sex?

[tundramom]

When I was 15 I went to a mall too.

I superglued a 50 cent piece to the floor. I watched people try to pick it up. I watched an old man get down on his knees to try and get it off the carpet.

I thought it was hilarious then.

I probably wouldn’t do that now. It wouldn’t be so funny.

Steph

 

[Other_Eric]

You need to re-examine your assumption . . .

You have said that I need to reexamine my assumption regarding the terms “interchangeable” and “equally capable” being synonymous. It is true that I formerly would have said that if one thing was as “equally capable” of fulfilling a certain purpose as another thing that those things would be “interchangeable.” I suppose it is possible there is some sort of nuance here that escapes my attention at the moment and would encourage you to define those terms as you use them.

As far as your faith is concerned, I will have to plead ignorance as to exactly what it is that your faith teaches regarding gender differentiation. There seems to be little, if any, uniformity amongst Wiccans, Neopagans and the like. I would welcome the opportunity to be proven wrong about this, perhaps by being introduced to some form of universally accepted canon.

What I mean to stress is that my faith teaches genuine meaning behind one’s gender that is eternally significant. There is a reason for being male or female and certain obligations that come with each gender. Your faith may very well deny this intrinsic significance (here I am not sure and ask for your guidance) but if it does, it essentially rejects any ultimate meaning behind one’s identity as man or women, thus permitting the equal validity of couples comprised of individuals of the same as well as opposite sex. Gender would be of no substantive import.

As far as homosexuality being a matter of choice, I have reason to believe that it may very well be but let’s not argue that here. Let us instead use the hypothetical example of a man who has same-sex attractions due to some unchangeable component of his genetics or hormone balance. Even with an individual such as this, there exists a choice that he must make regarding his sexuality.

For our hypothetical same-sex attracted man, you might say, there is no legitimate choice between another man and a woman as sexual partner. Yet, we are jumping ahead of ourselves if we believe this to be the first choice such an individual has to make. The first choice he makes is whether or not to act upon his sexual impulses in the first place. Indeed, this is an important choice for everyone since most of us acknowledge the need to govern the sexual appetite through the use of reason. Therefore, let’s not quibble about choice of sexual partner until after we’ve discussed the intended purpose of the sexual act to begin with.

Now, I concede that the ability to generate new life from the act will sometimes generate tragedies such as orphans or other unwanted children. Nevertheless, we still cannot equate the sacrifice that a sterile-opposite sex couple makes in adopting such a child, nor the relative who adopts a recently orphaned relation. In both of those cases, what we see is the attempt to fix that which is broken. For the same-sex couple, there is no suggestion that anything about the relationship is broken, so there is nothing for them to fix. Since there is nothing in the relationship that needs to be fixed, their supposed sacrifice is not so much an attempt to fix that which is broken so much as it is an attempt to mimic the things that they see opposite-sex couples doing.

What I have been doing is trying to provide the reasoning against the use of the sexuality with a member of the same sex. Thankfully, we agree that the mechanics of the act differ for couples of the same sex versus those of the opposite sex. We also agree that sexual activity has a meaning outside of its procreative potential. Where we disagree is what that other meaning is as well as its level of significance when compared to the procreative character of the act.

It might help me to see some positive argument from you on this front. What is, for you, the true meaning of sexuality and why is this more significant than its procreative aspect? What constitutes an abuse of the sexuality? We agree on the sacred nature of the sexual act but I would like to hear more from you about what you take that sacredness to be. You have said that you do not believe the sex to be “inherently more sacred than many other things,” but what “other things” are we talking of?

 

[Other_Eric]

Then why are we having this conversation? It appears to me that your entire argument is based on the fact that your God says that sex is only valid and valuable between a married man and woman, and then only for the purposes of procreation.

I am not a Christian. I am not even a monotheist. Why should I then accept “my God says…” as any more authoritative for me than an argument based on Catholic writings?

My point has been that religion may indeed guide the intellect but that this is just one of the reasons that form my opinion on this matter. If we were in different threads we might discuss the sociological, psychological and medical reasons that also contribute to my final position. As we do not share the same faith, I am attempting to limit my reasoning to philosophy that may, at times, incorporate elements of my faith and hope that you will do the same.

The procreative line is a little overdone at this point. I tire of repeating how I do not believe procreation to be the sole purpose of the sexual act. It seems no matter how many protestations to the contrary you receive, you always fall back to the belief that my argument is entirely based on sex being “only for the purposes of procreation.” So, I will say it once again, it is not.

In the end, my argument is a bit more complex then a regurgitation of what “my God says.” I trust you will agree that we have heard enough about what my God says. What do your gods and goddesses say?

 

[Montalban]

What I am saying is that it would be foolish of me to resort to encyclicals, church councils, scripture or any other form of apologetic writing as an authority when neither you nor Mr. Montalban accept the authority in the first place. Therefore, I am attempting to make a philosophical argument on my own authority that draws from the teachings of the Church. It may very well be that I happen to agree with everything that has been written in Catholic.com’s libraries but since I have not introduced any of those articles myself and have substituted my own arguments, I see no need to defend the argument of another in preference to defending my own.

You don’t need to label people so incorrectly.

I accept the Church Fathers, and Ecumenical Councils, all 7 of them.

I am Orthodox. I don’t support homosexuality.

What I’ve been arguing against is the flawed reasoning that Catholics use in arguing against homosexuality… ‘natural law’, which is sinuously applied

 

[Montalban]

Then why are we having this conversation? It appears to me that your entire argument is based on the fact that your God says that sex is only valid and valuable between a married man and woman, and then only for the purposes of procreation.

I am not a Christian. I am not even a monotheist. Why should I then accept “my God says…” as any more authoritative for me than an argument based on Catholic writings?

Certainly you don’t have to accept what God says.

 

[KarenNC]

The procreative line is a little overdone at this point. I tire of repeating how I do not believe procreation to be the sole purpose of the sexual act. It seems no matter how many protestations to the contrary you receive, you always fall back to the belief that my argument is entirely based on sex being “only for the purposes of procreation.” So, I will say it once again, it is not

Very well, I stand corrected. You have argued: “Sex is good in that it fulfills a necessary purpose. This purpose is dual. It must be both unitive and open to procreation. Any pleasure that is derived from the activity is secondary to this purpose.”

"The bottom line is that sex is not something for mere recreation. It has a very specific purpose in both procreation and the union of the couple. Neither part of this dual purpose can stand alone by the active choice of the couple. "

“The rule by which to judge the morality of the sexual act is whether, in the nature of the act itself without deliberate frustration, it is open to the possibility of life and the true union of its participants.”

So I rephrase–your argument is that procreation is the primary goal and unless there is the possibility of procreation, whether actual or hypothetical (if things were not as they were as in the case of someone who is sterile), then sex has no valid and legitimate function, since you have stated that its purpose to foster the unity of the couple cannot stand alone.

In the end, my argument is a bit more complex then a regurgitation of what “my God says.” I trust you will agree that we have heard enough about what my God says. What do your gods and goddesses say?

Well, Aphrodite says its all good, Hera, that there should be restrictions, Zeus is very in favor of it, Artemis and Athena not so, Hestia only worries about it (if at all) in the context of keeping the home together and harmonious. We won’t even get into Pan

In other words, each according to his or her own sphere of concern. Sometimes those spheres intersect with humanity’s concerns and sometimes not. They are actually more concerned with humans offering them proper honor and respect than in micromanaging our lives, including our sex lives. What we do with our lives is ultimately our affair, unless someone has entered into a particular arrangement with a particular deity.

It is a common mistake for people to point to the stories of the sexual behavior of the Gods and assume from those stories that people should then behave in the same way. There is a very explicit understanding that the behavior of the Gods, and to presume that one should or could ever be as they are is hubris, for which bad things happen. The Hellenic tradition has no imitatio dei —in fact quite the reverse. Gods are Gods, humans are human and one forgets that at one’s peril.

These are mythic stories, not literal instructions. Zeus is in one sense the generative force, Hera the bonds of commitment between a couple—their stories bear out that constant struggle within humanity.

Humans, as with all other animals, have the capacity for sex as a means of reproduction This is good. It means the human species does not die out.

Humans, unlike most other animals, have the capacity to enjoy sex apart from the simple and specific need for reproduction. We can enjoy and desire sexual activity apart from those times when a woman is most fertile. Natural selection seems to have worked in favor of that as a survival trait for our particular species, or it wouldn’t be there. Therefore, I believe the pleasure aspect is also good in and of itself, since it is not specifically necessary for simple reproduction.

 

[KarenNC]

**You have said that I need to reexamine my assumption regarding the terms “interchangeable” and “equally capable” being synonymous. **

No, I said you needed to reexamine your assumption that I said that the two were identical

You: “what I take to be the core assumption of your argument, that men and women are interchangeable in terms of sexual relationship and the rearing of children. … its logical conclusion is the denial of sexual difference beyond an accident of biology.”

Me: "You need to re-examine your assumption. There is a difference between “interchangable” and “equally capable.” I certainly do not deny that there will likely be differences, just that these differences do not render them incapable, as you seem to be arguing. "

A Mercedes and a Geo are both equally capable of getting me from point A to point B. They are not “interchangable” in the sense that they are totally identical, nor that that journey would be exactly the same experience. There may be advantages and drawbacks to either option, but I would still get where I needed/wanted to be.

As far as your faith is concerned, I will have to plead ignorance as to exactly what it is that your faith teaches regarding gender differentiation. There seems to be little, if any, uniformity amongst Wiccans, Neopagans and the like. I would welcome the opportunity to be proven wrong about this, perhaps by being introduced to some form of universally accepted canon.

There is no universally accepted canon among Neopagans, any more than there is one among monotheists. There is no reason there should be. Neopagan is an umbrella term that is used to describe a wide variety of religions, some as different from each other as Christianity and Hinduism.

**What I mean to stress is that my faith teaches genuine meaning behind one’s gender that is eternally significant. There is a reason for being male or female and certain obligations that come with each gender. Your faith may very well deny this intrinsic significance (here I am not sure and ask for your guidance) but if it does, it essentially rejects any ultimate meaning behind one’s identity as man or women, thus permitting the equal validity of couples comprised of individuals of the same as well as opposite sex. Gender would be of no substantive import. **

Gender is not of “no substantive import.” There is no intrinsic reason that the relationship of a given same sex couple has to be identical in every way to that of a given opposite sex couple in order to have value or meaning. There is so much variation between the types and dynamics of relationships within each continuum that such a proof would be very hard to support.

(cont.)

 

[KarenNC]

** Let us instead use the hypothetical example of a man who has same-sex attractions due to some unchangeable component of his genetics or hormone balance. Even with an individual such as this, there exists a choice that he must make regarding his sexuality.**

Yes, there is.

**The first choice he makes is whether or not to act upon his sexual impulses in the first place. Indeed, this is an important choice for everyone since most of us acknowledge the need to govern the sexual appetite through the use of reason. **

True

** Since there is nothing in the relationship that needs to be fixed, their supposed sacrifice is not so much an attempt to fix that which is broken so much as it is an attempt to mimic the things that they see opposite-sex couples doing. **

No. Their actions are an affirmation of life and a desire, out of their joy and love for each other, to provide a home, stability and love for another human being, to help to foster the growth of the community. This is no different than an opposite-sex couple who seek to adopt a child. Not all will desire to do so, but not all opposite sex couples will desire to do so either and they do not face the incredible hurdles that a same sex couple does in our society.

The underlying assumption I hear here is that gay men and women are incapable of forming any sort of real and meaningful relationships, whether romantically, parent-child, etc. I find this incredible, in the most literal sense.

We have also made a monumental leap from the first choice. The next step I see is that which we all take, to find a responsible, emotionally healthy means of expressing one’s sexual impulses. Personally, I believe that the most responsible and emotionally healthy way to do that is within the bounds of a monogamous relationship between two consenting adults. I am able to do this in a manner which garners social support and legal benefits, to encourage the continuation of a stable relationship that is of benefit to our community.

Unfortunately at this time, same sex couples are not able to do so with the same support and benefits. This does not prevent them from forming such relationships, but places much greater strains upon such a relationship than for opposite sex couples. We know several same sex couples who have made vows before their God or Gods to live together in fidelity and commitment for the rest of their lives, vows which they consider binding and treat so. I consider them just as married as myself and my husband.

It might help me to see some positive argument from you on this front. What is, for you, the true meaning of sexuality and why is this more significant than its procreative aspect?

It’s not more, but it is also not less. Sexuality serves a vital purpose in the continuation of the species. Equally important to me is the formation of the bonds of commitment and intimacy between individuals and the pleasure that it brings to a committed relationship, a pleasure that grows as the bonds strengthen over time.

**What constitutes an abuse of the sexuality? **

Using sexuality to gain power over another person especially one who is not of an age to consent with understanding, to intentionally harm another or one’s self in any way.

We agree on the sacred nature of the sexual act but I would like to hear more from you about what you take that sacredness to be. You have said that you do not believe the sex to be inherently more sacred than many other things,” but what “other things” are we talking of?

Commitment, fidelity, trust, honor, compassion.

 

[Montalban]

God created man and woman, so that they should be the intimate partner of each other. He did not create men to be partners of men.

 

[KindredSoul]

But he is a very kind man. She has no friends. She is very lonely. He has been told by a canon lawyer he has good grounds for an anullment. But he now feels sorry for her. He still supports her. He says he is the only friend she has. He thinks a divorce would destroy her. He says as a Christian, he has a duty out of love for Christ, not to hurt her.

So, tell me please. Should he hurt her grieviously by seeking an annulment or have mercy on her and have an adulterous relationship?

Now I know you will say ‘he should remain chaste’. He hasn’t had sex for 30-years, I am not going to tell him ‘the church expects him to do any more penance’. I have told him that if he can reconcile it with his conscience then it is between him and God.

His parish priest has told him he is in an irregular relationship in the eyes of the church, but the church is not going to condemn him. It is things like that which reinforces my faith that he a life long good catholic, the church is still there for him.

So he is willing to not be with her anymore, admittedly from necessity, but he is not willing to get an annulment? He’s kind enough to his adulterous abusive wife so as not to obtain an annulment, but not kind enough to remain chaste for her (she is still considered his wife for as long as an annulment doesn’t conclude otherwise)? This may be unintentional on his part, which doesn’t make him an unkind human being, but if so I’m sure he would want an annulment if he realized it was the only thing honorable toward both parties, not only for himself, if he intends to be in another sexual relationship. In fact, it’s also the only thing honorable toward his future lover, who is completely innocent in the whole situation; assuming he truly loves her (and if he’s as kind as you say, I should think he does if he wants to be intimate) he should feel that he owes it to her to be in a legitimate, valid marriage with her before having relations with her that are reserved for marriage. Even if he doesn’t mind being an adulterer, I should think such a kind human being (if he realizes what he’s doing, which it seems he doesn’t; hence, no insult toward his kind intentions here) wouldn’t want to bring the sin of continuing adultery onto a woman he loves.

No disrespects to anyone who has contributed to this thread and I do not intend this to be taken personally but self-righteous, pompous arrogant non-compassionate, flogging of the letter of the law was not the way of Christ.

I agree perfectly…Christ was very forgiving of everyone who sinned,but He also told them to go and sin no more. Even if we do sin again, *no doubt *He is willing to take us back again if we sincerely repent and confess–but again, I believe He still says “Go and sin no more.” Is it wrong, self-righteous, pompous, arrogant, non-compassionate to say the same for your friend? Was it arrogant for Christ to tell the adulterous woman to go and sin no more? Of course not.

I see no one here claiming to be perfect, and thus I see no one being self righteous. I for one admit that I have sins of which I am guilty and with which I struggle, some I personally consider worse than your friend’s predicament, but I do not try to say they aren’t sins, and I personally don’t need or want anyone insulting my intelligence in the name of “compassion” by suggesting to me that my shortcomings are “okay” in God’s eyes. He expects me to try to overcome them; I’m not so good that He will bend what’s sinful and what’s not for me, and that goes for all of humanity.

I feel very sorry for your friend, and I do have compassion for him, however unlikely that may seem. I know what it is to stuggle. I don’t say these things to be judgmental, contrary to what you may believe (I, with my regrets, have no right to be judgmental) but just to state what I believe to be the ethical truth (which everyone has a right and even an obligation to do). In the end, he is seemingly so emotionally scarred and confused that perhaps he isn’t fully responsable for his sin…and if that’s the case, it may not be mortal, and he may well go to Heaven; if so, it will be in spite of it though, not because it was A-okay. Sin is sin, even if an individual isn’t always culpable for it. There is nothing pompous or uncompassionate in saying so, and if you disagree then I’m sorry you feel that way.

 

[Other_Eric]

You don’t need to label people so incorrectly.

I accept the Church Fathers, and Ecumenical Councils, all 7 of them.

I am Orthodox. I don’t support homosexuality.

What I’ve been arguing against is the flawed reasoning that Catholics use in arguing against homosexuality… ‘natural law’, which is sinuously applied

If you are Orthodox, I don’t see that there is much in my reasoning that is contradicted. It would still be foolish to quote encyclicals that proceed from a papal office that you do not recognize, Church councils which you do not believe to be binding upon you or Scripture, which we are likely to interpret differently. Natural Law, at least for Catholics, provides a philosophical method of reasoning that everyone can refer to in order to address troublesome scenarios that might not be specifically addressed in either Scripture or other official Church documents.

Your reasoning against Natural Law is based, as far as I can tell, on the flawed supposition that the doctrine dictates the sexual act’s sole purpose is for procreation. You have ignored repeated arguments to the contrary and substituted other arguments drawn from your own preferred sources for people like me to defend. I see no need to defend an argument that I have not myself made.

Because you say that you are “don’t support homosexuality,” I assume that means that you also believe that sexuality has a purpose that homosexuality would contradict. Either that, or you believe the divine prohibition on homosexual acts to be entirely arbitrary, extant only by virtue of being dictated by God with no significant connection to the way our bodies were created. Because I am being charitable, I choose to believe that your own personal philosophy is the former. The thing is, once you have stated that sexuality has a purpose at all, you have begun down the road that is Natural Law.

Obviously there is much about your position that I do not understand. If you do not believe that the procreative character of the sexual act to be of such significance that to willfully frustrate it would be sinful, then what is the purpose of sexuality? KarenNC’s position seems to be that the pleasure that arises from the act is a purpose in and of itself. It’s a flawed but coherent position that I will deal with momentarily. What it yours?

 

[Other_Eric]

Very well . . .

I thank you for your brief introduction into the way your faith works. Being that we both approach our cosmologies in radically different ways, it is of little wonder that we arrive at radically different results. I will attempt to address here what I see as the major failings of your cosmology and then relate that back to the purpose of the sexuality.

From what you have explained to me thus far it seems that different gods will have different attitudes about the morality behind sexuality. This is fine because the gods are bound to a different moral code than humans are. The god’s opinion only becomes relevant when that opinion falls within his or her sphere of concern. Even then, the opinion of that god is one that may safely be discarded as long as one has offered him or her proper honor and respect.

It seems to me that this sort of cosmology lacks any form of moral structure. One wonders why commitment, fidelity, trust, honor or compassion would have any intrinsic merit separate from the arbitrary opinion of a god. Perhaps the god in question is referring to some moral code outside of his or her own authority in order to form the opinion. If that is the case, then we have to ask where this moral code came from and who wrote it since that would be the ultimate authority, able to command even the gods.

Since one need not look to the gods for moral authority, I assume that men are simply left to their own devices to figure out what the moral code might be. In this way, we can define for ourselves what the purpose of sexuality is. This person might look to sexuality and decide that it serves a vital purpose in the continuation of the species and that equally important might be the formation of the bonds of commitment and intimacy it fosters as well as the pleasure that it brings to a committed relationship. Another might decide that the most important aspect of sexuality is the pleasure that he or she derives from it and that any notion of commitment or responsibility for the continuation of the species is entirely optional. As far as I can tell, both opinions would have equal validity since there is no canon that would say otherwise.

It seems the ultimate product of this cosmology is one of moral anarchy. I’m tempted to use the word “nihilism” again. That sexuality has a proper moral use is fine but do you honestly believe that a man saying what its proper use is based on “what God says” is really so much less defensible than one who bases it on “what I say?” At least in the former instance there is an appeal to something objective outside of oneself and one’s own vices.

As far as I can see, this matter of an objective moral code is a rather important piece that seems to be missing from your cosmology. Without some standard, sexuality can be whatever you want it to be. Your eloquent illustrations of the love that a same-sex couple share and might expand to share with a child they might adopt really amount to nothing more that your own aesthetic preference. By that measure, my own views are just as justifiable. It’s pointless to argue about what is right and what is wrong when those values are essentially dictated by whatever a majority says they are.

It seems we have reached an impasse. As you do not seem to have any objective morality to refer to, we can hold no meaningful debate on the purpose of sexuality. We must first iron out what an objective moral code might be, where it comes from and why it is what it is even in the face of someone not very much liking one of its tenets. That, unfortunately, is off-topic for this thread and will need to be continued somewhere else.

 

[Hastrman]

So I rephrase–your argument is that procreation is the primary goal and unless there is the possibility of procreation, whether actual or hypothetical (if things were not as they were as in the case of someone who is sterile), then sex has no valid and legitimate function, since you have stated that its purpose to foster the unity of the couple cannot stand alone.

If he did say that (and I think you’re overinterpreting), he was wrong. The correct approach is, procreation and unity are both the purposes of the sex act. A procreative act without unity is mere mechanical begetting of an heir, a blasphemy against the union. But the unitive act which is not open at least to the *possibility *of new life is a blasphemy against that life.

This, also, is the reason for the teaching against homosexuality. A marriage can only occur between a man and a woman, because only they–if healthy–can give birth to children. No matter how healthy a male or female couple is, it cannot reproduce on its own. It’s simply not a function that can be achieved with that combination of organs.

Or to be blunt, reproductive and digestive organs don’t mix.

 

[Montalban]

If you are Orthodox, I don’t see that there is much in my reasoning that is contradicted.

I just spent several days explaining why. Natural law, applied so sinuously is to undermine it as a system of judgment.

It would still be foolish to quote encyclicals that proceed from a papal office that you do not recognize, Church councils which you do not believe to be binding upon you or Scripture, which we are likely to interpret differently.

Depends which encyclicals (i.e. from whom). I recognise all seven Ecumenical Councils

Natural Law, at least for Catholics, provides a philosophical method of reasoning that everyone can refer to in order to address troublesome scenarios that might not be specifically addressed in either Scripture or other official Church documents.

Except it causes you more problems when you state it as a system of absolute judgment, and then make heaps of illogical exceptions.

Your reasoning against Natural Law is based, as far as I can tell, on the flawed supposition that the doctrine dictates the sexual act’s sole purpose is for procreation. You have ignored repeated arguments to the contrary and substituted other arguments drawn from your own preferred sources for people like me to defend. I see no need to defend an argument that I have not myself made.

No, I’ve pointed out when you say something is bad, and then make exceptions, it seems to undermine belief in ‘natural law’.

Because you say that you are “don’t support homosexuality,” I assume that means that you also believe that sexuality has a purpose that homosexuality would contradict.

No. I don’t care about ‘purpose’. I care about God saying it’s wrong. Where you come unstuck is talking about ‘purpose’ as a rule, and then making exceptions for infertile couples (those unable to through impairment OR choice) and those who choose not even to form unions (such as priests).

Either that, or you believe the divine prohibition on homosexual acts to be entirely arbitrary, extant only by virtue of being dictated by God with no significant connection to the way our bodies were created. Because I am being charitable, I choose to believe that your own personal philosophy is the former. The thing is, once you have stated that sexuality has a purpose at all, you have begun down the road that is Natural Law.

I don’t judge it to be arbitrary. God’s making the rule.

Obviously there is much about your position that I do not understand. If you do not believe that the procreative character of the sexual act to be of such significance that to wilfully frustrate it would be sinful, then what is the purpose of sexuality? KarenNC’s position seems to be that the pleasure that arises from the act is a purpose in and of itself. It’s a flawed but coherent position that I will deal with momentarily. What it yours?

I disagree with the ‘pleasure’ argument too, because it’s one one can find holes in. For instance a man might find pleasure being with an animal. An animal, not having any say in it, it’s own ‘pleasure’ or not would therefore be irrelevant. Simply then that he could find pleasure, doesn’t make it right.

That’s the problem with your system, and her system. They’re both applying human reasonings and they come up short. God says it. It’s enough.

 

[Montalban]

Therefore, I believe the pleasure aspect is also good in and of itself, since it is not specifically necessary for simple reproduction.

Do you believe a man who has pleasure having relations with an animal should be allowed?

Possible objections to this:
The animal doesn’t have a voice in the matter, and therefore its own pleasure is irrelevant (as an animal also doesn’t have a voice in whether we eat it or not).

 

[Montalban]

Moscow Mayor Calls Gay Rights Parade ‘Satanic’
MOSCOW — Moscow’s mayor vowed Monday never to allow a gay rights parade, calling such events “satanic,” but activists said they would defy a city ban to hold what would be the Russian capital’s first gay rights parade.

Yury Luzhkov and city authorities had barred activists from staging a parade last year, citing the threat of violence. Activists ignored the ban and were pummeled by right-wing protesters and detained by police.

Speaking at a Kremlin event attended by the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, Luzhkov again lambasted gay and lesbian groups:

“Last year, Moscow came under unprecedented pressure to sanction the gay parade, which can be described in no other way than as satanic,” he said to applause in comments broadcast on a city-controlled TV channel. “We did not let the parade take place then, and we are not going to allow it in the future.”

He also charged that Western countries were facing a crisis of religious faith and were corrupting children.

“Some European nations bless single-sex marriages and introduce sexual guides in schools. Such things are a deadly moral poison for children,” RIA-Novosti quoted Luzhkov as saying.

Meanwhile, Russian gay activists said they were challenging the city’s ban of their parade in an appeal to the European Court for Human Rights, and pledged to hold a similar march in late May.

“Trying to silence us, the Russian authorities denied us one of the fundamental human rights. The European justice will have the last say in this case,” activist and parade organizer Nikolai Alexeyev said in a statement posted on the Web site gayrussia.ru.

The issue of holding a gay parade last year split Moscow’s gay community, many of whom say that Russian society is still too conservative and a parade would only provoke more violence from radical groups.

Gay rights activists estimate that 5-8 percent of Russia’s 143 million people are gay and lesbian.

foxnews.com/story/0,2933,248130,00.html

 

[fix]

That might be the views of some cranky theologian. But I doubt that is the view of Christ.

The guy I spoke of above, told me he is unable to achieve sexual fulfillment due to so many years of abstenance. I remember him before he married, at university he was a horny little person. But to be fair he was very handsome and used to get lots of propositions from the girls.

If he ever got an anullment, I doubt he would be able to have ‘normal’ sex, but I would strongly advise him to seek marriage.

In the case of anyone who is impotent and thinking of marriage, go and talk to the local parish priest.

No disrespects to anyone who has contributed to this thread and I do not intend this to be taken personally but self-righteous, pompous arrogant non-compassionate, flogging of the letter of the law was not the way of Christ. In ALL His teaching,there was a message of love.

I do not think that He expects His children to be denied a loving companionship. His church is conspicous by diversity

The bishop can investigate such cases. Permanent impotence is a impediment to marriage. How that plays out in specific cases depends on the circumstances. Marriage is not simply a matter of feelings. It is a sacrament and to be a sacramental marriage certain things must exist at the time of marriage.

 

[fix]

And so for homosexuals.

God.

OK, so how do you know that my interpretation is private?

No, this is what the church teaches. If it interferes with nature (because nature has been established by God), it’s wrong.

I agree that there are multiple arguments against abortion. Catholics apply natural law to it too.

I’ve already gone over this, one can have a couple that intentionally does not have children. They are therefore ‘frustrating’ the act. It’s the very reason the RC Church is against contraception because the ‘natural outcome of sex is children’

An infertile couple is not “open to the transmission of life”. A couple that chooses not to have children is not “open to the transmission of life”. A person who enters a life of celibacy is not “open to the transmission of life”
A couple that choose not to have children must therefore be wrong. No, wait, we’ll bring in another exemption for them.

How so, when they’re not ‘open to the transmission of life’?

Because such people are choosing a lifestyle not ‘open to the transmission of life’

You keep coming up with universals and then making holes in them

You replace Church teaching with your teaching and then attempt to refute it. If you want to try a refutation please present what She actually teaches.

 

[KarenNC]

Do you believe a man who has pleasure having relations with an animal should be allowed?

I said,

Personally, I believe that the most responsible and emotionally healthy way to [express sexuality] is within the bounds of a monogamous relationship between two consenting adults."

and

“Sexuality serves a vital purpose in the continuation of the species. Equally important to me is the formation of the bonds of commitment and intimacy between individuals and the pleasure that it brings to a committed relationship, a pleasure that grows as the bonds strengthen over time.”

and
"You have said that you do not believe the sex to be inherently more sacred than many other things,” but what “other things” are we talking of?

Commitment, fidelity, trust, honor, compassion."

as well as
“What constitutes an abuse of the sexuality?
Using sexuality to gain power over another person especially one who is not of an age to consent with understanding, to intentionally harm another or one’s self in any way.”

How do you get from these statements to the idea that I might support sex with animals?

 

[KarenNC]

Moscow Mayor Calls Gay Rights Parade ‘Satanic’

And your point here would be…?