Why do those who favor "gay marriage" limit the number to two? What about homosexual incest?

  • Thread starter Thread starter livingwordunity
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Giants said:
So, in other words, the procreative aspect of marriage is no longer a requirement? As long as the couple can consummate and maintain the unitive aspect of it, then this is all that’s required?

It’s nice to know that the CCC is now ‘open source’ - and anyone can add their own little wrinkles whenever they’re trying to win an argument on the Internet.
Click to expand...
The CCC isnt an open source and Im not adding anything new and that isnt there.

Somehing tells me a lot of your arguments are based on misconceptions.
 
CrimsonThorn said:
The CCC isnt an open source and Im not adding anything new and that isnt there.

Somehing tells me a lot of your arguments are based on misconceptions.
Click to expand...
Really? Well, here’s your big chance to tell what my misconceptions are. You said that a marriage where the woman had a hysterectomy would still be valid in the eyes of the Catholic Church, because they could still consummate and participate in the unitive aspect of marriage, even if procreating were not possible.

Does or does not the CCC say, more than once, that the procreative aspect is an essential element of marriage?
 
fissionu235 said:
As a Gay man I sick to my stomach as to what you wrote and the title of your posting. Its Christmas, a wonderful time of the year and you post this tripe… I (a gay man) will pray for you… your sick…😦
Click to expand...
Fission,

You have identifed yourself as a “gay Catholic” and previously posted…
This is what makes me sick… I totally reject that as a Gay man that I or my desires are not ordered correctly. They are ordered exactly the way they were intended to be. This is the #1 way that people “try” to put down gays and lesbians. Try a new argument, this is getting old. It basically says that you are better than us
Click to expand...
If it smells like garbage, it is garbage… peoples sex lifes should be private matters, however when attacks are hurled againt my “disordered” way of thinking, I will fight back with every once of my being… just sayin
Click to expand...
You should expect the same resistance to acceptance of any notion that there is acceptance of “gay Catholic” as a norm will be met with the same resistance you express in opposing Church teaching. You came to CAF, one of the few places Catholics can express their beliefs…and the Catechism the deposit of Faith states that Homosexuality is disordered and if you want acceptance as “gay Catholic” then you are accepted in your humanity however not in your actions.

I find the posting a little odd myself. It is not succint…it should read…

Heterosexuals marry in pairs because every child is the product of one biological mother and one biological father. This is my belief.

I do have questions?

Do those that favor “gay marriage” limit the number to two,?

Do those that favor “gay marriage” have a limit?

If there is no limit by what criteria do they assign this limit?

Do those that favor “gay marriage” unite for or against X number of brothers or X number of sisters in a homosexual incestuous relationship being declared by the state as being “married”?

Do those that favor “gay marriage” have moral grounds that they would be against this?

What are the morals of those that favor “gay marriage” base their morals on?

Kind of like this would have been more succint.
 
prodigalson2011 said:
Having sex in public, in a public park with playgrounds no less, isn’t harmful to children who might see it? How is that not child abuse?
Click to expand...
You make a valid point there. It’s also not a very nice sight, is it? Best to keep it in the bedroom, I’d say.
prodigalson2011 said:
Polygamy isn’t harmful to the children who have to deal with the inevitable rivalries and divided attention that will arise in a polygamous family structure?
Click to expand...
Not sure. They might get more attention, considering the fact that they’d have more parents. Polygamy already exists in some countries, so it’d be possible to find out, I suppose. Having said that, they probably have different standards of child care.
prodigalson2011 said:
Bestiality doesn’t present a distorted image of sexuality that could warp the minds of children? I can’t say that I agree.
Click to expand...
Possibly. I guess your concept of normal sexuality is a cultural thing, though, so maybe there’s no such thing as distorted sexuality. If you had grown up in Sodom and Gomorrah (assuming it exists, of course) you’d probably think bestiality was very normal. I think it’s the animals that are violated more than anything.

Not that I agree with bestiality, mind you. Or public sex. Or, really, polygamy, though I can’t really argue against it.
prodigalson2011 said:
Homosexuality, pedophilia and bestiality are all distortions of human sexuality in that they reject the essence of the sexual act: the complete giving of self culminating in the creation of new life. Granted, some forms of sexual deviance (child abuse, rape, etc.) are reprehensible on an entirely other level due to their forceful and willfully malevolent nature, but homosexual acts nonetheless pervert the meaning of the sexual act.
Click to expand...
Meh. I’d also say that one of the purposes of sex is pleasure. I mean, even married heterosexuals sometimes have sex purely for the sake of sexual gratification. There are lots of reasons to have sex. But, yeah, forceful sex isn’t nice.
 
Giants said:
Does or does not the CCC say, more than once, that the procreative aspect is an essential element of marriage?
Click to expand...
Yes, that is a huge part of it, as is the unitive aspect of marriage.
 
Regular_Atheist said:
You make a valid point there. It’s also not a very nice sight, is it? Best to keep it in the bedroom, I’d say.
Click to expand...
Indeed. The irony of the modern liberal notion of “progress” is that so many progressives seem to think the way to advance civilization is to behave more like animals (i.e. prioritize individual drives and desires over a transcendent common good.) This is not progress; it’s regression: No sane person would suggest that you can get to the top of the mountain by rappelling back down! 😉
Not sure. They might get more attention, considering the fact that they’d have more parents. Polygamy already exists in some countries, so it’d be possible to find out, I suppose. Having said that, they probably have different standards of child care.
Click to expand...
It is biologically impossible (at this point at least, barring some bizarre advancement in genetic engineering) to have more than 2 parents. I get what you’re saying, though. However, the more likely (and observed) result is the creation of jealousy, rivalry, neglect, perceptions of favoritism, etc., etc.

Not only is it possible to find out what effects polygamy has, it has already been found out:

stoppolygamyincanada.wordpress.com/2009/11/03/medical-research-on-the-effects-of-polygamy/

isp.sagepub.com/content/52/1/5.abstract
Possibly. I guess your concept of normal sexuality is a cultural thing, though, so maybe there’s no such thing as distorted sexuality. If you had grown up in Sodom and Gomorrah (assuming it exists, of course) you’d probably think bestiality was very normal. I think it’s the animals that are violated more than anything.
Click to expand...
It’s not a cultural thing at all. It’s a matter of nature. Normal is the wrong word. Rational is more suitable. Being rational animals, we can clearly discern the whats and whys of the human reproductive system. To make a somewhat crude analogy for the sake of sparing graphic literalism, we can study a car and discern that we’re not supposed to put the gas pump in the tail pipe. Or more to the issue of bestiality, we don’t put unleaded fuel in a diesel truck.
Not that I agree with bestiality, mind you. Or public sex. Or, really, polygamy, though I can’t really argue against it.
Click to expand...
Review some of the studies I linked. There are plenty of arguments against it.
Meh. I’d also say that one of the purposes of sex is pleasure. I mean, even married heterosexuals sometimes have sex purely for the sake of sexual gratification. There are lots of reasons to have sex. But, yeah, forceful sex isn’t nice.
Click to expand...
I think this position is actually less tenable for an atheist than a theist. For an atheist, there is no room for any idea of ultimate purpose, so the whole notion can only be divided, as I see it, into two categories: evolved purpose and subjective intent. For the latter, as the categorization itself implies, any “purpose” is completely subjective, so that the statement “the purpose of sex is pleasure” is no more legitimate a declaration than “the purpose of people is target practice.” And clearly this is not a level of reasoning on which any civilized atheist would want to base his philosophy. So we are left with the former: evolved purpose–the objective and primary function of a given process. In this case, it is manifestly evident that, if life is a fully chance development, sex developed as a means of reproduction–if there were no reproduction, there would be no sex–and this purpose is, in fact, essential for the continuance of higher lifeforms. The pleasure derived from it is a secondary development which encourages more reproduction and ergo only reinforces and ensures the pursual of that primary purpose. In short, sex can be (and–presumably, in many species–is) understood apart from pleasure, but it cannot be understood (nor would it exist) without reproduction.

A theist, on the other hand, is free to believe that before all time began, God intended sexual intercourse to bring forth children as well as provide the couple with a great ecstacy and, consequently, strong emotional and spiritual bonding.

So in the former case, pleasure is an accidental (though helpful) byproduct of an essentially reproductive process, whereas in the latter both reproduction and pleasure are integrated into the divine purpose.
 
ccmnxc said:
Regardless of who or how many people call it marriage, we don’t see it as such, hence the quotes.
Click to expand...
You. Not “we”. Many modern catholics do not believe in these antiquated teachings. I ask that you do not speak on my behalf. Thank you!
 
JustJack said:
You. Not “we”. Many modern catholics do not believe in these antiquated teachings. I ask that you do not speak on my behalf. Thank you!
Click to expand...
I was using “we” as the Catholics who put the word marriage in quotation marks. Also, your religion is listed as none, so even if I was attempting to use “we” in terms of all Catholics, I wouldn’t have been referring to you.
Also, Jesus Resurrection is an antiquated teaching. Does that give me grounds to reject it based simply upon that?
 
ccmnxc said:
I was using “we” as the Catholics who put the word marriage in quotation marks. Also, your religion is listed as none, so even if I was attempting to use “we” in terms of all Catholics, I wouldn’t have been referring to you.
Also, Jesus Resurrection is an antiquated teaching. Does that give me grounds to reject it based simply upon that?
Click to expand...
Sure. You have the choice to pick and choose the parts of catholicism that you wish, as most of us do, right?
 
JustJack said:
You. Not “we”. Many modern catholics do not believe in these antiquated teachings. I ask that you do not speak on my behalf. Thank you!
Click to expand...
Just,

There is no such thing as ancient, modern, future Catholic.

There is Catholic.

There are those that follow the teachings and those that don’t.

The Church is wheat and chaff.
 
JustJack said:
Sure. You have the choice to pick and choose the parts of catholicism that you wish, as most of us do, right?
Click to expand...
Just,

No.

You do not pick and choose to follow Christ. You follow Christ.

This is not Clifton’s Cafeteria.
 
CopticChristian said:
Just,

No.

You do not pick and choose to follow Christ. You follow Christ.

This is not Clifton’s Cafeteria.
Click to expand...
ok, so you follow EVERY catholic criteria? You must be the unicorn. I have never met a “catholic” who can follow every protocol.
 
I’m gettin the impression JustJack ain’t Catholic if he believes I can validly reject the Resurrection based entirely on its antiquity.
I have never met a “catholic” who can follow every protocol.
Click to expand...
There is a difference between being able to follow every “protocol” and rejecting “protocol” as Truth to be followed. I’m not sure anyone has done the former. I believe many Catholics on here do not reject anything the Catholic Church teaches, however, which is different. It’s being able to live up to doctrine as opposed to believing in doctrine.
 
ccmnxc said:
I’m gettin the impression JustJack ain’t Catholic if he believes I can validly reject the Resurrection based entirely on its antiquity.

There is a difference between being able to follow every “protocol” and rejecting “protocol” as Truth to be followed. I’m not sure anyone has done the former. I believe many Catholics on here do not reject anything the Catholic Church teaches, however, which is different. It’s being able to live up to doctrine as opposed to believing in doctrine.
Click to expand...
Exactly. You say what you said, I say “pick and choose”. Correct, I am not catholic yet I do believe in freedom of faith and believe catholic faith is beautiful and the church is corrupt. I have a gay catholic fiance and I am seeking real answers. I am in no way here to dismiss or condemn the catholic faith.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top