toldailytopic: Same-sex marriage: for it, or against it?

[chrysostom]

It appears that natural law allows for, and perhaps necessitates, masturbation.

According to obstetrician David Greening, a rigorous program of daily masturbation can actually improve sperm quality in men with fertility problems. (Samples collected at the end of the program showed less DNA damage and higher sperm motility than samples from control subjects.) Since masturbation can help you have babies, Saletan argues, it must also serve the "procreative and unitive purposes" described in the Catechism.​

I see natural law does not come naturally to everyone

 

[IXOYE]

If you can marry lumber ttogether. To make a door, why not people? The word has many senses to it. A legal term, the verb form, and it means different things for each, but with a common theme. If so many fundamentally. Inept "xians" had followed Christ's example, and not tried to legislate their faith, but be involved with the people, the alphabet community would have had their rights recognized, and this wouldn't be happening now. So sleep in the bed u guys made.

Same sex marriage is a contradiction of terms.

 

[Town Heretic]

Homosexuality is spiritually, mentally and physically wrong.

Mentally? Physically? How would you go about demonstrating that?

Homosexuality can be cured if they want it.

That's what an atheist thinks about your religious belief.

Allowing homosexuals to marry compounds the error.

Here you rather miss the point. You don't allow people to contract, they have a right to. Now you can restrict that right, but not inequitably, arbitrarily, absent some overwhelming interest or harm that must be demonstrated. Offending religious sensibilities doesn't rise to that level.

oatmeal

mush

 

[IXOYE]

In my previous post I probably failed to express my present views on this subject. I am against same sex marriage period. I am now apposed to all forms of sex outside of the heterosexual marriage union. This come from my shift to a more biblical world view.

If you had an actual Biblical worldview, you would be more against the fanatical right. Making this such an issue. Christ appealed to people and submitted to authority. You don't think he could have patched things up legally if he had desired. We are to love neighbor, and that word for love means serve. To deny them basic fundamental rights, to impose your faith on them, is in direct contention with Jesus.command in Matt 25, last 4 or 5 vss.

So by standing opposed here, when yij.act n the opposition, yij turn your back on the Bible in places. Same thing they do at WWW.godhatesfags.com for an outstanding example of the.far right.

 

[chrysostom]

Mentally? Physically? How would you go about demonstrating that?


That's what an atheist thinks about your religious belief.


Here you rather miss the point. You don't allow people to contract, they have a right to. Now you can restrict that right, but not inequitably, arbitrarily, absent some overwhelming interest or harm that must be demonstrated. Offending religious sensibilities doesn't rise to that level.


mush

marriage is not a contract

do you think homosexual activity is contrary to natural law?

 

[IXOYE]

Mentally? Physically? How would you go about demonstrating that?


That's what an atheist thinks about your religious belief.


Here you rather miss the point. You don't allow people to contract, they have a right to. Now you can restrict that right, but not inequitably, arbitrarily, absent some overwhelming interest or harm that must be demonstrated. Offending religious sensibilities doesn't rise to that level.


mush

Oats, all you say wreaks of blind bigotry. I'm not sure you realize that.

You violate Christ's commandments as surely and as profoundly as you've feel homosexuals do. Did yourealize homosexuality isn't a sin in the bible? Its not. I would hope that would help you to see them as peoples not objects to make a stand against so you appear holier by comparison. Jesus said that God provided even for his enemies, and that we are to love as perfectly as god did. That is a command, not a holy red Herring. (Look it up if u need to.)

I have to sit on the heretic's side 100% here.

You ever think the people that start topics like this enjoy things, like gluing quarters to the floor in malls and watching folks breaking their nails trying to pick it up. Serving is four guests five doughnuts so they can watch the fight, and things of the.sort?

 

[zippy2006]

I don't believe my position rises and falls necessarily on biological determinism being the cause of homosexuality, but it is unassailable, in my opinion, if it is the cause. Science is slowly proving what should be self evident to any person who cannot choose to be attracted to, or fall in love with, the same sex--homosexuality is biologically determined.

1. Science is proving no such thing, there is no evidence that homosexuality is genetic

2. It has been essentially unanimously agreed that it precisely wouldn't be unassailable at all if that were the case.

 

[zippy2006]

In terms of the law that's what we're talking about.


Only if you integrate your religious view into the topic, but that's as applicable as those anti Catholics deciding to do the same thing.


Well it isn't more than one.

Else, I noted the additional import and its foundation and that it is a foundation that can't control the subject in a secular society and a law that rests on equity.

:e4e:

Like I said, marriage as a positively aided status before the government is not a mere contract between two parties. It's simply a fact. :e4e:

 

[zippy2006]

It appears that natural law allows for, and perhaps necessitates, masturbation.

According to obstetrician David Greening, a rigorous program of daily masturbation can actually improve sperm quality in men with fertility problems. (Samples collected at the end of the program showed less DNA damage and higher sperm motility than samples from control subjects.) Since masturbation can help you have babies, Saletan argues, it must also serve the "procreative and unitive purposes" described in the Catechism.​

Eh? This is simply a misunderstanding of natural law. You may as well say that binging and purging improves your digestive system so we should all do it.

 

[Rusha]

Eh? This is simply a misunderstanding of natural law. You may as well say that binging and purging improves your digestive system so we should all do it.

Binging and purging are PROVEN to cause damage to the health and conditions that even lead to death.

Not so with masturbation. It's natural and healthy and every prudes worst nightmare.

 

[elohiym]

1. Science is proving no such thing, there is no evidence that homosexuality is genetic

Here is one study that supports genes for male homosexuality being a "buffer effect" against human extinction. For an interesting article that looks briefly at the implications of the study see Sexual Antagonism: A genetic theory of homosexuality.

2. It has been essentially unanimously agreed that it precisely wouldn't be unassailable at all if that were the case.

On what grounds would you condemn God's design of mankind?

Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Romans 9:20.

 

[elohiym]

do you think homosexual activity is contrary to natural law?

Evidence is mounting that male homosexuality is in accordance with natural law. However, like heterosexuality, which appears to many to be in accordance with natural law, it can similarly lead to immoral sexual acts through an unconverted heart.

 

[elohiym]

Eh? This is simply a misunderstanding of natural law.

How did you determine that homosexuality is disordered in view of natural law?

 

[Sherman]

If you had an actual Biblical worldview, you would be more against the fanatical right. Making this such an issue. Christ appealed to people and submitted to authority. You don't think he could have patched things up legally if he had desired. We are to love neighbor, and that word for love means serve. To deny them basic fundamental rights, to impose your faith on them, is in direct contention with Jesus.command in Matt 25, last 4 or 5 vss.
.

If homosexuality is so benign then why do we have these verses?

1 Corinthians 6:9 _ Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites,

Leviticus 18:22- You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.

Leviticus 20:13- If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.

Why were they stoned under Old Testament law? Why does God call it an abomination?

Romans 1 24-26- Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

Here, in the New Testament This behavior is called vile. If it is so harmless why would God use such strong language against it in both the Old and New Testaments?

Now does God hate the immoral? Hard question but it closely tied to your post.

Psalm 11:5
The LORD tests the righteous,But the wicked and the one who loves violence His soul hates.

Psalm 139:20-22 - For they speak against You wickedly;
Your enemies take Your name in vain.
Do I not hate them, O LORD, who hate You?
And do I not loathe those who rise up against You?
I hate them with perfect hatred;
I count them my enemies.

Psalm 26:5 - I have hated the assembly of evildoers, And will not sit with the wicked.

Romans 9 12-14 it was said to her, “The older shall serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.” What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not.

Christianity that embraces sin and says that it is OK is Namby pamby. It is not biblical Christianity. God has some very strong words to say about people who reject Him and His ways. Homosexuality is one of the many abominations that people who reject God's Word practice. At present it is the 'cool' sin. The 'cool' sin used to be fornication in the 60's and 70's. I don't look forward to what the next fashionable sexual sin will be. :vomit:

I'll finish with this:--how is hating homosexuality not biblical?

 

[John Mortimer]

Binging and purging are PROVEN to cause damage to the health and conditions that even lead to death.

Not so with masturbation. It's natural and healthy and every prudes worst nightmare.

Oh, I SO agree! :thumb:

 

[chrysostom]

How did you determine that homosexuality is disordered in view of natural law?

the primary purpose of sex is procreation
and
homosexuality thwarts that

 

[elohiym]

the primary purpose of sex is procreation
and
homosexuality thwarts that

Here is one study that supports genes for male homosexuality being a "buffer effect" against human extinction. For an interesting article that looks briefly at the implications of the study see Sexual Antagonism: A genetic theory of homosexuality.

 

[Rusha]

the primary purpose of sex is procreation
and
homosexuality thwarts that

So any individual, including couples, who are incapable of procreation should not be allowed to marry?

And should any individual during the course of marriage become incapable of procreation, their marriage should become null and void, correct?

Wow, what a lovely sentiment for a Hallmark Card:

Congrats! Your cancer is no more!
Now get on out the door!
Meet my new gal Myrtle!
I picked her cuz she's fertile!

 

[chrysostom]

So any individual, including couples, who are incapable of procreation should not be allowed to marry?

And should any individual during the course of marriage become incapable of procreation, their marriage should become null and void void, correct?

Wow, what a lovely sentiment for a Hallmark Card:

Congrats! Your cancer is no more!
Now get on out the door!
Meet my new gal Myrtle!
I picked her cuz she's fertile!

the purpose of marriage is the protect the child and the mother who takes of the child
and
pragmatism suggests that every man and woman who gets married should be treated this way for the over all good of society

 

[Rusha]

the purpose of marriage is the protect the child and the mother who takes of the child
and
pragmatism suggests that every man and woman who gets married should be treated this way for the over all good of society

So you DO agree that a couple (including those who are Christian) who find out after marriage that they can't have children should be required to divorce?

You do agree that the old "In sickness and in health" goes out the window and is trumped by "You promised me babies. Get out of my home, you cancerous wench!"?