10 Reasons Gay Marriage is Unamerican and Wrong

[ThisTooShallPass]

Re: 10 Reasons Gay Marriage is Unamerican and Wrong.

It sounds like you believe that the true essence of man is procreation.
I'm sorry, if that is the case, we don't have much to debate.
For me, the true essence of mankind is love. Procreation is just a tool to keep mankind alive. Just as food is not the reason for us to live another day, but is the tool allowing us to live another day.

With this basic difference in belief, I can see that we can't come to an agreement. But I thank you for at least engaging in this conversation.
Good luck on your jouney! I also believe that, all people of good will may take different roads, but will end up in the same place: in harmony with the one universal God.

That is not, in fact, what I believe. The highest essence of man is his reason and will: the former enables him to grasp truths; the latter to act in accordance with them. Without these things man would not be man at all.

But man is not purely a rational creature; he is also a creature of flesh. (His soul, as the philosophers would say, is not merely rational but also nutritive and sensory). And our flesh is as goal-directed as our reason and our will. We have eyes to see, hearts to pump blood, and distinct sexual configurations to procreate.

To use any part of ourselves for a contrary purpose is to violate natural law. And to act contrary to natural law is to act contrary to our own perfection, and thus to fail to live up to our potential. To persist in such behavior in full knowledge of its graveness, or without even subjecting it to moral inquiry, compounds that violation with obstinance. In a theological sense, it is to reject the sovereignty of God, who is our father and our king, and thus to invite separation from Him upon oneself.

This has logical consequences for heterosexual behavior, too. Because the conjugal act is essentially procreative, it is also contrary to natural law to close that act to the gift of life by means of contraception, coitus interruptus, or other inherently non-fertile methods, or to remove the other-centerdness of the act by means of masturbation. This is why the Church views all use of contraceptive or nonfertile sex, as well as onanism, as a grave moral matter.

I am sorry if you do not wish to engage this discussion further. I am only asserting that the truths that derive logically from the West's historical philosophical tradition. It has been a pleasure talking with you.

 

[ThisTooShallPass]

Re: 10 Reasons Gay Marriage is Unamerican and Wrong.

I think you have a good grasp on why some people are born homosexual. How that constitutes a "deficiency" escapes me, unless the biological imperative to pass our genes on to the next generation is of paramount importance, as it is in the lower animals. It seems to me more likely that we humans have a cultural imperative, to pass on our culture, rather than our genes, to the next generation.

And I agree that diversity serves a purpose for god. Does that mean you also agree with Openmind above? That sounds like a divine purpose to me.

I should say I do not believe homosexual impulsivity is deterministically prenatal. As in most cases, the diathesis-stress model is probably a more accurate representation of what's going on: biological predispositions created in the womb or before are made manifest in response to life stressors. I suspect parental bonding issues and family normativity are at least as important in giving rise to homosexuality impulsivity as biological considerations.

As I said above, goal-directedness is an innate feature of practically everything in the universe. We can see it especially in our own bodies: we have hearts to pump blood and lungs to process oxygen, for instance. They exist to serve these purposes, and no other. If a mouthful of oxygen got into my heart, it would be recognized as a deficiency (and I'd probably die). And if my lungs filled up with blood, it too would be a deficiency (and again, I'd probably die).

The human sexual configuration is no less goal directed. It is directed toward the goal of procreation. And everything else attendant on it (such as the strength of the human sex drive) is also directed toward that goal, since those who have lots of sex are more likely to procreate successfully.

Insofar as homosexual impulses compel people toward nonprocreative sexual tendencies, it is highly evolutionarily maladaptive. Hence it is, in a biological sense as well as a natural law one, a deficiency.

Again, since I don't believe God creates individual persons, I don't believe he is in any meaningful sense "responsible" for the diversity among human persons. But I do believe that it can serve a divine purpose, even if it is only an accidental byproduct of biological processes. We each go through life with our own experiences, our own abilities and talents, our own worries and deficiencies. And I believe they serve to ensure that we will know God in our own particular way. There is an interesting passage from the Bible, Rev. 2:17:

[17] He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.[/B]

No other man would know it, of course, because no other man could comprehend it.

 

[Apathy]

Re: 10 Reasons Gay Marriage is Unamerican and Wrong.

That does not even approach what I said. If you're going to be snide and vapid, you can at least address the subject matter.

Thank you.

A person saddled with homosexual impulses must bear that cross. It is not a question of "praying it" away (I believe that's mostly a Protestant superstition, anyway -- perhaps you could take it up with them) but of living a life of dignity despite it.

Even better your god damns them at birth. Born gay? Nothing an eternity in the lake of fire can't fix.

You do, actually, and it's called your dorsolateral prefrontal cortex.

That in no way gives you control of the thought that pop into your head my wannabe neurologist friend.

You have no control over the thoughts that enter your mind.

Thank you for conceding the point we are done with this.

Incidentally, thought-stopping interventions is the bedrock of modern cognitive-behavioral therapy, especially for affect disorders. Surely you're anti-rationality does not rise to the level of rejecting established social science, does it?

Great! Now you can treat their impure thoughts. Self-repression and Jesus FTW!!!

Clearly you do not know what "irony" means.

argumentum ad hominem

And since you have never read any philosophy, I can only assume you don't know what "the good life" means, either.

You do not know what I have and have not read, what I know and do not know. You are merely hurling attacks based off of false assumptions. Now quit acting like a pretentious prat.

It does, in fact, follow logically.

If marriage does not exist to serve procreative purposes then there is no sense to limit it to two adults, or even to human beings. There's nothing magical about the number two, after all.

Marriage is a legal institution, animals do not have the right to enter a contract. Not that hard to figure out which leads me to believe you are being intentionally dense.

You literally cannot conjure up a reason why we ought to outlaw bestiality but tolerate homosexuality.

Actually I can but you will choose to ignore it. Animals like the children your priest raped cannot consent. Humans can regardless of what gender they have a preference for.

At any rate, the Old Testament is the book of the Jews, not the Church.

Still your deity.

Declaring something you disapprove to be "bigotry" is not a supported argument, especially when, as I already demonstrated, the label does not apply.

I disapprove of bigotry so I call it as such. You even admit your intolerance below.

You, on the other hand, have yet to provide (a) a rational basis for why homosexuality should be tolerated, either morally or legally;

I actually did being gay doesn't hurt anyone and does not infringe on others. Not that it matters as you never need a reason not to be a bigot.

(b) a rational explanation for what marriage is, or why it should be endorsed as a matter of legal principle;

Marriage is a legal contract, and it is no business of the state who signs what contract with who.

My previous efforts to extract the basis of your metaphysics have culminated in you calling a wanker,

Are you gonna tell me you aren't a wanker? Keep in mind your skydaddy tells you not to lie.

insinuating that I'm a Nazi,

It was an analog, but certain parallels could be drawn. Like you the Nazis hated homosexual and like the Nazis the Catholic Church tortured and killed many Jews during the Spanish Inquisition.

and then resorting to petty (and poorly thought out) appeals to rhetorical terms that I never agreed to, anyway.

Go cry about it.

It is an objective fact, judging by the profound error you made in terming Nietzsche a classicist.

Coming from the wanker who led the crusade against single family homes? I explained the typographical error earlier.

At any rate, you have insulted me repeatedly throughout this debate and cannot even be bothered to back up your moralizing with anything like a sound metaphysical foundation.

I have supported your claims however you did not support your bigotry, I doubt you can. Furthermore if you find the term bigot insulting you should probably stop acting like one.

And whether or not they "marry" doesn't change what they may consent to do in the bedroom.

But we both know your still judging them.

Gay marriage as a matter of policy requires society to positively endorse this behavior. Can you conjure up a reason why it ought to?

Marriage is a legal contract nothing more, and allowing gays to enter this contract does not do anything more than allow them the same rights as straight married couples. What about a joint tax return from a gay couple scares you?

I acknowledged that homosexuality is no more consistent with human nature than any congenital birth defect.

You ignorantly compared it to an armless baby as I recall.

At any rate, how in the world would that constitute speaking ill of homosexuals unless I also spoke ill of children with congenital birth defects?

Because the two are non-comparable.

You have insulted me without basis repeatedly throughout this debate, including expressing unrestrained and irrational bigotry against my faith while applying that label to me.

Again the word bigot applies to you to the full extent of merriam-webster's wrath.

You have furthermore demonstrated your profound ignorance of rhetoric as well as philosophy: argumentum ad hominen rises to the level of a fallacy only when the assertion is obviously false.

It becomes fallacious when you substitute it for an argument(which you did), the truth value of the claim has nothing to do with it.

Your flimsy rationalization to the contrary, you clearly have 0 knowledge of philosophy. You have repeatedly demonstrated either your ignorance or misapprehension of key elements of classical and scholastic philosophy, including your misunderstanding of the Unmoved Mover argument in the other thread.

More ad hominem with just a hint of of baseless assertions.

I do not treat them as subhuman. As I have said repeatedly

For Christ's sake you compared homosexual relations to bestiality.

(and as you refuse to acknowledge because it does not hew to your bigoted worldview of Catholics),

Not Catholics in general, just you.

they are my brothers and sisters and are as deserving of compassion and respect as anyone

Individual Catholics may deserve my respect but I am not one to grant blankets of respect for large groups, they must earn it as individuals. However you demand respect while you say atheists are deserving of eternal torment simply for not believing the unbelievable without any evidence. Respect my left nut.

As for eternal torture, I believe Hell is not a temporal state but an ontological one: it is simply the condition of living in discordance with the natural order. It is the torment of failing to live up to your potential, and of failing to become what you ought to become.

So you disagree with the bible... Funny how when people of faith are shown how cruel their or absurd certain aspects of their faith are they declare it to be figurative.

What are they based on, then?

Are you familiar with the non-agression axiom and the principle of self ownership?

Perhaps if I understood where you are coming from it would be possible for us to engage at a higher level of debate. So far, you have been very oblique in terms of where you're coming from metaphysically.

Wow after a whole post of declaring me ignorant you decide you want to try and build bridges?

 

[ThisTooShallPass]

Re: 10 Reasons Gay Marriage is Unamerican and Wrong.

Even better your god damns them at birth. Born gay? Nothing an eternity in the lake of fire can't fix.

God damns no one. The unrepentant refuse forgiveness and so carry Hell with them everywhere they go.

At any rate, as I pointed out, it is not homosexual impulsivity that is considered sinful in and of itself; that is a gross caricature without basis in modern catechism. What is sinful is to act in any fashion contrary to natural law, especially if done so obstinately and with full awareness of its gravity.

That in no way gives you control of the thought that pop into your head my wannabe neurologist friend. ...

No, but again, what thoughts pop into your head are not at issue here. What thoughts you allow to make a home in your head are.

This is what meant by giving one's consent to a thought. It works in precisely the same way that one gives consent to a behavioral impulse by acting on that impulse. (Both, for the record, are implicated in the operation of the DLPFC, which modulates valuation signals originating in the ventrimedial prefrontal cortex and allows the self to take higher-order considerations into effect. This is what keeps grown adults from punching each out at every slight or snatching ice cream out of the hands of children simply because they enjoy it: the DLPFC enables them to take higher-order valuations such as justice or charity into consideration).

Great! Now you can treat their impure thoughts. Self-repression and Jesus FTW!!!

As I said, exercising self-control over whether or not you consent to your thoughts is a widely recognized and scientifically validated therapeutic treatment for all manners of affective disorders, including depression and anxiety, which proceed from disordered thought patterns.

I am not recommending that homosexuality be "treated" unless it gives rise to sufficient intrapersonal distress to warrant it. I am simply asserting that, in the face of disordered thoughts, all individuals have a responsibility to exercise self-control. Nearly everyone is in agreement on this: it is the foundation of modern society.

Or are you permitting you irrationality to swamp not only obvious metaphysical truths but scientific ones, as well?

You do not know what I have and have not read, what I know and do not know. You are merely hurling attacks based off of false assumptions. Now quit acting like a pretentious prat.

I do not know what you have read. I know only about you what I am gleaning from our conversation. And what I am gleaning is that, aside from a few token libertarian texts (including one, I believe, by Nozick, who pioneered the self-ownership principle) you are not very well-versed in philosophy, given that your entire argumentation style involves making gross caricatures of positions you have a priori decided you disagree with, indulging in name-calling ("pretentious prat"), and then bristling when anyone points out the fact that you are both ignorant and ill-bred.

Marriage is a legal institution, animals do not have the right to enter a contract. Not that hard to figure out which leads me to believe you are being intentionally dense.

Marriage is an institution arising from natural law. It exists in civil law only to give society's imprimatur to that institution, which is in the public interest. And it is in the public interest because the care and disposition of children is a logical concern of the state.

Even if it were purely a matter of civil law and there were no corresponding natural truth to it, there would still be no legal reason to endorse homosexual unions. The state has no vested interest in their sex life.

Actually I can but you will choose to ignore it. Animals like the children your priest raped cannot consent. Humans can regardless of what gender they have a preference for.

I have a deacon, not a priest. Your ignorance compounds exponentially.

And I will not ignore if you will be so kind to furnish it. You have my word on that, although if it is weak I will certainly endeavor to refute it. What hostility I have shown toward you so far has been completely in response to your own crudity. I am otherwise always open to the possibility of being proven wrong, provided an argument is well-reasoned and not mere emoting. I would not have arrived at my current position otherwise. I used to be a libertarian, after all, and before that a socialist.

I disapprove of bigotry so I call it as such. You even admit your intolerance below.

Bigotry does not merely constitute intolerance. Hence, from wikipedia (literally the first thing to pop up when I Googled "bigotry"):

A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs.​

I exhibit no animosity toward gays. I do not exhibit intolerance toward them, either -- merely toward their behavior, which is objectively morally reprehensible.

I actually did being gay doesn't hurt anyone and does not infringe on others.

That is not the basis of my argument against it. And at any rate, that it does no harm (even if true) is not a reason to attach society's endorsement to it by endorsing gay "marriage."

The state promulgates laws on the basis of the common good, after all. What common good is there in gay "marriage"?

Marriage is a legal contract, and it is no business of the state who signs what contract with who.

If that were solely the case, there would be no need for marriage law at all. Contract law would suffice. That is an argument for abolishing marriage as a legal institution entirely, not expanding it.

It was an analog, but certain parallels could be drawn. Like you the Nazis hated homosexual and like the Nazis the Catholic Church tortured and killed many Jews during the Spanish Inquisition.

I do not deny the horrors inflicted by the Church of old. Nor does the Church, which has repented for them.

Unless you care to have me recite the laundry list of horrors inflicted by much more recent atheistic movements, perhaps we can drop the irrelevant subject and proceed.

I have supported your claims however you did not support your bigotry, I doubt you can. Furthermore if you find the term bigot insulting you should probably stop acting like one.

I have repeatedly asserted the natural law basis for the immorality of homosexuality. You can find a fuller explanation of it here, in another thread, if you need a fuller treatment of the issue.

You ignorantly compared it to an armless baby as I recall.

Congenital paraplegia being, by definition, a congenital birth defect.

Because the two are non-comparable.

You are denying that homosexuality is a naturally-occurring phenomenon which is contrary to the evolutionary procreative imperative? Your irrationalism veers into the anti-scientific.

For Christ's sake you compared homosexual relations to bestiality.

Because they are equivalent in their disorder. Both deny the procreative nature of the sexual act.

And when you divorce procreation from sexuality, you have absolutely no basis to reject bestiality. To do so would be a matter of mere personal preference ("it's gross") which can be revised later, or to resort to absurd rationalizations ("animals can't consent") which are not held to apply in any other case (e.g., shearing sheeps' wool or slaughtering cows for beef).

Individual Catholics may deserve my respect but I am not one to grant blankets of respect for large groups, they must earn it as individuals. However you demand respect while you say atheists are deserving of eternal torment simply for not believing the unbelievable without any evidence. Respect my left nut.

All humanity is entitled to respect and dignity merely by virtue of their membership in the human race. It is part of the basis from which human rights spring. You deny it at your peril.

So you disagree with the bible... Funny how when people of faith are shown how cruel their or absurd certain aspects of their faith are they declare it to be figurative.

The Bible is incomplete in many respects. This is why theological inquiry continues. The notion that the Bible is all anyone needs is a heretical Protestant superstition.

The Church, for the record, officially holds that Hell is simultaneously a location and an ontological state: that is, that Hell is a state of being (being separated from God by means of an entirely self-imposed exile) and a place where people in that state of being gather, being outside of Heaven. This is perfectly consistent with my own attitude toward Hell.

 

[ThisTooShallPass]

Re: 10 Reasons Gay Marriage is Unamerican and Wrong.

(continuing from the previous post)

Are you familiar with the non-agression axiom and the principle of self ownership?

I am vaguely familiar with them. What I know of them does not convince me.

To say that there is a right to self-ownership presupposes that there is a right to own anything at all. Thus the "right to self-ownership" is circular thinking.

You can derive a right to self-ownership and the ownership of property from natural law, incidentally. But both rights are more limited than libertarians would like, and not as limited as leftists would prefer.

The non-aggression principle likewise proceeds from a circular basis. It is unjust to aggress against others only if they have a right to person and property, and nothing in the principle formulates where these rights come from; it simply presupposes them. It is therefore insufficient.

Once again, you can derive a right to person and property from natural law. But it is not unlimited.

If I have misapprehended either of these principles, please correct my ignorance and point out any corresponding flaw in the preceding arguments. Once again, I am not terribly well-versed on libertarian philosophy, except insofar as it intersects with natural rights.

Wow after a whole post of declaring me ignorant you decide you want to try and build bridges?

To the contrary. Despite a whole thread of you repeatedly demonstrating your ignorance while accusing me of irrational superstition, and garnishing both with belligerence, I am nevertheless prepared to restart this discussion with you on more civil terms.

 

[Apathy]

Re: 10 Reasons Gay Marriage is Unamerican and Wrong.

God damns no one. The unrepentant refuse forgiveness and so carry Hell with them everywhere they go.

So believe the unbelievable without evidence or be damned?

I believe this will explain the damnation issue.

At any rate, as I pointed out, it is not homosexual impulsivity that is considered sinful in and of itself; that is a gross caricature without basis in modern catechism. What is sinful is to act in any fashion contrary to natural law, especially if done so obstinately and with full awareness of its gravity.

So God created them with this impulse and then he demands they stop being who they are? What rubbish! He holds us to impossible standards that he knows we cannot fulfill, as we all fall short in the eyes of God. Hell God falls short in the eyes of God he cannot even keep his own commandments. Now who is to damn God for his transgressions?

No, but again, what thoughts pop into your head are not at issue here. What thoughts you allow to make a home in your head are.

Would you agree that your theology states we are sinful by nature?

I am not recommending that homosexuality be "treated" unless it gives rise to sufficient intrapersonal distress to warrant it.

That stress is caused by external sources like homophobia, the endless harassment by those of the church.

Or are you permitting you irrationality to swamp not only obvious metaphysical truths but scientific ones, as well?

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

Loaded questions are dishonest.

I do not know what you have read.

Good now shut the **** up.

given that your entire argumentation style involves making gross caricatures of positions you have a priori decided you disagree with,

I used your words and your holy text excuse me if anything you are a self-caricature.

indulging in name-calling ("pretentious prat"), and then bristling when anyone points out the fact that you are both ignorant and ill-bred.

Wow this is amusing you complain about name calling and then in the same post you call names. Your hypocrisy is blatant.

Marriage is an institution arising from natural law.

We are speaking of civil law.

Even if it were purely a matter of civil law and there were no corresponding natural truth to it, there would still be no legal reason to endorse homosexual unions.

This action infringes on no ones rights, and is no business of the state or yourself.

The state has no vested interest in their sex life.

Nor do they have interest in your sex life or anyone's for that matter.

I have a deacon, not a priest. Your ignorance compounds exponentially.

Argumentum ad hominem furthermore buy a thesaurus.

And I will not ignore if you will be so kind to furnish it. You have my word on that, although if it is weak I will certainly endeavor to refute it. What hostility I have shown toward you so far has been completely in response to your own crudity. I am otherwise always open to the possibility of being proven wrong, provided an argument is well-reasoned and not mere emoting. I would not have arrived at my current position otherwise. I used to be a libertarian, after all, and before that a socialist.

You wasted a paragraph and you haven't even addressed it. Like I said you ignored it.

I exhibit no animosity toward gays.

Of course not you just believe they are not to have the same rights as us and are to be damned lest they ask to be forgiven for being who they are

I do not exhibit intolerance toward them, either

Thou shalt not bare false witness?

That is not the basis of my argument against it. And at any rate, that it does no harm (even if true) is not a reason to attach society's endorsement to it by endorsing gay "marriage."

That not what I said, a lot of things lead to harm like eating cheeseburgers could cause a heart attack. But do we outlaw unhealthy foods?

The state promulgates laws on the basis of the common good, after all. What common good is there in gay "marriage"?

No, it my be common good that we outlaw smoking but it is not right to do so. You own your life and you may do with it as you wish as long as you do not infringe on the rights of others. Our laws are based off of the protection of rights, not who's sex life you don't approve of.

If that were solely the case, there would be no need for marriage law at all. Contract law would suffice. That is an argument for abolishing marriage as a legal institution entirely, not expanding it.

Marriage is a contract law.

I do not deny the horrors inflicted by the Church of old. Nor does the Church, which has repented for them.

Tell that to the tortured and killed... Mere apologies can't excuse this behaviour.

Unless you care to have me recite the laundry list of horrors inflicted by much more recent atheistic movements, perhaps we can drop the irrelevant subject and proceed.

Atheism is a lack of a belief it does not logically lead to anything but a lack of a belief in deities. Hitler was a vegetarian but does that mean vegetarianism leads to genocide? Catholic ideology however did lead to these actions.

Because they are equivalent in their disorder. Both deny the procreative nature of the sexual act.

Really? Sex with a condom would also = bestiality with that ****ed logic.

All humanity is entitled to respect and dignity merely by virtue of their membership in the human race. It is part of the basis from which human rights spring. You deny it at your peril.

Respect is not a birth right.

The Bible is incomplete in many respects. This is why theological inquiry continues. The notion that the Bible is all anyone needs is a heretical Protestant superstition.

The bible explicitly cites fire and torment deny it if you wish, but it is dis honest.

The Church, for the record, officially holds that Hell is simultaneously a location and an ontological state: that is, that Hell is a state of being (being separated from God by means of an entirely self-imposed exile) and a place where people in that state of being gather, being outside of Heaven. This is perfectly consistent with my own attitude toward Hell.

Not consistent with scriptural reality.

 

[ThisTooShallPass]

Re: 10 Reasons Gay Marriage is Unamerican and Wrong.

So believe the unbelievable without evidence or be damned?

Damnation is the state you invite on yourself by rejecting the rational order of which man is a part. It is literally a sentence passed on yourself. "Judgment," such as it is, is merely recognizing what is already fact.

I cannot view embedded videos on this computer but I will comment on them later, when I have a chance.

So God created them with this impulse and then he demands they stop being who they are? What rubbish! He holds us to impossible standards that he knows we cannot fulfill, as we all fall short in the eyes of God. Hell God falls short in the eyes of God he cannot even keep his own commandments. Now who is to damn God for his transgressions?

"Who are you" is more than the sum of your nervous impulses.

I have already pointed out that God is not responsible for individual deficiencies. They are the result of materialistic forces operating in a mechanistic and deterministic fashion. This is because every child is the product of a voluntary sexual union of man and woman; and cannot compel such a union without violating free will.

Of course the standards of natural law are high. But what is important is not outcome (that is rank consequentialism) but will, because everyone fails in instantiating perfectly the human condition. At any rate, it is precisely because those standards are high that man required a supernatural blood transfusion in the first place.

Would you agree that your theology states we are sinful by nature?

I believe the position of the Church is that man has an innate capacity both for good and evil -- that his material essence pulls him toward the gratification and exultation of every impulse (evil) while his spiritual essence pulls him toward the rational discernment and willing of the good.

The latter is to be cultivated through habit, which requires tradition, which requires authority. Hence, the Church.

That stress is caused by external sources like homophobia, the endless harassment by those of the church.

That is an assertion, not an argument; and irrelevant besides. My point was merely that a person should not endeavor to have something about themselves "corrected" unless they feel genuinely unable to overcome it on their own.

I used your words and your holy text excuse me if anything you are a self-caricature.

You seem to rely on Protestant superstition and deliberate mischaracterizations of Biblical passages.

Wow this is amusing you complain about name calling and then in the same post you call names. Your hypocrisy is blatant.

Ignorant is an adjective, not a noun. You are obviously uninformed. This is what it means to be ignorant.

If I thought that poorly of you, I would not be endeavoring to correct your ignorance.

We are speaking of civil law.

We are. But marriage as a civil institution makes no sense if it is divorced from the natural law institution. The civil sprang up around the natural.

This action infringes on no ones rights, and is no business of the state or yourself.

That is not a reason to attach society's endorsement to it, which is what "gay marriage" requires.

Nor do they have interest in your sex life or anyone's for that matter.

If true, that is an argument for abolishing marriage law entirely, not expanding it to include homosexuals.

As it happens, it is not true, but that's beside the point.

You wasted a paragraph and you haven't even addressed it. Like I said you ignored it.

I ignored what?

Of course not you just believe they are not to have the same rights as us and are to be damned lest they ask to be forgiven for being who they are

Again, "what they are" is not merely their nervous impulses.

Their rights are already identical to mine. If they wish to marry they are free to do so -- provided it is with someone of the opposite sex.

And to be damned is a state brought upon yourself, not assigned from above.

That not what I said, a lot of things lead to harm like eating cheeseburgers could cause a heart attack. But do we outlaw unhealthy foods?

This is irrelevant. If the state outlawed cheeseburgers it would be acting on a positive conception of the good.

I am asking you, what is the social good to be derived from extending "marriage" (an institution you have already suggested serves no purpose) to homosexuals?

No, it my be common good that we outlaw smoking but it is not right to do so. You own your life and you may do with it as you wish as long as you do not infringe on the rights of others. Our laws are based off of the protection of rights, not who's sex life you don't approve of.

It would be legitimate for them to do so if they wished (I certainly wouldn't mind). They do not because, I assume, they either believe the benefits to outweigh the harms or because they do not believe they could enforce such a prohibition without intruding on other natural rights.

It's for that reason that I don't support a prohibition on sodomy, for instance, because it would be grossly intrusive. But that's quite another thing from positively endorsing homosexual acts by extending marriage to include them.

Marriage is a contract law.

That is nonsense. we have marriage law and contract law. They are obviously distinct.

Marriage is contractual in nature (again, because consent is a necessary prerequisite to it), but it is not merely contractual. If it were there would be no need for marriage law.

Atheism is a lack of a belief it does not logically lead to anything but a lack of a belief in deities. Hitler was a vegetarian but does that mean vegetarianism leads to genocide? Catholic ideology however did lead to these actions.

When you deny the natural law basis for Christianity, you deny all the human rights that follow from them. This is why everything since the Enlightenment has been marked, with few exceptions, by a steady degradation toward totalitarianism.

And at any rate this is simply circular reasoning: whatever the Church does, it does because it is the Church; whatever atheists do, their atheism is merely incidental?

Really? Sex with a condom would also = bestiality with that ****ed logic.

They are equally disordered, yes, in that they are both opposed to the purpose of the human sexual configuration.

If bestiality is worse it solely because of the gratuitous cruelty inflicted on the animal, whereas at least protected sex is consensual. It is a distinction of intent, not of end.

The bible explicitly cites fire and torment deny it if you wish, but it is dis honest.

Yes, it does. Christ Himself routinely talks about Hell in light of a very relevant symbol at the time: Gehenna, once a vast abortuary where Canaanites sacrificed their children, reduced by the Jews to a garbage dump.

What's your point?

Not consistent with scriptural reality.

In what way is my description inaccurate? Do not rely on Biblical metaphor to justify this claim, please.

Damnation is a state invited on oneself by refusing to obey the natural order prescribed for man by God. One can save oneself at any time simply by willing the good. The "sentence" passed by God is simply a recognition of the rebellion which the damned soul has already completed: an exile.

 

[ProudLefty]

Re: 10 Reasons Gay Marriage is Unamerican and Wrong.

Is there any reason, besides religious ideology, to consider Gay Marriage as morally wrong? Are the only reasons for denying gay marriage the religious reasons?

In other words, can we agree that this discussion is really only about religious interpretations?

 

[ThisTooShallPass]

Re: 10 Reasons Gay Marriage is Unamerican and Wrong.

Is there any reason, besides religious ideology, to consider Gay Marriage as morally wrong? Are the only reasons for denying gay marriage the religious reasons?

In other words, can we agree that this discussion is really only about religious interpretations?

Hello ProudLefty (and welcome to HoP),

My moral argument against homosexual behavior proceeds from natural law, not divine revelation. The foundations of naturally law actually precede the Church.

My utilitarian argument against gay marriage is that there is nothing in homosexual activities that warrant the state's imprimatur. By contrast, heterosexual unions are innately procreative, and the care and disposition of children is a matter of public interest.

I will not concede that last point of yours.

Hope that clarifies things.

 

[Openmind]

Re: 10 Reasons Gay Marriage is Unamerican and Wrong.

Hello ProudLefty (and welcome to HoP),

My moral argument against homosexual behavior proceeds from natural law, not divine revelation. The foundations of naturally law actually precede the Church.

My utilitarian argument against gay marriage is that there is nothing in homosexual activities that warrant the state's imprimatur. By contrast, heterosexual unions are innately procreative, and the care and disposition of children is a matter of public interest.

I will not concede that last point of yours.

Hope that clarifies things.

You sound awfully familiar! Have we met before in a different forum! I'm pretty sure we have.

You are the person who believe that children are born to "serve" the state and the public interest, and therefore, there is no reason for marriage without procreation.

I believe I answered that at length before.
2000 or 3000 years ago, maybe the idea of "procreation" to fill the universe with one minded people may have been an useful concept.
Just in case you haven't noticed, today's world population has exploded, and the growth can no longer be sustained. So, procreation at the rythm that was preconised 2000 or even 1000 year ago is NOT servicing the interest of the state or the human kind.

Second, with the huge progress made in medicine, a gay couple can procreate a child without the participation of both members. In fact, MANY lesbians already have children of their own, male gays also, and many younger gay couple resolved to artificial insimination or in-vitro to procreate, just as heterosexual couples who are not able to conceive in the traditional way.

 

[ThisTooShallPass]

Re: 10 Reasons Gay Marriage is Unamerican and Wrong.

You sound awfully familiar! Have we met before in a different forum! I'm pretty sure we have.

You are the person who believe that children are born to "serve" the state and the public interest, and therefore, there is no reason for marriage without procreation.

I don't believe we've met before. I don't post at many other forums.

Children themselves do not "serve" the state or the public interest. I am simply pointing out that it is in the interest of the state and the public to ensure that children are well cared-for; if they're not, after all, than they become wards of the state. Legal marriage is the means by which it ensures that children are so cared for.

If you have heard this argument before, it might be because it's true.

I believe I answered that at length before.
2000 or 3000 years ago, maybe the idea of "procreation" to fill the universe with one minded people may have been an useful concept.
Just in case you haven't noticed, today's world population has exploded, and the growth can no longer be sustained. So, procreation at the rythm that was preconised 2000 or even 1000 year ago is NOT servicing the interest of the state or the human kind.

There is no reason to believe the earth's current population levels are unsustainable. If they were, they would not be increasing, would they?

And civil marriage does not exist to encourage procreation, simply to ensure that the results of procreation (children) are cared for. Individuals, of course, have a moral responsibility to ensure that they do not exceed their family's "carrying capacity" by means of periodic abstinence.

Second, with the huge progress made in medicine, a gay couple can procreate a child without the participation of both members. In fact, MANY lesbians already have children of their own, male gays also, and many younger gay couple resolved to artificial insimination or in-vitro to procreate, just as heterosexual couples who are not able to conceive in the traditional way.

And yet none of these are understood to be the natural and fundamental group unit of society.

 

[Openmind]

Re: 10 Reasons Gay Marriage is Unamerican and Wrong.

I don't believe we've met before. I don't post at many other forums.

If you say so.

Children themselves do not "serve" the state or the public interest. I am simply pointing out that it is in the interest of the state and the public to ensure that children are well cared-for; if they're not, after all, than they become wards of the state. Legal marriage is the means by which it ensures that children are so cared for.

A well cared for child should be everyone's goal. However, may children of heterosexual parents are NOT well cared for. Many do NOT grow up in a two parents family. At least, when a gay couple has a child through artificial method, it is because that child is greatly wanted, not by accident. And a child that is greatly wanted usually receives better care than a child that is born of an "accident" or whose parents are not married, or whose parents are too young to take the responsibility, etc. . . . I am pretty certain that in the next 10 years or so, there will be enough statistical data to determine what happen to children raised by homosexual parents. And I am pretty sure that less of those children will become ward of the State than in other populations.
But, let me remind you that, most of those gay people have had heterosexual parents. Homosexuality is not catching.

If you have heard this argument before, it might be because it's true.

I do not believe in this argument. I didn't believe it 5 months ago, and I will not believe it 5 months from now! It doesn't matter how many time an argument is repeated. Although in some quarters (like Fox News) it seems that a "canned" phrase repeated at nauseum becomes "reality" for some, it is still only an interpretation and/or an illusion.

There is no reason to believe the earth's current population levels are unsustainable. If they were, they would not be increasing, would they?

Do you care to go look at any (and many more) of these links? Overpopulation is an issue. And it is easily demonstrated that, where procreation is still left to nature, and many children are born to one woman, the life of those children is cheap. . .many die in infancy. Also, in addition to the unsustainable population growth, the increased life expectation further compound the problem

Overpopulation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation - CachedSimilar
Jump to History of population growth‎: The human population has gone through a number of periods of growth since the dawn of civilization in the ...

►The Population Explosion: Sustainability and ... - A Global Village
aglobalvillage.org/essays/essay0101/ - Cached- Block all aglobalvillage.org results

The Population Explosion: Sustainability and Control ... As world population levels soar, our planet is struggling to supply us with sufficient resources ...
phi 2010: Population explosion, rising food prices and ...
phi2010.blogspot.com/.../agriculture-solution-becomes-problem.ht... -

Population explosion, rising food prices and sustainability (post for comment). This January we got news of global food-rising prices. ...

EcoFuture (TM) Population and Sustainability - Basic Information
www.ecofuture.org/pop/info.html - CachedSimilar
May 21, 2002 – EcoFuture (TM) Population and Sustainability - Basic Information on ... the globe today is 'fallout' from the human population explosion ...

And civil marriage does not exist to encourage procreation, simply to ensure that the results of procreation (children) are cared for. Individuals, of course, have a moral responsibility to ensure that they do not exceed their family's "carrying capacity" by means of periodic abstinence.

I agree, and I do not see the difference between a civil marriage between heterosexuals and civil marriage between gays. Where "absinence" is concerned, there are much more efficient means to not have unwanted children. It is called birth control!

And yet none of these are understood to be the natural and fundamental group unit of society.

Well, 20 years ago, I might have agreed with you. However, today, the number of people who understand the concepts and who are favorable to gay unions is growing exponentially. It is a trend that will not reverse itself.

 

[ThisTooShallPass]

Re: 10 Reasons Gay Marriage is Unamerican and Wrong.

A well cared for child should be everyone's goal. However, may children of heterosexual parents are NOT well cared for. Many do NOT grow up in a two parents family. At least, when a gay couple has a child through artificial method, it is because that child is greatly wanted, not by accident. And a child that is greatly wanted usually receives better care than a child that is born of an "accident" or whose parents are not married, or whose parents are too young to take the responsibility, etc. . . . I am pretty certain that in the next 10 years or so, there will be enough statistical data to determine what happen to children raised by homosexual parents. And I am pretty sure that less of those children will become ward of the State than in other populations.
But, let me remind you that, most of those gay people have had heterosexual parents. Homosexuality is not catching.

It is, indeed, the case that many couples' children are poorly cared for. Imagine how much worse that situation would be, however, if the state did not have a vested interest in the outcome.

And of course my argument against homosexuality is not that it is "contagious." That would be circular reasoning.

I do not believe in this argument. I didn't believe it 5 months ago, and I will not believe it 5 months from now! It doesn't matter how many time an argument is repeated. Although in some quarters (like Fox News) it seems that a "canned" phrase repeated at nauseum becomes "reality" for some, it is still only an interpretation and/or an illusion.

I do not watch cable news networks at all.

Do you care to go look at any (and many more) of these links? Overpopulation is an issue. And it is easily demonstrated that, where procreation is still left to nature, and many children are born to one woman, the life of those children is cheap. . .many die in infancy. Also, in addition to the unsustainable population growth, the increased life expectation further compound the problem

The problem in those areas is not overpopulation but crushing poverty.

I agree, and I do not see the difference between a civil marriage between heterosexuals and civil marriage between gays. Where "absinence" is concerned, there are much more efficient means to not have unwanted children. It is called birth control!

Contraception is as disordered as homosexuality; both subvert the natural procreative potential of the sexual act. Moreover, both are contrary to the dignity of the human person, reducing him (and her) as a means to an end (sexual pleasure) rather than as an end in themselves.

Well, 20 years ago, I might have agreed with you. However, today, the number of people who understand the concepts and who are favorable to gay unions is growing exponentially. It is a trend that will not reverse itself.

Suppose a gay couple adopts a child. Where did that child come from? A straight couple's sexual act.

Suppose a gay man deliberately impregnates a woman. The child is the result of a heterosexual act.

Even in vitro fertilization and the like rely on the essence of heterosexuality: the implantation of sperm into an ovum.

This is what I mean when I say that marriage (heterosexual marriage, not gay "marriage") is the natural and fundamental group unit of society. It is not a question of public opinion polls because the issue is not whether or not marriage is up to the state to define. Should every nation in the world submit to gay "marriage," marriage would remain ontologically the union of man and woman. It cannot be otherwise.

 

[PLC1]

Re: 10 Reasons Gay Marriage is Unamerican and Wrong.

It is, indeed, the case that many couples' children are poorly cared for. Imagine how much worse that situation would be, however, if the state did not have a vested interest in the outcome.

And of course my argument against homosexuality is not that it is "contagious." That would be circular reasoning.



I do not watch cable news networks at all.



The problem in those areas is not overpopulation but crushing poverty.



Contraception is as disordered as homosexuality; both subvert the natural procreative potential of the sexual act. Moreover, both are contrary to the dignity of the human person, reducing him (and her) as a means to an end (sexual pleasure) rather than as an end in themselves.



Suppose a gay couple adopts a child. Where did that child come from? A straight couple's sexual act.

Suppose a gay man deliberately impregnates a woman. The child is the result of a heterosexual act.

Even in vitro fertilization and the like rely on the essence of heterosexuality: the implantation of sperm into an ovum.

This is what I mean when I say that marriage (heterosexual marriage, not gay "marriage") is the natural and fundamental group unit of society. It is not a question of public opinion polls because the issue is not whether or not marriage is up to the state to define. Should every nation in the world submit to gay "marriage," marriage would remain ontologically the union of man and woman. It cannot be otherwise.

All of that is quite logical, in a circular sort of way.

Marriage is for procreation, therefore, any marriage that doesn't result in procreation is not really a marriage, because marriage is for procreation.

So, couples who can not, or choose not to, produce children should not be married. Birth control is "disordered" also, as it limits procreation. Homosexual sex is likewise "disordered."

It seems to me that if every sex act ever accomplished resulted in procreation, we'd be knee deep in babies.

 

[Openmind]

Re: 10 Reasons Gay Marriage is Unamerican and Wrong.

It is, indeed, the case that many couples' children are poorly cared for. Imagine how much worse that situation would be, however, if the state did not have a vested interest in the outcome.

And of course my argument against homosexuality is not that it is "contagious." That would be circular reasoning.



I do not watch cable news networks at all.



The problem in those areas is not overpopulation but crushing poverty.


Contraception is as disordered as homosexuality; both subvert the natural procreative potential of the sexual act. Moreover, both are contrary to the dignity of the human person, reducing him (and her) as a means to an end (sexual pleasure) rather than as an end in themselves.


Suppose a gay couple adopts a child. Where did that child come from? A straight couple's sexual act.

Suppose a gay man deliberately impregnates a woman. The child is the result of a heterosexual act.

Even in vitro fertilization and the like rely on the essence of heterosexuality: the implantation of sperm into an ovum.

This is what I mean when I say that marriage (heterosexual marriage, not gay "marriage") is the natural and fundamental group unit of society. It is not a question of public opinion polls because the issue is not whether or not marriage is up to the state to define. Should every nation in the world submit to gay "marriage," marriage would remain ontologically the union of man and woman. It cannot be otherwise.

That you should see contraception as a disorder says enough for me. You are EXTREME in your beliefs.
Didn't you notice that, poverty and multiple births go hand in hand?
If the State thought they had a vested income in the birth of still more children, they wouldn't be trying to force all responsibilities for children that are not wanted on the mother.

Obviously every child comes from a female egg and a male spermatozoid! That doesn't mean they have to encounter each other in the performance of a sexual act. It just means that we have found means to procreate without being enslave by heterosexuality.

A child conceived in vitro is at least as wanted as a child conceived in the back of a car, or in a luxury hotel on honeymoon! And his/her life will not be affected by WHERE the egg met it's spermatozoid!

And you didn't address the point that countries who have the most pregnancies and births also have the highest number of child mortality.

But, if you really believe that contraception is a disorder, and that sexual contacts are a negative form love UNLESS they are specifically intended to produce a child, I don't think we have much to discuss!

God made us very different from all the other species, in this that most other species actually are attracted to the other only when ovulation is in progress. GOD decided to allow us to feel that attraction at any time, and to enjoy the act of copulation. Once again, you are extreme!
I give you one thing, if it was for people feeling like you about sexuality, the world would certainly NOT have the problem with overpopulation at this time!

How scary to believe that there are still men in this world who believe that the only purpose of sexuality is procreation! So glad I'm not YOUR wife!