K
Kazaman
Guest
Biology describes function and process, not purpose and design. Theology posits purpose and design. There’s an incredibly important distinction there, you’ll find.
- Status
T
TimeEntrance
Guest
I want to agree with you but I suppose it depends on what you mean by purpose and design.Biology describes function and process, not purpose and design. Theology posits purpose and design. There’s an incredibly important distinction there, you’ll find.
Biology does attempt to explain morphological purposes. And as a rule of thumb function follows design. There is a purpose behind human sexuality biology would say and that purpose it would say is reproductive.
But sexual reproduction is costly in terms of energy and risk and therefore remains a mystery in biology as to why it exists as a means of reproduction or more importantly as such a common means.
M
Marc_Anthony
Guest
Fun fact, guys: I used to be in favor of same-sex marriage. I researched it. I was not “brainwashed”. I was not convinced by some charismatic religious leader. Actually, I was not convinced by religion at all. I did my own research, learned, and changed my opinion to be opposed to same-sex marriage.
It does go the other way sometimes.
It does go the other way sometimes.
S
Sneaux
Guest
…I hate saying that I don’t believe those things. I’m actually a very old fashioned person, except when it comes to homosexuality. I don’t want to classified by other Catholics, or even Protestants, or Orthodox as someone who isn’t as religious, or someone who doesn’t love God enough or someone who “doesn’t really believe, they just have the label.” Because I know some people who classify people like that, and I don’t want that. I know that I know in my heart God knows I love Him, and it doesn’t really matter what anyone else thinks, but it does bother me. It’s kind of like a stereotype, and no one wants to be stereotyped.
M
markeverett49
Guest
This won’t do. Biology can only describe ‘function and process’ in terms of final causes, or purpose (-that which a thing is FOR). Without final causes, essential causes are impossible! Besides, biologists do not doubt that we are a sexually-reproducing species and that our genitalia is ‘aimed’ toward that anymore than that our hearts are aimed at pumping blood or that our eyes are ‘aimed’ at seeing.Biology describes function and process, not purpose and design. Theology posits purpose and design. There’s an incredibly important distinction there, you’ll find.
M
Marc_Anthony
Guest
You need to learn more about the Catholic side of the issue.
- Catholics don’t say it’s a choice-check out the Catechism.
- Catholics don’t say homosexuality is a sin-they say homosexual sex and marriage is a sin.
- We don’t only believe this because of Leviticus. Besides the New Testament condemnations of homosexual relations, it can also be proven to be wrong through natural law.
S
Sneaux
Guest
Yeah, sorry. I really should get more into religion. I wasn’t raised in a majorly religious home, I was just taught it was wrong.
B
Biblepoe
Guest
It is one thing to teach that homosexuality is a sin, but it is another thing to actively campaign for homosexual couples to be barred from receiving the same civil benefits that are available to heterosexual couples.
F
Faithdancer
Guest
Just want to say thanks to the moderator(s) for removing that vulgar post that was on this thread earlier today. I hope the author of it grows up, quickly.
F
Faithdancer
Guest
Actually the one action follows the other, very logically and very consistently. It’s called talk the talk, then walk the walk. To acquiesce to civil unions or gay “marriage” only encourages homosexuals to continue their gravely disordered activity and nurtures their fantasy that homosexual activity is not completely unnatural.
T
thewanderer
Guest
I know I’ve already put my two cents in about this earlier, but I hope you don’t mind if I ask you why there are civil benefits for heterosexual marriage in the first place? (I think it is important to note that not just any heterosexual couple can marry legally and attain these benefits, siblings, for example, cannot.)
My take on it is essentially:
If the reason the government is giving special benefits is just because the couple loves each other and are in a romantic relationship then **the government should not be giving benefits to anyone. **It should just get out of the marriage buisness altogether.
If it is because they are close to one another and share property etc then it should not be denied to homosexuals or siblings or even just really close friends.
If it is for the sake of encouraging the production and careful raising of the people who will be necessary for the very continued existence of the state then it makes perfect sense to refuse to extend these benefits to those couples who are sterile, which will include homosexual couples.
In none of these scenarios does it make any sense to campaign **solely **for the extension of the civil benefits that come along with civil marriage to homosexual unions. Either extend it to absolutely anybody, or leave it restricted to fertile couples (or at least those that are likely to be fertile - the govt. doesn’t have the extra cash right now to set up a test for every couple getting married to find out whether or not they’re sterile)
If you want to argue that these civil benefits should be extended to homosexual couples then you must firsst explain what the purpose of the govt. giving out these benefits is in the first place and then show that homosexual unions fall into the category of unions that fulfill this purpose.
B
Biblepoe
Guest
Muslims could say the same thing with regard to free speech and blaspheme against Allah. To demonstrate this, I’ll quote what you said but with only minor changes:
“Actually the one action follows the other, very logically and very consistently. It’s called talk the talk, then walk the walk. To acquiesce to [free speech] only encourages [blasphemers] to continue their gravely disordered activity and nurtures their [hatred of Islam].”
Clearly, it is not always good for the government to ban something that a religion believes to be immoral. I’m sure you believe blaspheme is immoral just like Muslims, but unlike Muslims, you don’t think that walking the walk means having the government ban the behavior you consider to be immoral (with regard to free speech). If you did that with regard to couples being given the same civil benefits, people wouldn’t be be as inclined to see your religion as a threat to them.
B
Biblepoe
Guest
I don’t intend to derail this thread, so it may be worthwhile to start a new one if this topic continues.
There are some other things that a civil marriage gives which cannot just be given through contracts between the two individuals. For example, spouses receive exemptions from gift taxes. Also, with a marriage license, you obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse – that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse’s behalf. To me, things like this make sense to give to those who live as permanent lovers. After all, what’s yours is your lovers, so that gifting should be exempt from taxation, and your spouse should be the one to make major decisions for you when you cannot.
For more benefits of civil marriage, check out this page.
EDIT: I also want to add that if one supports giving marriage benefits to heterosexual couples but not to homosexual couples on the grounds that those rights are only meant as a means to encourage procreation, one also aught to support denying those rights to a heterosexual couple who is known to be infertile (for example, the man has a vasectomy a the woman had a hysterectomy).
Civil marriage as I understand it is mostly a standardized bundle of contracts. Theoretically, you could jump through a bunch of hoops to get most of the benefits of civil marriage through contracts and legal forms. For example, by being married you can receive the estate of your spouse upon his/her death. However, doing this for all the things that a civil marriage covers would be very costly as you would probably need to hire a lawyer. Having a civil marriage to cover these things is much more practical.
There are some other things that a civil marriage gives which cannot just be given through contracts between the two individuals. For example, spouses receive exemptions from gift taxes. Also, with a marriage license, you obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse – that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse’s behalf. To me, things like this make sense to give to those who live as permanent lovers. After all, what’s yours is your lovers, so that gifting should be exempt from taxation, and your spouse should be the one to make major decisions for you when you cannot.
For more benefits of civil marriage, check out this page.
EDIT: I also want to add that if one supports giving marriage benefits to heterosexual couples but not to homosexual couples on the grounds that those rights are only meant as a means to encourage procreation, one also aught to support denying those rights to a heterosexual couple who is known to be infertile (for example, the man has a vasectomy a the woman had a hysterectomy).
T
thewanderer
Guest
In which case, to be consistent, you would really need to campaign for the removal of any limitations as to who can marry legally. ie, allow siblings, non-romantically involved close friends etc. not just for homosexuals.
lol, in an earlier post on this thread (and on other threads) I have already admitted that I have no problem with this idea. I’m not a huge fan of the idea of enforcing it through getting every couple wanting to marry to get a fertility test (not least of all because those aren’t always very accurate, or that having low fertility does not mean one is sterile) it would be too costly and cumbersome in my opinion, but having a couple sign an affidavit that, as far as they are aware, they are not a sterile couple or else refuse them a marriage licence is something that I have zero problem with. Its just legal marriage. Its not like they’re commitment to each other is lessened if the govt. doesn’t recognize it or anything like that.
T
thewanderer
Guest
You’re probably right about this, although since the OP hasn’t come back yet to answer the latest questions asked (which, admittedly, have by now gotten lost in the thread
) I am beginning to suspect that he/she has left the thread. Since the thread was supposed to be asking the OP questions it would be kind of hard to keep it on track without him/her. 
Although perhaps other people with SSA could step in and fill the OP’s role of answering questions people have about homosexuality? I for one am still curious to hear more responses to my question about Josh Weed’s story and what SSA actually is.
B
Biblepoe
Guest
This is wrong when considering that a lot of the benefit only make sense to give to lovers. Opening it up to more than two individuals or between family members would allow for people to abuse the system easily.In which case, to be consistent, you would really need to campaign for the removal of any limitations as to who can marry legally. ie, allow siblings, non-romantically involved close friends etc. not just for homosexuals.
Also, promoting a society-wide aversion to incest is almost certainly an effective tool for preventing the sexual abuse of children, while the same cannot be said of homosexuality. A great deal of sexual abuse is perpetrated by family members, and a great deal of sexual abuse that does not occur may be attributed to an aversion to incest.
What was the question (or which post is it in)? As a gay man, I could offer my opinion on it.Although perhaps other people with SSA could step in and fill the OP’s role of answering questions people have about homosexuality? I for one am still curious to hear more responses to my question about Josh Weed’s story and what SSA actually is.
C
Crescentinus
Guest
More homosexualists are coming in…
This thread it seems, is a magnet for them.
This thread it seems, is a magnet for them.
B
Biblepoe
Guest
Well, it is an ask a homosexual thread. What do you expect?
C
Crescentinus
Guest
I said homosexualists, not homosexuals.
A homosexual is not necessarily a homosexualist, because there are heterosexuals who are homosexualists.
S
Seeker1961
Guest
Nobody is using your little invented word, no matter how many threads you go on trying to promote it.
If it bothers you, don’t open threads about homosexuality-problem solved.
- Status