And, Ed, under the guise of “equality”, kids today are being taught that it is OK for one man to shove his dick up another man’s bum and call it “love”. Why, they even want to legitimise that practice by saying the men can be “married”.You know what? Catholics have been lied to over the past 40 years by Hippie liberals and Marxists…
And what about the kids and the in-laws? Families torn apart.
Anarchy for anarchists is what I’m mostly seeing today. I’ll have no part of it.
God bless,
Ed
it would be easy to describe heterosexual relations in such crude terms as well. the issue isn’t about sexual acts since there is nothing homosexual couples do sexually that heterosexual couples do not do (including the practice you described).And, Ed, under the guise of “equality”, kids today are being taught that it is OK for one man to shove his dick up another man’s bum and call it “love”. Why, they even want to legitimise that practice by saying the men can be “married”.
Sick.
of course we shouldn’t change just for the sake of change, and of course some social institutions have changed in some ways for the worse even while some have changed in some ways for the better.Just who is “we”? . Take the institution of marriage. Divorce rates in the US and in my own country, Australia, have gone through the roof. The family unit has been trashed and the ones paying the price are the kids. In Australia in 1975, the concept of “no fault divorce” was recognised by an Act of Parliament. It is now being recognised that the concept of no fault divorce is wrong and has caused untold hurt, harm and fragmentation of our society. Yet people like you will dare try tell the world that such change is beneficial?!
There is a vast difference between change for the sake of change and constructive change. Many of the changes wrought by the left wing progressive agenda have wrought destruction on society.
obviously slavery was practiced in other places and times including ancient greek culture and by the biblical aristocracy (given that it was regulated by laws in the old testament.)If you study your history a little more, you will see that Slavery was only an ‘institution’ for a very brief period and was 'instituted by positive laws made in the early American colonies after first settlement.
i do not think that my love for my wife and the love you have for yours (if you are married) is at all different from the love that many homosexuals have for their partners.So you want to trash millenia of accepted human behaviour and normalise what is clearly abnormal? Why? So gays can have 'equal rights"? They want to be “equally regarded” even though their behaviour is anomolous and disordered. What other disorder do you wish to sanction in the name of “equality”. Tell me this, how can sex between a man and a woman ever be considered on a par as sex between a man and a man" Do you really think the two are equal?
First I would say that it is wrong, because ideas also are understood in the spiritual realm by angels, souls, and God Himself, and second I would say it is irrelevant, because the fact that other creatures such as animals do not understand ideas does not reduce the quality of their existence. The very fact that we say that ideas have objective reality *means *they exist regardless of any perception of them. That is the *point *of saying they have objective reality.Exactly. But I would add, and have added already several times, that an idea has objective reality only in human discourse (various forms of human discourse are possible.)
it would be easy to describe heterosexual relations in such crude terms as well. the issue isn’t about sexual acts since there is nothing homosexual couples do sexually that heterosexual couples do not do (including the practice you described).
given that you probably don’t first think of when a “man shovehis dick” when you think of heterosexual romantic love, i suspect that if you knew some homosexual couples, you would be less inclined to view homosexual romantic love in such crude terms.
when I read that article I sensed the author was promoting “open marriages” for hetrosexuals. YIKES! He clearly is overlooking:“romantic love”? There have been attempts to portray homosexual relationships as being exactly equal to a heterosexual couple. That’s simply not true.
nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html?_r=1
God bless,
Ed
So if you are satisfied with your own views on how things ought to be, why do you post here? Catholic orthodoxy is the only acceptable way of living for Catholics. And homosexuals have a right to privacy. This “imposed” idea ignores the fact that same sex marriage appeared on the ballot. Who put it there? The Church? If my (name removed by moderator)ut has been requested then I will give it in the form of a vote. Otherwise, why did anyone bother to ask the people about it?of course we shouldn’t change just for the sake of change, and of course some social institutions have changed in some ways for the worse even while some have changed in some ways for the better.
the issue in this exchange was simply to demonstrate that ed’s claim that humans have not changed their dna so social institutions should never change is false. we should agree that it is possible to change a social institution for the better and that “it’s always been this way” is no argument in support of “it ought to always be this way.”
obviously slavery was practiced in other places and times including ancient greek culture and by the biblical aristocracy (given that it was regulated by laws in the old testament.)
i do not think that my love for my wife and the love you have for yours (if you are married) is at all different from the love that many homosexuals have for their partners.
plus, this idea of what is moral and immoral according to the church is a separate issue from whether all americans need to abide by catholic moral beliefs on the subject. many catholics i know think that homosexuality is immoral but do not believe that catholicism or any religion ought to be imposed on others.
yes, romantic love. it sounds like you haven’t known any homosexual couples, but they certainly have the same love for one another as heterosexual couples do as well as all the same problems that heterosexual relationships can have. these problems will of course occur in different statistical frequencies between the two groups.“romantic love”? There have been attempts to portray homosexual relationships as being exactly equal to a heterosexual couple. That’s simply not true.
nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html?_r=1
First, I would point out that heterosexuals do that, too. Second, if it’s not your idea of a good time, then so be it, but if other consenting adults wish to partake, as long as they’re not insisting you join them or watch, of what concern is it to you?And, Ed, under the guise of “equality”, kids today are being taught that it is OK for one man to shove his dick up another man’s bum and call it “love”. Why, they even want to legitimise that practice by saying the men can be “married”.
Sick.
It works for millions of people. Just because you are not one of them does not mean they do not exist.when I read that article I sensed the author was promoting “open marriages” for hetrosexuals. YIKES!
In my experience with consensual non-monogamy, most participants utilize multiple forms of birth control. While that cannot provide 100% protection, it is close enough for practical purposes.He clearly is overlooking:
- Children produced in the extra-marital sex
An over-reaching generalization. It may be true that taken as a whole women are less sexually adventurous than men, but when looking at individuals that is not always the case. I speak from personal experience.
- Straight women are not as promiscuous as gay men. Open marriage would only beeifit men.
Your point?
- Children in straight marriages.
Again, an over generalization. There are millions of Americans who are straight and married and yet are not sexually monogamous.
- Straight couples, IMO, are more jealous of their mates.
But that’s just it, Ed, that’s exactly what you want. You want to deny marriage to homosexuals based on the doctrine of your church. Your church is not so important as to be able to do that.The Church will not force a Catholic or non-Catholic to not live how they want.
Debateable. Millions? Please, no links. This is a thread within itself.It works for millions of people. Just because you are not one of them does not mean they do not exist…
My experience is that when people do not take procautions when engaged in extra-matrial sex. Another debatable point.In my experience with consensual non-monogamy, most participants utilize multiple forms of birth control. While that cannot provide 100% protection, it is close enough for practical purposes…
Most women are more chaste. FACT. Gay men have multple sexual partners, if not hundreds. That is not saying all, but the vast majority.An over-reaching generalization. It may be true that taken as a whole women are less sexually adventurous than men, but when looking at individuals that is not always the case. I speak from personal experience.
Exposing children to an “open Marriage”? very damaging.Your point?
Hence “crimes of passion”. Can’t pick up a newspaper or watch a newscast without reading/seeing a story of some spouse killing/hurting the other spouse over cheating.Again, an over generalization. There are millions of Americans who are straight and married and yet are not sexually monogamous.
good point, but what you are being asked in a polling booth is not “do you think homosexuality is immoral?” you are in effect being asked “should there be a law against it so that your view gets imposed on other people?”So if you are satisfied with your own views on how things ought to be, why do you post here? Catholic orthodoxy is the only acceptable way of living for Catholics. And homosexuals have a right to privacy. This “imposed” idea ignores the fact that same sex marriage appeared on the ballot. Who put it there? The Church? If my (name removed by moderator)ut has been requested then I will give it in the form of a vote. Otherwise, why did anyone bother to ask the people about it?
neither will anyone force you to gay marry!Once again, just so I’m clear: Even if you are Catholic, no priest will be pounding on your door Monday if you missed Mass on Saturday. He won’t be yelling for his money and force you to pay up.
there is disagreement about what the truth is here. i want conversation rather than for anyone to shut up.About imposing - the Church speaks the truth. Some people don’t want to hear it. The Church knows this. The Church will not force a Catholic or non-Catholic to not live how they want.
In other words, a few here are simply yelling “Shut up” to the Church.
I’m not going to provide a link to swinger websites, as I suspect it violates the rules here, but a simple google search will find what you seek. Between the top 10 sites, there are probably 8-10 million profiles. Look it up for yourself.Debateable. Millions? Please, no links. This is a thread within itself.
And just how much personal experience do you have with extra-marital sex? My wife and I have been in the Lifestyle for 6 or 7 years now and have been with dozens, if not hundreds of other people, and observed an order of magnitude more than that. I’ve not a single time witnessed nor participated where protection was not used. Not a single time.My experience is that when people do not take procautions when engaged in extra-matrial sex. Another debatable point.
Most =/= All. Your point is irrelevant.Most women are more chaste. FACT. Gay men have multple sexual partners, if not hundreds. That is not saying all, but the vast majority.
Why would presume children are ‘exposed’ to it? Do your children know the details of your sex life?Exposing children to an “open Marriage”? very damaging.
Consensually open relationships and cheating are two very different things.Can’t pick up a newspaper or watch a newscast without reading/seeing a story of some spouse killing/hurting the other spouse over cheating.
No, because those are unscientific numbers, probably extrapulations and also incle “cheaters”. Can’t be proven.I’m not going to provide a link to swinger websites, as I suspect it violates the rules here, but a simple google search will find what you seek. Between the top 10 sites, there are probably 8-10 million profiles. Look it up for yourself.
I know plenty of people who have had extra-matrial affairs without protection. This isn’t worth argueing about.And just how much personal experience do you have with extra-marital sex? My wife and I have been in the Lifestyle for 6 or 7 years now and have been with dozens, if not hundreds of other people, and observed an order of magnitude more than that. I’ve not a single time witnessed nor participated where protection was not used. Not a single time.
ok, whatever. Comparing straight women to homosexual men is pretty assinine to begin with.Most =/= All. Your point is irrelevant.
So, when you were a child of say 13 or 14, you were pretty numb to your parents relationships? I know 5 year olds that know their fathers have been unfaithful or have girlfriends.Why would presume children are ‘exposed’ to it? Do your children know the details of your sex life?
Open marriage, IMO, is avoiding commitment. That is why the majority of peole think it is immoral. Not based on religion either. Most, probably 99.99% of straight people feel marriage is a commitment of mongamy. People joke about it, but I personally (ME, I, PERSONALLY) do not know of ONE person who would enter into an open marriage.Consensually open relationships and cheating are two very different things.
Actually, you do, you just don’t know it. It really is much more common that you think, when we first started I was absolutely SHOCKED at how many people are in the community. Teachers, especially, are over-represented for whatever reason, but we’ve run into just about anything you can think of. Cops, lawyers, one CSI, business owners, postal workers, a preacher or three, you name it. If you interact with more than a handful of people on a daily basis I guarantee you have met some of us.People joke about it, but I personally (ME, I, PERSONALLY) do not know of ONE person who would enter into an open marriage.
This may be true in a situation in which the heterosexual couple has taken measures to avoid children, but would not be true in the typical heterosexual marriage in which children are hoped for and wanted. To take on in tandem with someone else the task of providing for society’s future brings in a level of commitment that a couple without that option cannot imagine.yes, romantic love. it sounds like you haven’t known any homosexual couples, but they certainly have** the same love for one another as heterosexual couples do** as well as all the same problems that heterosexual relationships can have. these problems will of course occur in different statistical frequencies between the two groups…
rocinante
Nice attempt at a dodge. There is no reason to not allow homosexuals privacy. Again, why put it on the ballot? Why ask me?yes, romantic love. it sounds like you haven’t known any homosexual couples, but they certainly have the same love for one another as heterosexual couples do as well as all the same problems that heterosexual relationships can have. these problems will of course occur in different statistical frequencies between the two groups.
just like homosexuals, heterosexuals of course frequently have such “open relationships” as well, so in that sense, yes, they are equal even in this regard too.
if you think that there ought to be a law criminalizing sex outside of marriage (it might be possible to convince me that there should be such a law) it would apply just as easily to homosexuals as heterosexuals. but there is no such law today. such a law would perhaps do much to protect the sanctity of marriage as a monogamous ideally life-long bond and children who are raised by married couples. i can’t see how preventing more homosexuals from marrying could do anything to keep people from philandering and divorcing at such high rates as we see today. what problems there are with the institution of marriage proportionately apply mostly to heterosexuals since they constitute the vast majority of marriages.
(i heard of a case recently where a woman sued another woman for having sex with her husband and breaking up her marriage. i never heard the outcome or if it has been resolved. if it becomes possible to seek damages against people who have sex with married people, that may be a way to reduce the incidence of adultery.)
rocinante
That’s pretty much what voting about any issue boils down to, isn’t it? Should your view be forced down my throat, or my view forced down yours? Whether the issue is homosexual “marriage,” taxes, road construction, or whatever.good point, but what you are being asked in a polling booth is not “do you think homosexuality is immoral?” you are in effect being asked “should there be a law against it so that your view gets imposed on other people?”
…
That’s true, but only ‘sort of’.That’s pretty much what voting about any issue boils down to, isn’t it?