusion - mess - disturbance - disarray - muddle
verb. disarrange - disturb - derange - mess - confuse

You can only get a shadow of the meaning from a secular view. The call of the Gospel is “Jesus is Lord”. We are called to be oriented (ordered) toward God. Most of morality is a revelation from God. The ideal of equality comes from the Christian understanding that we are all equal in dignity. The ideal of marriage comes from the Christian understanding that God made man and woman and the two will become one.

**We all live in the Arc but we cannot see the ocean. ** People tearing apart parts of the Arc from the inside do not realize that with enough damage, the Arc will flood.

If you doubt that you are in the Arc, try describing how breaking any of the ten commandments is disordered. You will only come up with some intermediary premise. To get to the root, you need to have God as the premise, the cornerstone, the starting point.

**Peace be with you. **

 

[Acrossthedesert]

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

**LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
ON THE PASTORAL CARE OF HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS
**

1. The issue of homosexuality and the moral evaluation of homosexual acts have increasingly become a matter of public debate, even in Catholic circles. Since this debate often advances arguments and makes assertions inconsistent with the teaching of the Catholic Church, it is quite rightly a cause for concern to all engaged in the pastoral ministry, and this Congregation has judged it to be of sufficiently grave and widespread importance to address to the Bishops of the Catholic Church this Letter on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons…

 

[josh987654321]

Ahh, but we’ve already covered that point, consent is necessary but not sufficient. So we in fact do not say that all sex is ok because homosexual sex is ok. Just like we do not say that all sex is ok when we say that heterosexual sex is ok.

Could you please give me an example of what sexual acts with consent you see as immoral?

Again, I disagree. I know these are your beliefs and they seem to be based on your religion, but you do not seem to be able to support them using secular arguments.

Well, with moral subjectivism, how do you get a secular argument on morality?

But that sex act IS infertile if it is between two infertile people.

True, but it’s about the sexual act.

Now, I have entertained the above because it interested you. However, this is way off topic and frankly a little close to the edge of the moderators ban. On that basis I am not going to reply any further on these topics. To be honest I’d suggest if you want to talk about such things then there are different threads which are more appropriate. If you wish to have the last word on these topics then by all means go ahead.

Sure, my apologies, I am very interested though.

Thank you for entertaining such replies, could you please provide me with a link to another thread where we can discuss it?

??? Really? So if I asked you “which is morally better (or morally worse)
a). raping and torturing a woman to death
OR
b). lying to your friend about the size of a fish you caught”

…you would not be able to pick one?

If so, I’m somewhat concerned about your sense of morality, but I’ll drop the question. However, I think you will in reality be able to say that while b). is still immoral is clearly morally better than a). Agreed?

My apologies, yes I agree.

I’ll try and answer your previous question again below.

Not at all I’m afraid. The position this video attacks is that of someone arguing that there is no such thing as morality, a position I clearly disagree with, as I have given a route to a practicably objective moral system.

Your moral system was the “suffering is bad” and “happiness is good” right? how does that relate when one mans suffering is another mans happiness?

The contradictions, the very poor morality being recommended, the rather contrived claims of fulfilled prophecies in the New Testament… All kinds of stuff really.

Could you give me an example in a link to another thread please? I am quite interested on your world views.

Yes I’m an atheist, and because of that you assume I “suppress the big questions”??? Well, as the young people these days say “lol”.

The atheists I know or have heard of all suppress the big questions or they find half answers in order to reject God. Mainly because I think if we proved Gods existance to them, they would harbour hate, anger or resentment towards God.

Her analogy fails because she either has to show its impossible for them to win (under any circumstances) or she needs to show there is a rule book to comply with for sexual acts (and that’s it’s secular). Neither of which she has done.

Thats why I said, there is no such thing as secular morality, wouldn’t you agree?

Sure, no worries.

Well it depends what you mean by “take into account”. If there is established evidence that children who are adopted by individuals are worse off than those who are adopted by couples, then it is not discriminatory for an adoption service to take this into account when considering an adoption request by an individual. If there is no such evidence then there is nothing for them to “take into account”.

Equally, if there is established evidence that children who are adopted by homosexual couples are worse off than those who are adopted by heterosexual couples, then it is not discriminatory for an adoption service to take this into account when considering an adoption request by a homosexual couple. Again, if there is no such evidence then there is nothing for them to “take into account”.

Thus far the evidence I have seen on the issue reveals no such disadvantage to children raised by homosexual couples.

It depends what you classify as detrimental to a childs development. What evidence have you seen and what did it take into account?

What about homosexuals having children with IVF through the use of a third party? do you see a problem with that? and do you know if this can already happen or is already happening or not?

Slavery is addressed in the NT too, for example Luke 12:45-48.

Yes, but it isn’t advocated.

Abortion is murder. Clearly addressed as wrong.

No-Fault Divorce. Clearly addressed as wrong.

Same sex marriage. The creation of men and women to be united together in marriage, clearly it’s addressed as wrong.

Slavery, is used for a story in the gospels as it was standard practice at that time, slavery in itself isn’t addressed as wrong/right, however even in pauls letters he talks about how we are all equal.

Again, you are talking about reproductive compatibility, not sexual compatibility. We have already covered this.

I said that last time and you brought up infertility, Im trying to make it clear to you that it’s the sexual act, but I don’t know what word to use or how to articulate it in a way you understand.

All the best

Likewise, thank you for your replies.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

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

Immoral, more than b).

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

Immoral, but less than a).

And the same question for the following two:

a). A homosexual couple having sex outside of marriage

Immoral, equally as immoral as b).

b). A homosexual married couple having sex.

Immoral, equally immoral as a).

But this is like when someone tells a small lie and another tells a large lie.

The one who told the small lie shouldn’t be comparing himself to the one who told the large lie, he should be comparing himself to the one who told the truth, because he still lied.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[stewstew03]

No, not at all.

See the problem is that you haven’t answered my argument, you’ve answered some sort of weird hybrid between my argument and Peter Platos analogy and pretended its my argument.

As I said already, the argument I presented is quoted below. If you would like to answer it then go ahead, but please don’t try to change my argument then argue against that, that’s just disingenuous.

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.

Okay, I have to set aside my pride and admit that your point just now became clear to me. I assumed you were trying to defeat Peter Plato’s analogy by suggesting that chewing gum doesn’t fit the paradigm. You were offering your own argument against the idea that homosexuality is disordered. So, with humility, I apologize for misunderstanding your point.

Now, with regard to your argument… a couple of points:

1. Some things are immoral but not necessarily disordered, e.g., adultery (I’m sure it works the other way around, too, but I can’t think of any examples at the moment).
2. Gum is a consumable product.
3. Gum contains sugars or sweeteners that are broken down by teeth/saliva and swallowed.
4. Though gum lacks nutritional value, it is generally not harmful and will simply pass through your digestive system like roughage.
5. Because gum is partially broken down in the mouth while being chewed, the act of chewing gum is not disordered.

Imagine swallowing a gum ball whole, versus chewing it first and then swallowing it. By chewing it first you are able to swallow it more easily and break down any sugars or artificial flavors.

 

[tonyrey]

There is a vast difference between the subjection of a child to differences of race, language or religion and physical homosexuality which is more conducive to HIV and venereal disease.
.

Clarification:

There is a vast difference between the subjection of a child to:

1. Physical homosexuality - which is more conducive to HIV and venereal disease

and

1. Differences of race, language or religion - which are not more conducive to HIV and venereal disease
   .

 

[tonyrey]

Would you claim to be an adequate substitute for a child’s mother? Or is it necessary to be homosexual to fulfil that role?

Clarification:

1. Do you claim** all** men can be an adequate substitute for a child’s mother?
2. Is it necessary to be a homosexual to fulfil that role?