This so much.
And now to be blaming Trump and republicans for the current animosity on both sides when Hilary literally lost the election by calling Americans ‘deplorables’ just shows that the Dems still dont get it. I dont think the Dems realize how far they’ve fallen. Giving their indignation at Trump’s win and Hillary’s loss has become their obsession - they who refuse to unite with those they disagree with and like Hilary, mock anyone doesn’t toe the party line.
…you might be distressed to find out that god doesn’t exist. God is fiction. Fantasy. Not real. The belief in god is a disorder.
Yes, you are clear. Let me be equally clear: your position on this subject is hateful and harmful. It remains so whether you’re talking about gay people as a class, homosexuality as an orientation, or whatever imagery passes through your head when you say “homosexual sex.”
Okay. Show me how homosexual sex is disordered. And you’re going to have to do better than “God sez.”
Yeah, that’s real sweet. Let’s talk about what happens when the state doesn’t recognize your marriage. You can be denied the right to visit your spouse in the hospital. You will be unable to collect social security or survivor’s benefits if your spouse dies. You will lose custody of your house if it was in your spouses name and they didn’t leave will. If your partner’s family doesn’t like the fact that they were in a relationship with you, they can bar you from visiting your partners grave.
Your fancy Jesus wedding is great, and all, but there are real-world benefits associated with marriage that actually matter to people, and your church has fought really hard to make sure people like me don’t get them.
So don’t talk to me about how loving the Catholic Church is. I’ve seen how it actually treats people like me, and “love” has fuck-all to do with it.
Probably a topic for a different thread, but at some point I’d be interested in you delving a little deeper on the idea of sexual orientation as a “largely immutable” characteristic.
Interesting. I’m curious if Miller would consider this statement insulting or slander.
If I were a theist, I expect I’d find that fairly insulting. How do you feel about it?
I’m very sorry that you feel this way, and I certainly don’t want to be hateful or harm anyone, and I honestly don’t believe that I am. I genuinely believe that the moral teachings of the Church bring true and lasting happiness and fulfillment, even though many of them are very difficult.
The primary purpose of sex is procreation. That’s written into nature as the proper order of things. Any sexual act that purposefully separates the procreative aspect is by nature disordered. The Church’s teachings on this are readily available online.
I would argue that this is a problem of state interference into something it has no business regulating. The state is the problem here. I’m libertarian on this issue. You should be able to get all of those benefits without state hindrance.
I’m sincerely sorry that this has been your experience. I’ve always done my best to treat everyone with dignity and respect.
I think he’s wrong, and if he were willing I’d discuss the issue further; but I learned a long time ago that you can’t take it personally when someone disagrees with you. How could we have any meaningful discussion if we can’t disagree and share those disagreements civilly?
Look at Dave Rubin and Ben Shapiro. Rubin is an atheist and in a homosexual marriage, while Shapiro is a devout theist who doesn’t believe in gay marriage, but they have very cordial and fruitful discussions.
…what is it, exactly, do you think I am wrong about?
Where is god? Prove he exists. Explain how god instituted marriage. Show me how she did it. Prove that a belief in god isn’t disordered.
Many people believe things about themselves that turn out not to be true.
There’s a lot of assertions here to unpack. Just to start, you say procreation is the “primary” purpose of sex. So, what’s the secondary purpose?
You say that sex-for-procreation is written into nature as the proper order of things. What does this mean? Many animals practice non-procreative sex. Are they also disordered? I understand the whole “animals don’t sin” concept in Christianity, but when you say it’s “written in nature,” you seem to be making a non-theological claim, that this is how nature functions even absent a belief in a deity.
More to the point, why is non-procreative sex disordered? Why is it a bad thing? Why does God care if we have sex for pleasure? For that matter, if sex is only allowable for the purposes of procreation, given the existence of things like in-vitro fertilization, shouldn’t the position of the Church be that all sex is unacceptable, given that it’s currently possible to procreate without sex at all?
I’m not clear what you’re trying to say here. You say that the state has no business regulating marriage, then say I should be able to get those benefits without hindrance. How do I get state benefits out of an institution in which the state has no business interfering?
Help me out here. What’s the primary purpose of fingers, as written into nature? Is it to mash buttons imprinted with letters, buttons made from highly refined rotten paleolithic plants, in order to shoot electricity through melted-and-cooled ore? Is that the proper order of things?
What’s the primary purpose of electricity? What about the primary purpose of petroleum, buried by God thousands of feet beyond human reach? What about the primary purpose of sand–is it to be melted and flattened and adulterated with rare earths to make a screen on which you can make an argument?
What’s the primary purpose of the naturalistic fallacy?
It’s a bit . . . odd . . . for you to use the insanely refined and twisted and reshaped ten-steps-removed-from-nature technology of the Internet to lecture people about something as natural as two dudes fucking.
I can understand why you feel that way, given a whole bunch of the people who claim to speak on God’s behalf (including certain people present in this thread). But it’s still painting with quite the broad brush.
Except, you know, this entire thread.
LHoD, that was one righteous rant.
+some very large number
…EscAlaMike believes “A human act can be rightly ordered or disordered.”. When presented with a binary choice I really have no option except to paint with a broad brush. If you have a problem with that, can I suggest you take it up with EscAlaMike?
You said this earlier about your religion and homosexuality.
Anyway, on to the rest of your post.
A lot of protestants feel that Catholicism is disordered.
A lot of muslims find christianity to be disordered.
Do you support the right of protestants and muslims to mistreat catholics or take away their civil rights due to religious beliefs? If a Muslim found catholilcs to be disordered, dysfunctional and deranged, and tried to restrict their civil rights but said ‘I’m just practicing my religion’ how would you respond?
Sex has the dual purpose of being procreative and unitive.
It’s important here to emphasize that human nature is unique from animal nature. Animals kill and cannibalize each other too, but we are trying to be more human, not more animal-like. Humans should transcend our more base animal-like instincts to become more fully human. Therefore, animals engaging in non-procreative sex is irrelevant to the issue.
It’s disordered because it’s written into the laws of nature that procreation happens through the act of sex between male and female. That’s basic biology.
God cares what we do with our bodies because he gave us our bodies as a gift, and he became a man and took on a human body.
Sex is not allowable only for the purpose of procreation, or else sex during pregnancy or after menopause or between infertile couples would be banned. Sex must be both unitive and open to the creative act of procreation.
Okay, let’s take your examples one by one:
Hospital visitation: Hospital visitation policy should be between the patient and the hospital. The state should not dictate who a hospital may or may not allow in to visit a patient.
Social Security spouse benefits: I don’t believe SS to be a just program, tweak the policy for survivor benefits to allow any beneficiary, or eliminate the program.
House: If your partner didn’t leave a will, then that’s hardly the fault of anti-gay marriage activists
Graveside visitation: Again, this is between the partner’s family and you.
As for filing taxes (which you curiously didn’t mention, that’s usually the biggest issue), the income tax is unjust in principle. Eliminate it, and problem solved.
We are talking about morality. None of those things you mentioned have any moral aspect to them. Sex does have a moral aspect to it.
I’m not lecturing anyone. We are having a discussion.
You disagree? Please explain.
…I’m clearly agreeing. Belief in god is disordered. God doesn’t exist. God is a fiction.
What is it that is confusing you?