I believe in individual human rights. I don’t believe that practicing religion can or should infringe on anyone’s rights.
Gotcha. You believe that the non-existence of God is so obvious, that to believe otherwise is disordered.
Cite?
This is not basic biology. This isn’t a scientific statement at all. Organisms that procreate through sex have evolved behaviors (such as a sex drive) that increase the chances of this procreation occurring. Those behaviors often serve other purposes, like bonding. There is nothing about same-sex pairing that restricts or prevents procreation.
Don’t care that you or anyone believes this, but why should public policy reflect in any way this kind of religious belief? You’re free to practice whatever sexual behavior you prefer. Why should others be restricted by your beliefs?
Sometimes patients are unconscious or otherwise unable to make such decisions. In such cases, the law determines who the hospital must contact for serious life-and-death decisions.
Then how to you justify advocating for restricting the rights of many gay people (i.e. they currently have the right to be the primary contact for hospitals if their partner is hospitalized and unable to make such decisions, and they currently have the right to adopt children)? Advocating taking away such rights is hateful and wrong.
Post of the year.
Which part?
You have just agreed with me completely, i.e: 1. procreative, 2. unitive.
“There is nothing about same-sex pairing that restricts or prevents procreation.” HUH? Except the fact that either sperm or egg is missing from one of the partners…
Who made that argument? Not me. I haven’t said anything about public policy.
That’s a problem with the law, then.
I haven’t advocated for anything. I’m just defending the Catholic moral teaching regarding homosexual acts.
You’re locked in to his dichotomy? Who knew?
Jesus Christ, what the Hell does any of the latest tangent in this thread have to do with whether or not this will be a wave election and for which side?
EscAlaMike, just a suggestion, why not start a new thread via which you can spout your tiresome judgmentalism to you heart’s content, and anyone who’s interested can partake there, instead of continuing to hijack this thread?
I apologize to everyone in advance if I am out of line here.
Any and all of it (though if you’re just talking theology, then forget it).
Not exactly. There’s some subtlety there that you’re missing. But if you’re just talking theology, then I’m not interested.
How does it prevent anything? By that argument, walking down the street “restricts or prevents procreation” because there’s no joining of sperm and egg. That’s nuts. Same-sex pairing between consenting adults harms no one and does nothing to restrict or prevent procreation. If some organization is telling you that this is “disordered” behavior, then that organization is spreading hate, and you should resist that hate.
Then it sounds like you agree that same-sex marriage, along with all the rights that come with it (hospital visitation, adoption, etc.) should remain legal. Good for you, and hopefully you’ll spread this inclusive and loving message with everyone you know.
I’m having a little bit of trouble trying to parse this, the examples in your first sentence appear to be directly in conflict with your second sentence.
Can you clarify? Or “by open to the creative act”, do you mean that two infertile 80 year olds must necessarily hope for a magic miracle that a pregnancy occurs prior to engaging in sex? But not too much of a miracle, right, because one party needs to have boy-parts and one party needs to have girl-parts for said miracle to occur? Am I grasping the leaps of logic correctly here? What are the rules for when a spouse no longer has the right parts, due to injury or medical amputation? What are the rules following a hysterectomy?
This started with Post #111 in which I was accused of slander. I defended myself against the accusation, and the thread has since been completely hijacked.
Are we talking about friendship or are we talking about sex? Because I thought we were talking about sex.
Again, I thought we were talking about sex…
It has nothing to do with “miracles”. I just mean not doing anything to purposefully inhibit procreation (i.e. condom, BC pill, pulling out, oral or anal, etc).
Yes… and? If you believe same-sex sexual activity inhibits/restricts/prevents procreation, then literally every single activity that doesn’t result in joining sperm and egg inhibits/restricts/prevents procreation. Which is nuts. I’m sitting here typing. That’s not inhibiting procreation. Neither is having a burger. Neither is same-sex consensual adult activity.
If you think that having sex is no more meaningful an act than eating a burger, then I don’t see how we can have any fruitful discussion.
I happen to believe that having sex is a significant and unique act that has a moral component.
Moderators, can we please move this D.B. Cooper of a thread hijack off to GD and continue with the discussion of the upcoming midterms? :smack:
Sorry. I’ll stop.
Yes, everyone will.
You know where the other threads can be made. Let’s keep this one on track.
Well, this thread is so off the rails, what the heck…
So, your religious viewpoint is to spread love and acceptance. Even to Nazis -
Right. Love thy Nazi.
But gay folks not so much.
You may want to consider just WHO is making it a hateful world.
It seems that being gay is OK with you, after Miller admonished you. Just not the act of sex between two consenting adults of the same sex.
Your interpretation of your religion is telling you to accept Nazis before you would accept homosexuality? Is this correct?
eta -
You may want to visit the historical documents and consider the difference between Nazis and Homosexuals as it relates to the spread of hate.
eta2 - Sorry Johnathan, was writing and did not see your note.