Since there are so many threads about homosexuality

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lokabrenna
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
it’s largely about using the government to subsidize people’s sex lives.
Click to expand...
Why do straight couples get the privilege of having their sex lives subsidized? If you’re going to say that gay marriage is about subsidizing a sex life, then so is straight marriage. But you wouldn’t cheapen opposite sex marriages as a subsidized sex life. So I’m asking, which it is?
GLBTQ folks already have the same opportunity (marriage is not a Constitutional right). They can marry someone of the opposite sex and frankly many of them do, for better or worse.
Click to expand...
But straight people don’t have the opportunity to marry someone of the same sex. Let’s open it up for their sake. Also, equal protection under law is a Constitutional right.
The same cannot be said of homosexual acts, which are contrary to the nature of human sexuality.
Click to expand...
This all depends on what frame of reference you define nature. One can easily say it is in the nature of a straight person to have sex with a member of the opposite sex and in the nature of a gay person to have sex with a member of the same sex.
 
Slavonic said:
This all depends on what frame of reference you define nature. One can easily say it is in the nature of a straight person to have sex with a member of the opposite sex and in the nature of a gay person to have sex with a member of the same sex.
Click to expand...
Sure, you can SAY that, but that doesn’t mean it is a reasonable thing to say. There is no such animal as “gay human nature” to set opposite “straight human nature.” There’s just the one human nature we all share. There is no other one. Human sexuality aims at procreation. (If you don’t want to trust the Church on this, ask a secular biologist. You’ll get the same answer.) Sexual reproduction acquires a mix of male and female DNA. The act which brings this about is unlike any other human act----it generates life. To say that two guys or two girls having sex is ‘the same thing’ is false, and not just on religious grounds. It’s false on scientific grounds. It’s also----and I marvel how rarely this attracts comment—essential to the declaration that one is gay: gay people do NOT think that having sex with someone of the opposite sex is “equivalent” to having someone of the same sex. Gay people see an essential difference between the sexes. Welcome to reality! Heterosexuals see that difference too and they think it matters. They’re right.
 
markeverett49 said:
Sure, you can SAY that, but that doesn’t mean it is a reasonable thing to say. There is no such animal as “gay human nature” to set opposite “straight human nature.” There’s just the one human nature we all share. There is no other one. Human sexuality aims at procreation. (If you don’t want to trust the Church on this, ask a secular biologist. You’ll get the same answer.)
Click to expand...
Maybe. But the secular biologist would not necessarily be implying that it is immoral to have homosexual intercourse. He is simply stating that it is within the interest of a species to reproduce, and that is why we have a sexuality. You seem to be implying that everyone is heterosexual because the aim of sexuality is to reproduce. This isn’t true, obviously, and it is evidently within some people’s nature to have desires to sleep with members of the same-sex. Nature isn’t as clean or as tidy as you imply it is.
markeverett49 said:
Sexual reproduction acquires a mix of male and female DNA. The act which brings this about is unlike any other human act----it generates life. To say that two guys or two girls having sex is ‘the same thing’ is false, and not just on religious grounds. It’s false on scientific grounds. It’s also----and I marvel how rarely this attracts comment—essential to the declaration that one is gay: gay people do NOT think that having sex with someone of the opposite sex is “equivalent” to having someone of the same sex. Gay people see an essential difference between the sexes. Welcome to reality! Heterosexuals see that difference too and they think it matters. They’re right.
Click to expand...
Well, yeah, I can’t really argue with anything here. It’s correct. Heterosexual sex and homosexual sex aren’t the same. And, gay people probably do recognise that heterosexual sex is necessary for the existence of life (which isn’t always quite true, but only in certain circumstances). And, for the record, I’m heterosexual and I don’t really think it matters that some people are gay. It’s not going to have any lasting impact on our species because a small percentage of the population like members of the same-sex.
 
SuperLuigi said:
Support for something like so-called “gay marriage” could mean skin off your nose indeed.

Homosexuality is a sin that cries to Heaven.
Click to expand...
Well… I don’t know if it cries to heaven, SuperLuigi. :ehh: I think that premise was meant more to appeal to a readers (mine perhaps) emotions rather than to their more rational mind.
The issue surrounding gay rights isn’t about street kids or people banding together due to impoverished circumstances, it’s largely about using the government to subsidize people’s sex lives.
Click to expand...
I would concur, although, I think the promotion behind gay marriage is more to do with an attempt to socially legitimize homosexuality. I know in the United States people often seem to need laws that say X is OK for them to believe that X is actually OK. Except for marijuana. Plenty of weed heads. I think most my city smokes weed. Which kind of makes a fool out of its prohibition and belittles the law against it.

The day they outlaw alcohol is the day everyone will start thinking alcohol is immoral to consume. Gay marriage will make gay marriage cool. Ergo, the reason a lot of people want to legalize gay marriage. Plus, as a rule of thumb I’m told by a political scientist, once something is made a right it’s very hard to take it away.
 
Regular_Atheist said:
And, gay people probably do recognise that…
Click to expand...
@ bold: Another UK’er. :ehh:

9 out of 10 people from the United Kingdom I encounter online are very liberal. About 9 out of 10 of them are atheists. :hmmm:

(You all use “s” where a “z” more appropriately should be. Americans did to the English language what the Italians did to pasta from China)
 
Regular_Atheist said:
Maybe. But the secular biologist would not necessarily be implying that it is immoral to have homosexual intercourse. He is simply stating that it is within the interest of a species to reproduce, and that is why we have a sexuality. You seem to be implying that everyone is heterosexual because the aim of sexuality is to reproduce. This isn’t true, obviously, and it is evidently within some people’s nature to have desires to sleep with members of the same-sex. Nature isn’t as clean or as tidy as you imply it is.
Click to expand...
No, I wasn’t implying that everyone is heterosexual. No one is denying that homosexual acts take place—the point is that they are disordered, for reasons you just agreed to. I think we’re done here!
 
markeverett49 said:
No, I wasn’t implying that everyone is heterosexual. No one is denying that homosexual acts take place—the point is that they are disordered, for reasons you just agreed to. I think we’re done here!
Click to expand...
You’re right Mark. The homosexualists will never concede that intra-gender sex is unnatural and disordered, and the Catholic Church will never budge on the fact that it is. So, it’s an impasse.😉
 
Faithdancer said:
You’re right Mark. The homosexualists will never concede that intra-gender sex is unnatural and disordered, and the Catholic Church will never budge on the fact that it is. So, it’s an impasse.😉
Click to expand...
There’s only one human nature, and we all share it, male and female, heterosexual or not. I hear a lot about how “our” view is just the way we see it but I don’t hear much in the way of a plausible alternative.
 
Regular_Atheist said:
Maybe. But the secular biologist would not necessarily be implying that it is immoral to have homosexual intercourse. He is simply stating that it is within the interest of a species to reproduce, and that is why we have a sexuality. You seem to be implying that everyone is heterosexual because the aim of sexuality is to reproduce. This isn’t true, obviously, and it is evidently within some people’s nature to have desires to sleep with members of the same-sex. Nature isn’t as clean or as tidy as you imply it is.
Click to expand...
It is also within some people’s “nature” (to use the word as you’re choosing to use it) to be serial killers. Should we allow that, because it’s natural?

Homosexual sex has been proven in studies (shown elsewhere on this forum) to be more harmful than heterosexual sex.

The aim of sexuality IS to produce. You can’t argue with sperm and eggs. But we can CAN argue with the inborn tendencies that some have, like murdering people, or risking more increases in STDs and early death with homosexual sex.
Well, yeah, I can’t really argue with anything here. It’s correct. Heterosexual sex and homosexual sex aren’t the same. And, gay people probably do recognise that heterosexual sex is necessary for the existence of life (which isn’t always quite true, but only in certain circumstances). And, for the record, I’m heterosexual and I don’t really think it matters that some people are gay. It’s not going to have any lasting impact on our species because a small percentage of the population like members of the same-sex.
Click to expand...
As Catholics, we are concerned with the eternal state of each eternal soul. As an atheist, that won’t matter to you, but it ought to inform you a little more about our position. A small percentage of people risking their immortal souls is still too many.

Darn us for caring so much, eh?
 
Lokabrenna said:
…why not ask questions of an actual homosexual? 🙂 As long as they’re, you know, clean.

I wasn’t sure where to put this thread. It didn’t seem appropriate for the non-Catholic religions board (unless I was to change it to be about GLBT+ Pagans) or the Back Fence, so I’m sticking it here.
Click to expand...
Why are straight women obsessed about homosexual men?🙂
 
Marc_Anthony said:
What I want to know is WHY we should specifically change the definition of marriage then. I see no good reason. Until somebody can provide me a good reason why we should allow same-sex couples to have the same rights as married couples
Click to expand...
Simply because same sex relationships is Legal. It makes no sense to say that homosexual relationships is legally legitimate but same sex marriage is not. In a legal context Its an arbitrary injunction. Religious or philosophical beliefs that do not apply in a political context are not grounds for creating or removing law. If you believe that marriage should only be for straight people, then you have to prove why gay marriage is harmful to society without expressing your religious convictions, simply because such convictions hold no weight in a legal context.

Just because something is wrong given your beliefs about sexuality, does not necessarily mean that such is grounds for making something illegal, unless you can prove that your beliefs about human sexuality and its implementation in law is beyond any doubt what’s right for a pluralistic society.
 
ReapReason said:
Simply because same sex relationships is Legal. It makes no sense to say that homosexual relationships is legally legitimate but same sex marriage is not. In a legal context Its an arbitrary injunction. Religious or philosophical beliefs that do not apply in a political context are not grounds for creating or removing law. If you believe that marriage should only be for straight people, then you have to prove why gay marriage is harmful to society without expressing your religious convictions, simply because such convictions hold no weight in a legal context.

Just because something is wrong given your beliefs about sexuality, does not necessarily mean that such is grounds for making something illegal, unless you can prove that your beliefs about human sexuality and its implementation in law is beyond any doubt what’s right for a pluralistic society.
Click to expand...
The thing is, we’re talking about making same-sex marriage legal, not making it illegal, and I see no reason to give them the same rights as married couples but not any other group. 🤷
 
Marc_Anthony said:
The thing is, we’re talking about making same-sex marriage legal, not making it illegal, and I see no reason to give them the same rights as married couples but not any other group. 🤷
Click to expand...
What other groups exactly?:hmmm:
 
ReapReason said:
By this do you mean, why can’t a Mon and son marry, why can’t brothers marry etc…
Click to expand...
I think you know exactly what I mean, since I answered this question. You’re a smart guy. Instead of going at me with the Socratic method, respond.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top