D
DexUK
Guest
That link is overflowing with references to God and Catholicism!
- Status
J
josh987654321
Guest
Thank you PRmerger, I liked this -
Homosexuality in itself means that homosexuals cannot procreate, science has not changed that, every child still has a mother and a father, they still need X and Y chromosomes to procreate.
IVF treatment allowing homosexuals to procreate with the use of a third party is the thing that pisses me off the most and must not happen, as that is the use of science to intentionaly bring a child into the world depriving them of their mother or father, not to benefit their child, but to selfishly benefit themselves.
That’s why it especially pisses me off when people speak of homosexuals procreating.
haha, it did have alot of references to God and Catholocism, I think it was more targeted at Catholics who support same sex marriage with regards to civil law and than giving non-religious reasons why we should oppose same sex marriage with regards to civil law.
Thank you for reading
Josh
D
DexUK
Guest
Actually no, I don’t worry about it.
A government exists to serve the needs and desires of the population. If enough of the population wishes to approve of legal equivalence to marriage of same-gender unions by framing the law appropriately, then so be it. I am a through and through democrat (small d). In the UK moves are being made to do this thing and the majority of the population supports it. I don’t have to like it to not worry about it. It is a fundamental part of living in a democracy that sometimes you’re in a minority and don’t get your way. It doesn’t matter if the government is legalising an illusion. If the support is there, the support is there. If I really objected particularly strongly, then I should find somewhere else to live. (But since I don’t think it will have any personal effect on me or those like me, I don’t see the need to go that far.)
And should anyone say that the needs and desires of a population are wrong and shouldn’t be legislated for, then I can only say that there have been, at various times in history, governments that believed they knew better than the population and ‘thought for them’ instead of with them. That way lies totalitarianism, dictatorship and suppression of democracy.
Sometimes in a free world (and we believe that men should have free will, do we not?) things will happen that you don’t like. You just have to live with it. Maybe people will come to their senses after the horror of what they have done has caused dreadful consequences to people. I don’t think the consequences are going to be that dreadful, but perhaps I’m wrong… perhaps the world will stop turning on its axis and the stars will fall from the sky… I doubt it though.
P
PRmerger
Guest
P
Publisher
Guest
Proof that even athiests can be wrong.
J
josh987654321
Guest
It will have a major effect on you and those you love, do you know a teacher? they will be required to submit to such an illusion or false equality, do you have Children? they will be required to submit and learn an illusion or false equality.
It would be detrimental to society for the government to take part and enforce a state/nation wide illusion like same sex marriage simply because a large group wanted to go along with it.
A majority of people can often be wrong and in the case of same sex marriage they are very wrong in trying to equate homosexuality and heterosexuality, they are fundamentally different, they might want to live in a fantasy, but I don’t want to and I shouldn’t have to.
Common sense, the sexual anatomy of a man and a woman dictates that homosexuality and heterosexuality are fundamentally different, facts are facts, it’s stupid for the goverment to Ignore facts simply because a large group wanted them to Ignore the facts.
Men and Women do have free will, that’s why they removed the sodomy laws, I don’t like the acts of homosexuality but as you say we have free will and if they are going to do that than the law shouldn’t stop them, however it’s a whole new level to try and say that homosexuality and heterosexuality are equivalent.
I don’t care how many people want to believe an illusion/fantasy like same sex marriage, I shouldn’t have to, as facts are facts, if a majority wanted to Ignore facts and implement an illusion/fantasy it would be stupid for the goverment to do it simply because a majority wanted it.
Thank you for reading
Josh
D
DexUK
Guest
I don’t see why the law allowing for a ‘fantasy’ should affect you.
Fantasies are, by their nature, interior things, personal things. You do not have to partake of someone else’s fantasy unless you desire to.
As for children, if I want them to have a Catholic education, I’ll send them to a Catholic school, or give them the Catholic education they need myself.
Fantasies are, by their nature, interior things, personal things. You do not have to partake of someone else’s fantasy unless you desire to.
As for children, if I want them to have a Catholic education, I’ll send them to a Catholic school, or give them the Catholic education they need myself.
J
josh987654321
Guest
They are not simply ‘allowing’ a fantasy through lagalising same sex marriage, they are enforcing a fantasy by legalising same sex marriage.
When/if they legalise same sex marriage they will be enforcing equal treatment of homosexuality and heterosexuality, you WILL be required to play into the fantasy DexUK, and I certainly don’t want to play into a fantasy simply because the government say’s so.
If they legalise a fantasy of course everyone will be required to play along with it on some level.
What if you don’t have the money to send your kids to a catholic school? if homosexuality and heterosexuality are equivilant you do realise that homosexuality will have to be taught in detail in sex education classes like heterosexuality is?
Thank you for reading
Josh
M
markeverett49
Guest
You are assuming that the secular world is seeking the truth in good faith. It is not. Infanticide is now acceptable to people who a few decades ago were horrified at the thought. Early proponents of “voluntary euthanasia” now argue that we must have the involuntary sort too because, really, that sick old person who wants to go on living is only one of the relevant “preferences” in the equation and the “nays” (-bioethics committee, the hospital administration, the doctor, a family member, their pooled “preferences” outweigh his, so it is best for society that this person die now. This—and again, twenty years ago proponents of this view denied it would EVER reach this point—is now standard teaching among bioethicists of a utilitarian bent (-which means, most of 'em).
Those who began their moral crusade by arguing there are no moral absolutes, and indeed, no fixed human nature for a “natural law” (-even if there were one) to govern, are not interested in the moral truth. They deny it. They have been clear all along: those with power determine what is right and wrong to suit themselves. They said this was the intent of all previous moral thinkers, about whom they are generally wrong, but I take them at their word that it is THEIR aim.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I’m really not interested in convincing atheists of anything concerning marriage. There is nothing in atheism that necessarily precludes or mandates anything at all.
What I am saying is that Catholics could put an end to the election of homosexual marriage supporting politicians if they would. It is up to the bishops, the clergy and laypeople to persuade Catholics to live up to the teachings of their Church. If we did that, we wouldn’t need to convince atheists who invent their own moral systems or lack thereof based on whatever they wish. Atheism is a leaky moral vessel upon which to attempt reliance. Catholics should do better.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Irrelevant, as this discussion goes.Proof that even athiests can be wrong.
The point was made that the argument against same sex “marriage” can only be made by appealing to religion.
The atheist makes a fine case for a secular argument against it.
Whether he’s right or wrong is, essentially, irrelevant as it applies to Dex’s argument.
Not to mention all of the other websites that discuss it from a secular point of view.
In fact, Catholic Answers Live had a show in which this was discussed and never was an appeal made to the Church or God or religion.
J
jonathan_hili
Guest
T
TimeEntrance
Guest
Biology is my major but I’m behind in my science courses. Actually, I think at this point all I need would be to fulfill the prerequisites of my science courses to graduate.
I say that because I’m persuaded more and more that for biology majors to really grasp the subject of biology they need a strong grasp and understanding of the deterministic laws of chemistry and physics that explains the operations that drive the organism at the cellular level.
Really, I’m persuaded more and more that even an undergraduate degree in biology is insufficient.
This is not to say that the science of biology speaks to morals. It doesn’t and all too many people that identify themselves as liberals incorrectly think it does. The fields of philosophy and theology as means of inquiry are more suited for argumentation as to what is moral and immoral.
However, there are points within the dialogue, search for understanding, and attempts to offer explanations at which the physical sciences of chemistry and physics and the life sciences of biology and neuroscience cross paths with the philosopher and theologian.
I’ve taken a few physical (biological) anthropology classes. Physical anthropology having some aspects of a social science but being more closely related to the life science of biology, but with a human-centric focus.
As typical of humans we cling on to aspects of scientific findings that confirm are world view and cast away or ignore those that don’t.
The anthropological studies into bonobos might be one of those. The liberal can only cling to the homosexual sexual lives of bonobos to assert as evidence what is “natural.” The bonobos, however, engage in what for humans is incestuous and pedophiliac. Thus, if it is “natural” even for humans (by what that coded word “natural” is supposed to connote) this does not help to explain why the liberals feel so emotionally outraged and right over condemning the Catholic priests and Church in the Catholic sex scandal?
So, I don’t think the sexual lives of bonobos can be used as a philosophical, moral, apology and justification for homosexuality.
However, the sexual lives of the bonobos raises an intriguing question, especially with respects to your philosophical assertion that homosexuality mocks God the creator. For God created the bonobos, did God not? Therefore, did God create a species to intentionally mock Him with their sexual behaviors?
Personally, I think it is enough to suggest, in terms of what we understand thus far in biology, that the primary purpose of the male and female genitalia is for reproduction. Even a gene-centric atheist like Richard Dawkins I think would have to concede this point.
Basically, I think your assertion that active homosexuals are mocking God is a philosophical ad hoc argument to rescue your objection and provide fertile ground for your prejudice (I use the term “prejudice” here in a neutral way, as in the life sciences prejudice and discrimination are central to the selective processes that drive evolution in a species).
I think it might be worthwhile to note that two saints and Doctors of the Church supported the legalization of a mortal sin of sex: prostitution.
How can they both be saints and Doctors of the Church if they argued that a mortal sin involving sex should be legal in society?
Anthropological note:
To understand humans, how we differ and are similar to other animals or primates, anthropologist study the different anatomies and behaviors of others species as well.
This is not entirely different than what the science of biology does as it investigates “life” at a far broader level.
So, apes like the bonobos, chimps, and gorillas offer some insights into humans as part of the animal kingdom and close relatives of these apes.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Could you please provide your source(s) for this? Thanks.
Note: primary sources are better than secondary.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Coincidentally, I just came across this post by member CatHerder who posits an argument against same sex “marriage” without ever mentioning God, religion, Church, theocracy, Jesus, Scripture…
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9607061&postcount=4
J
josh987654321
Guest
What separates us from the animals is that we have control over our desires, I have no doubt that SSA would be a part of life and maybe naturally occuring for some people, so the desires are probably natural (Im not a biologist, psychologist, or doctor so I don’t know), however the actions are not, it’s like saying “if God didn’t want me to do this he wouldn’t have given me the desire to do it.”
True.
I don’t think it is, we all suffer from Immoral or disordered desires, it’s like saying that because animals have disordered or immoral desires and they act on them, that it’s natural, so I agree that it’s natural to have disordered or Immoral desires but it’s not natural when acting on them.
Like I said, it’s like people recklessly acting on their every desire and saying “if God didn’t want me to do this, he wouldn’t have given me the desire to do it.”
Control over our desires is why humans and animals are incomparable, desires are comparable, but actions are not.
So with your argument it points out that same sex attraction is natural, however same sex relations are not, which I agree with, so SSA is not mocking God’s creation, however the act is, and it’s different to animals who don’t have control over their desires, we do have control and intelligence and therefore much more is expected of us, bonobos were not created in the likeness of God however we are.
Thank you for reading
Josh
J
jonathan_hili
Guest
What you say, Dex, is kind of ironic. Majority democratic rule over all areas of life (i.e. even voting about what is marriage) is what De Tocqueville called “soft totalitarianism”! He admitted that democracy protects a people for “hard totalitarianism” by a group or individual, but is itself susceptible to a totalitarianism that is “soft”, that intrudes through democratic means, into all areas of life.
As an addition, I question just how much this issue of “marriage equality” is really democratic. Where votes have been taken, nine times out of ten, people have disagreed. Rather, it is the government forcing this decision on society. I’m not sure how this is democratic. Why not have a referendum and then change the Constitution?
T
TimeEntrance
Guest
Hi, Jon.
This may be my last post on this website. Not because of you (probably not because of anyone). I have little to nothing in common with anyone on this board or website. And social changes that changed long ago, many decades ago, that directly impact (which gay marriage doesn’t) like what constitutes honor and “manhood” all associated with violence and gangsterism, will simply be a part of the daily social fabric of my life. I can not outrun it, change it, and so far I can not escape it.
Maybe one day I’ll be able to relocate to Southern France or Southern Spain in a nice and beautiful area. Or maybe I’ll reside in Milwaukee but in a better part of the city and isolate myself from large segments of its society. Maybe if I’m fortunate, by that time I’ll have one or a few adopted daughters, maybe from a Third World nation like Cambodia. But those are all maybes.
But as with a lot of beliefs and political subjects people on opposing sides often make the opposite side out be devils.
Ideally, I don’t think homosexuality should be around. I’ve engaged in it. Via drug use. For a short time I was suicidal over it. But I found that I could survive it, that I could survive what I thought I could not. Over time it’s lost it’s wow factor to me in many ways. I think sex and homosexuality are more important to liberals champion it, or those opposing it, than it is to me.
So, I get tired of obsessing over homosexual sex.
Fine.
But then the Golden Rule applies. And don’t expect me to sympathize (nor empathize) with your anxieties and frustrations over gay marriage (which will not even directly impact you).
I would suspect a lot of Mexicans in Mexico don’t like living with the consequences of social change that came with the emergence of violent Cartel with respects to the profits in illegal cocaine and so called “War on Drugs.”
I don’t like what I had no choice but to accept and live through as “society” as a member of Black-American Gen. X existing the Marine Corps to return back his Black-American neighborhoods. The values were not 1950ish and what women regard as “real men” was not 1950ish either. It’s not by accident so many black males are in prison, dead, or on drugs. But nobody gave a flying _____.
I didn’t necessarily appreciate the fact that my liberal immediate family treated me as though I was devilish and the source of most the worlds problems for having a conservative-like view towards labor and homosexuality.
Not that I was totally conservative. I did given in early to some of the values and glamor of Gen X Hip Hop culture like selling cocaine and crack. Though, even in that apparently I was more “ethical” than 90% of the characters running around selling cocaine in Mexico and the U.S.
In some ways I would have preferred living in the 1950s (in other ways I wouldn’t). I think within Black-America I would have prospered then within honest labor too. But the value system was totally different by the 1980s and 1990s when I was a young man. And opposing the culture was like opposing a 400 lbs gorilla. I had no girlfriend, no mother, no brothers, no father, no one period… giving me moral support. Unfortunately I broke after some point. But it took many decades to break me, given I had been suicidal since childhood.
Point is… those opposing gay marriage when it is passed will not be helped carrying this cross by me. In fact it won’t be a cross for me.
Continue…
This may be my last post on this website. Not because of you (probably not because of anyone). I have little to nothing in common with anyone on this board or website. And social changes that changed long ago, many decades ago, that directly impact (which gay marriage doesn’t) like what constitutes honor and “manhood” all associated with violence and gangsterism, will simply be a part of the daily social fabric of my life. I can not outrun it, change it, and so far I can not escape it.
Maybe one day I’ll be able to relocate to Southern France or Southern Spain in a nice and beautiful area. Or maybe I’ll reside in Milwaukee but in a better part of the city and isolate myself from large segments of its society. Maybe if I’m fortunate, by that time I’ll have one or a few adopted daughters, maybe from a Third World nation like Cambodia. But those are all maybes.
I don’t know what God wants. I regard myself as figuratively lost out in the woods or out at sea. God is my North Star.
Yeah… I regret that. My mother was right about that.
I understand the point of arguing or debating. I even understand being passionate over a cause or belief.
But as with a lot of beliefs and political subjects people on opposing sides often make the opposite side out be devils.
Ideally, I don’t think homosexuality should be around. I’ve engaged in it. Via drug use. For a short time I was suicidal over it. But I found that I could survive it, that I could survive what I thought I could not. Over time it’s lost it’s wow factor to me in many ways. I think sex and homosexuality are more important to liberals champion it, or those opposing it, than it is to me.
So, I get tired of obsessing over homosexual sex.
I mean by that… I’ve had to live in a world of social changes and social consequences that have directly affected me. No one cares though. No one will. They think, “It’s your problem, you deal with it.”
Fine.
But then the Golden Rule applies. And don’t expect me to sympathize (nor empathize) with your anxieties and frustrations over gay marriage (which will not even directly impact you).
I would suspect a lot of Mexicans in Mexico don’t like living with the consequences of social change that came with the emergence of violent Cartel with respects to the profits in illegal cocaine and so called “War on Drugs.”
I don’t like what I had no choice but to accept and live through as “society” as a member of Black-American Gen. X existing the Marine Corps to return back his Black-American neighborhoods. The values were not 1950ish and what women regard as “real men” was not 1950ish either. It’s not by accident so many black males are in prison, dead, or on drugs. But nobody gave a flying _____.
I didn’t necessarily appreciate the fact that my liberal immediate family treated me as though I was devilish and the source of most the worlds problems for having a conservative-like view towards labor and homosexuality.
Not that I was totally conservative. I did given in early to some of the values and glamor of Gen X Hip Hop culture like selling cocaine and crack. Though, even in that apparently I was more “ethical” than 90% of the characters running around selling cocaine in Mexico and the U.S.
In some ways I would have preferred living in the 1950s (in other ways I wouldn’t). I think within Black-America I would have prospered then within honest labor too. But the value system was totally different by the 1980s and 1990s when I was a young man. And opposing the culture was like opposing a 400 lbs gorilla. I had no girlfriend, no mother, no brothers, no father, no one period… giving me moral support. Unfortunately I broke after some point. But it took many decades to break me, given I had been suicidal since childhood.
Point is… those opposing gay marriage when it is passed will not be helped carrying this cross by me. In fact it won’t be a cross for me.
Continue…
T
TimeEntrance
Guest
Continued from post #259.
Anyways… we all make our choices. We would be better appealing to the mercy of God. For those that totally deny God and go about their merry way they must account for that.
People have free will. Neuroscience and some atheists like to say free will does not exist. But if free will exists then the homosexual has their choice.
From studying biology, even at the novice undergraduate level, I prefer to get down to the nitty gritty of what something like male homosexuality is from the stand point of sexual selection.
It’s discrimination against women. Period and pure. Simple, without bringing up terms like morphology and phenotype.
I know from past experiences online that will anger–enrage–liberal women that know jack about biology but like to toss around the term “science” as if its synonymous with politics and the Democratic Party.
So, speaking of social change, the social change I had to contend within the United States is with ethnic Black-American women (you can find them white too) becoming irate and hateful towards me because I state that it is my view that homosexuality is a sort of sexual immaturity. Also stating there is little evidence that homosexuality is genetically heritable. That does not stop some within the life science from creating ad hoc hypothesis to hang on to their basic deterministic proposition about homosexuality.
Gay marriage does not directly impact me. What has directly impacted me is what heterosexual American women think about homosexual sex and homosexuality, and how others and men should think about those things, as relates to what makes a “suitable” partner and potential father. In other words… in terms of sexual selection, as the homosexual male discriminates against the woman for a male, so the heterosexual woman (regarding herself as brilliant and full of self righteousness) discriminates against the unmarried, single male for his views (or past experiences) with respects to homosexuality.
This is all peoples choices. I opt out.
I don’t care about American women and their objection to or championing of homosexuality. I don’t care what they do. I don’t care if homosexuals marry or don’t. I don’t care.
Those I sympathize with–who I have become very moved by—are the Cambodian girls I have read about. And they and I are alike–powerless. So, if I ever do attain some power I will be in their corner.
It’s possible homosexuality results in damnation in hell. I would hope not as I don’t wish that on anyone homosexual. However, if it does then that is something the homosexual must face. I assure you, few to no homosexuals on earth will give a ___ if I end up damned to hell for drug addiction.
Anyways… we all make our choices. We would be better appealing to the mercy of God. For those that totally deny God and go about their merry way they must account for that.
People have free will. Neuroscience and some atheists like to say free will does not exist. But if free will exists then the homosexual has their choice.
From studying biology, even at the novice undergraduate level, I prefer to get down to the nitty gritty of what something like male homosexuality is from the stand point of sexual selection.
It’s discrimination against women. Period and pure. Simple, without bringing up terms like morphology and phenotype.
I know from past experiences online that will anger–enrage–liberal women that know jack about biology but like to toss around the term “science” as if its synonymous with politics and the Democratic Party.
So, speaking of social change, the social change I had to contend within the United States is with ethnic Black-American women (you can find them white too) becoming irate and hateful towards me because I state that it is my view that homosexuality is a sort of sexual immaturity. Also stating there is little evidence that homosexuality is genetically heritable. That does not stop some within the life science from creating ad hoc hypothesis to hang on to their basic deterministic proposition about homosexuality.
Gay marriage does not directly impact me. What has directly impacted me is what heterosexual American women think about homosexual sex and homosexuality, and how others and men should think about those things, as relates to what makes a “suitable” partner and potential father. In other words… in terms of sexual selection, as the homosexual male discriminates against the woman for a male, so the heterosexual woman (regarding herself as brilliant and full of self righteousness) discriminates against the unmarried, single male for his views (or past experiences) with respects to homosexuality.
This is all peoples choices. I opt out.
I don’t care about American women and their objection to or championing of homosexuality. I don’t care what they do. I don’t care if homosexuals marry or don’t. I don’t care.
Those I sympathize with–who I have become very moved by—are the Cambodian girls I have read about. And they and I are alike–powerless. So, if I ever do attain some power I will be in their corner.
M
markeverett49
Guest
Thanks for posting that link. I liked Cat Herder’s post so much, I saved it for future reference.
- Status