When Homosexuals love eachother

[JimG]

As long as marriage is primarily about children that argument works, once it devolves into being about love then there is no longer much reason to deny gay couples marriage because they too can love each other.

The first link misunderstood several basic things such as that they think Ms. Tushnet is ontologizing sexuality which is contrary to the truth which gravely detracts from the article.

The article critiques Tushnet on the basis that: “she embraces an understanding of sexuality that has its roots in LGBT gender theory—that is, an understanding of the human person which recognizes as equally valid and true any number of sexualities and sexual orientations… Once a person has accepted the view that there is a “diversity of ways of understanding our sexuality while remaining faithful," one has opened the door to LGBT gender theory. By adopting the identities of “gay” and “lesbian,” Tushnet is ontologizing same-sex attraction in direct contradiction of the Church’s understanding of the being of the human person as always and only male and female.”

Of course, that is Bill Maguire’s interpretation of her views, and she might well disagree with his understanding of her views.

As for marriage being about either love or children, I believe that marriage must always be about both love and the possibility of procreation. The parties do vow to have and to hold each other for life. In doing so they also must promise to love each other for life. It is an essential corollary of the marriage vows.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

The article critiques Tushnet on the basis that: “she embraces an understanding of sexuality that has its roots in LGBT gender theory—that is, an understanding of the human person which recognizes as equally valid and true any number of sexualities and sexual orientations… Once a person has accepted the view that there is a “diversity of ways of understanding our sexuality while remaining faithful," one has opened the door to LGBT gender theory. By adopting the identities of “gay” and “lesbian,” Tushnet is ontologizing same-sex attraction in direct contradiction of the Church’s understanding of the being of the human person as always and only male and female.”

Of course, that is Bill Maguire’s interpretation of her views, and she might well disagree with his understanding of her views.

She doesn’t ontologize “same sex attraction” and it is pretty clear if you read her without preconceived notions.

As for marriage being about either love or children, I believe that marriage must always be about both love and the possibility of procreation. The parties do vow to have and to hold each other for life. In doing so they also must promise to love each other for life. It is an essential corollary of the marriage vows.

Marriage is about children primarily, with agape love as secondary which is not the same love as talked about today regarding marriage. To have and to hold is about respect, honor and duty.

 

[frobert]

It is apparent from human nature and human anthropology and human biology and anatomy that human beings come in only two sexes: male and female. When one speaks of ‘orientation’ one is speaking of psychology not biology or anatomy. And personal feelings, tendencies, emotions, are the basis of psychology. There are two sexes–man and woman. As I said before, “orientation” is a rather recent social construct.

Homosexuality has existed from the beginning of time, whether there is a biological cause or not is undetermined. Do you know that it is possible for someone with a Y chromosome to become pregnant and give birth to a child? I am not saying that there is a third sex or that women who have Y chromosomes are not truly women. Perhaps you might want to research other biological and/or anatomical intra-gender differences.

 

[JimG]

Homosexuality has existed from the beginning of time, whether there is a biological cause or not is undetermined. Do you know that it is possible for someone with a Y chromosome to become pregnant and give birth to a child? I am not saying that there is a third sex or that women who have Y chromosomes are not truly women. Perhaps you might want to research other biological and/or anatomical intra-gender differences.

The “beginning of time” might be going a little too far back. I am sure that homosexual activity has existed wherever there have been human beings, just as have other sexual practices. However homosexuality as an “orientation,” is a rather recent invention. (See “Against Heterosexuality.”)

There have always been men and women, and men and women have engaged in all manner of sexual activity, some good some bad. Human beings nevertheless exist as two sexes, male and female.

I am certain that genetic anomalies have sometimes resulted in chromosomal anomalies, just as they have sometimes resulted in birth defects. Those do not change the essential nature of human beings as men and women.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

The “beginning of time” might be going a little too far back. I am sure that homosexual activity has existed wherever there have been human beings, just as have other sexual practices. However homosexuality as an “orientation,” is a rather recent invention. (See “Against Heterosexuality.”)

There have always been men and women, and men and women have engaged in all manner of sexual activity, some good some bad. Human beings nevertheless exist as two sexes, male and female.

I am certain that genetic anomalies have sometimes resulted in chromosomal anomalies, just as they have sometimes resulted in birth defects. Those do not change the essential nature of human beings as men and women.

An “orientation” describes the perspective of a subject toward an object. A sexual orientation therefore describes a person (subject) by the object toward which they are sexually attracted: a homosexual is someone oriented toward someone of the same sex, a bisexual toward both sexes, a pedophile toward children, a sado-masochist toward giving or receiving pain, etc…

By definition, there are an unlimited number of potential sexual orientations. The “gay” movement, however, arbitrarily recognizes only four orientations: heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, and transgendered (i.e. transvestites and transsexuals). Why?

Because to recognize other orientations – pedophilia, for example – would draw attention to the importance of distinguishing between orientation and conduct, when a major purpose of sexual orientation theory is to legitimize and protect homosexual conduct by obscuring this distinction.

 

[frobert]

The “beginning of time” might be going a little too far back. I am sure that homosexual activity has existed wherever there have been human beings, just as have other sexual practices. However homosexuality as an “orientation,” is a rather recent invention. (See “Against Heterosexuality.”)

There have always been men and women, and men and women have engaged in all manner of sexual activity, some good some bad. Human beings nevertheless exist as two sexes, male and female.

I am certain that genetic anomalies have sometimes resulted in chromosomal anomalies, just as they have sometimes resulted in birth defects. Those do not change the essential nature of human beings as men and women.

You are all over the place in your attempt to deny individual differences that occur naturally. You have an opinion which is fine but you don’t have the faintest idea of what a construct is.

Constructs are not four letter words. A construct is not an invention nor is it a behavior. In the sense that it is being used here it is a formulation to explain individual differences in sexual attraction. Do you really think there can be scientific inquiries into human differences such as same sex attraction without constructs?

Again what evidence or even minimal data do you have to back up your opinion? I accept that it is your opinion as even the CC admits it doesn’t know what causes same sex attraction but we do know that it is a reality. Same sex attraction is found in all human cultures and throughout the animal kingdom. You have an opinion that says it is against nature well it looks like there is a significant part of nature had a different opinion.

 

[frobert]

An “orientation” describes the perspective of a subject toward an object. A sexual orientation therefore describes a person (subject) by the object toward which they are sexually attracted: a homosexual is someone oriented toward someone of the same sex, a bisexual toward both sexes, a pedophile toward children, a sado-masochist toward giving or receiving pain, etc…

By definition, there are an unlimited number of potential sexual orientations. The “gay” movement, however, arbitrarily recognizes only four orientations: heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, and transgendered (i.e. transvestites and transsexuals). Why?

Because to recognize other orientations – pedophilia, for example – would draw attention to the importance of distinguishing between orientation and conduct, when a major purpose of sexual orientation theory is to legitimize and protect homosexual conduct by obscuring this distinction.

You make is sound like a conspiracy. Even so your biases are quite telling in your not so subtle attempt to equate homosexuality to pedophilia. Though it is rude its also quite amusing.

In case you don’t know it, pedophilia is illegal in the US and will end you up in prison for many years followed by a lifetime of parole if you survive prison.

 

[Rau]

As long as marriage is primarily about children that argument works, once it devolves into being about love then there is no longer much reason to deny gay couples marriage because they too can love each other.

Children may or may not arise. But I certainly agree that love alone can not a marriage make. Like a moving part in a car, the Oil is a highly valuable ingredient, but it is not what gives the part its form.

 

[Rau]

You make is sound like a conspiracy. Even so your biases are quite telling in your not so subtle attempt to equate homosexuality to pedophilia. Though it is rude its also quite amusing.

Not equating - but perhaps he is guilty of drawing a parallel?

Of course, there are considerable differences too. The difference in power and maturity between the paedophile and the child, the objective harm done to the child, necessitates the law taking a stand. That does not arise (in general) in relationships between adults (or at least the adults involved don’t themselves perceive any harm).

But I don’t blame a person for seeing parallels too. Both, seemingly, are emotional and sexual attractions that are “unexpected” in light of the nature of the individuals. Neither occurs as some arbitrary, conscious choice, but seems to be based on actual desires, the cause of which we don’t know.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

You make is sound like a conspiracy. Even so your biases are quite telling in your not so subtle attempt to equate homosexuality to pedophilia. Though it is rude its also quite amusing.

It is what it is…

Gay activists worked very hard to promote the idea of sexual orientation in order to create a discrimination issue. Now they have to live with it. If homosexuality is an “orientation” so is pedophilia.

An orientation is an orientation.

In case you don’t know it, pedophilia is illegal in the US and will end you up in prison for many years followed by a lifetime of parole if you survive prison.

I am aware that pedophilia is illegal and I am aware of the punishment. I am also aware that homosexuality was once illegal and police made regular rounds of gay bars arresting homosexuals. Now homosexuality is legal and homosexuals are protected by extraordinary rights. However, since no one wants to discriminate or be discriminated against, I wonder how long it will be before pedophiles demand the same rights and non-discrimination that is offered to homosexuals? They are, after all, just a sexual orientation…

 

[JimG]

You are all over the place in your attempt to deny individual differences that occur naturally. You have an opinion which is fine but you don’t have the faintest idea of what a construct is.

Constructs are not four letter words. A construct is not an invention nor is it a behavior. In the sense that it is being used here it is a formulation to explain individual differences in sexual attraction. Do you really think there can be scientific inquiries into human differences such as same sex attraction without constructs?

Again what evidence or even minimal data do you have to back up your opinion? I accept that it is your opinion as even the CC admits it doesn’t know what causes same sex attraction but we do know that it is a reality. Same sex attraction is found in all human cultures and throughout the animal kingdom. You have an opinion that says it is against nature well it looks like there is a significant part of nature had a different opinion.

Yes, it is certainly a fact that human beings have many individual differences. There are a multitude of physical and psychological differences. Some persons have red hair, some blond. Some people like brussels sprouts, others do not. Some have preferences for polyamory or polygamy, some have an inclination to adultery or fornication. There seem to be lots of differences in sexual tendencies and preferences.

And yet, it remains my opinion, based on observation, that humanity is comprised of human beings, and that human beings are male and female. For the first 7,000 years of human history or thereabouts, this has not been a difficult observation to make, at least not until the present age.

 

[Rau]

…, I wonder how long it will be before pedophiles demand the same rights and non-discrimination that is offered to homosexuals? They are, after all, just a sexual orientation…

Zoltan, you’re being silly

But I imagine they may have or seek to raise a defence at trial related to their inclinations? Paedophilia is covered in the DSM.

 

[JimG]

Zoltan, you’re being silly

But I imagine they may have or seek to raise a defence at trial related to their inclinations? Paedophilia is covered in the DSM.

The DSM, of course, is changeable by vote, and voting can be influenced by politcal and ideological considerations.

Perhaps we can just say that some orientations, if acted upon, are illegal, and others are not.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Zoltan, you’re being silly

But I imagine they may have or seek to raise a defence at trial related to their inclinations? Paedophilia is covered in the DSM.

As was homosexuality…until it was removed due to “social” pressure.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Children may or may not arise. But I certainly agree that love alone can not a marriage make. Like a moving part in a car, the Oil is a highly valuable ingredient, but it is not what gives the part its form.

It is important in the same way that antifreeze is important in Puerto Rico.

An “orientation” describes the perspective of a subject toward an object. A sexual orientation therefore describes a person (subject) by the object toward which they are sexually attracted: a homosexual is someone oriented toward someone of the same sex, a bisexual toward both sexes, a pedophile toward children, a sado-masochist toward giving or receiving pain, etc…

By definition, there are an unlimited number of potential sexual orientations. The “gay” movement, however, arbitrarily recognizes only four orientations: heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, and transgendered (i.e. transvestites and transsexuals). Why?

Because to recognize other orientations – pedophilia, for example – would draw attention to the importance of distinguishing between orientation and conduct, when a major purpose of sexual orientation theory is to legitimize and protect homosexual conduct by obscuring this distinction.

Do you also think that freeze plugs are plugs that freeze things? Deconstructing a phrase doesn’t always work.

 

[Rau]

It is important in the same way that antifreeze is important in Puerto Rico.

google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=weather+in+puerto+rico
That’s suggestive of a fairly surly and sour view of human relationships.
I am sure two persons with the necessary qualities can be successful in a marriage without love. But I think the odds are reduced. They may begin to ‘wear on each other’.

 

[JimmyG88]

I think that if gay people had not been subjected to do much persecution, derision and denial of basic human rights then the demand for official recognition of their relationship would not have been so strident. Had gay people (for example) have been afforded the same pension and property rights as married couples then I suspect this would not have taken off as an issue in quite the same way. In many ways societal prejudices and norms are to blame for this demand. I come from a generation (born 1960) where many people rejected the notion of marriage altogether so the demand for an extension of marriage was counterintuitive. However the demand for civil rights was very strong. Maybe marriage was seen merely as a means to an end rather than a statement. Just saying

 

[Rau]

I think that if gay people had not been subjected to do much persecution, derision and denial of basic human rights then the demand for official recognition of their relationship would not have been so strident.

There was mistreatment and it no doubt has influenced the response.

Had gay people (for example) have been afforded the same pension and property rights as married couples then I suspect this would not have taken off as an issue in quite the same way. In many ways societal prejudices and norms are to blame for this demand. …Maybe marriage was seen merely as a means to an end rather than a statement.

There are jurisdictions around the world where defacto couples (including same sex) were in fact afforded substantially equivalent rights and entitlements as married couples. That did not eliminate the call for “marriage equality” though I can’t say whether it diminished it or not.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=weather+in+puerto+rico
That’s suggestive of a fairly surly and sour view of human relationships.
I am sure two persons with the necessary qualities can be successful in a marriage without love. But I think the odds are reduced. They may begin to ‘wear on each other’.

Despite the record low in Puerto Rico being above freezing you still need to add additive to the coolant system to prevent galvanic corrosion.

That is why people are supposed to have a robust relationship of friends, it is those times and that of extended that binds society together; an atomistic society is like building on grains of sand, but a society that focuses on the nuclear family to the detriment of friendship and extended family is like building upon slightly bigger grains of sand.

 

[JimmyG88]

Despite the record low in Puerto Rico being above freezing you still need to add additive to the coolant system to prevent galvanic corrosion.

That is why people are supposed to have a robust relationship of friends, it is those times and that of extended that binds society together; an atomistic society is like building on grains of sand, but a society that focuses on the nuclear family to the detriment of friendship and extended family is like building upon slightly bigger grains of sand.

Errrrm what???