Something that kind of makes me wily.
My Catholic friend's status said "So first the Commander in Chief skips out on Arlington, then he annouces sexual deviancy pride month. This just keeps getting better and better."
EEEAAAARRRRGH!!!!!! WHAT ON EARTH IS YOUR BEEF WITH DIFFERENCES? Well, someone else says...
My response: wow. I love the way you call it 'sexual deviancy' and not 'freedom to be oneself'. Very cold.
His response: Believe me, I was censoring myself. Make a solid argument that those behaviors are the correct use of the human body and I won't say that they deviate from it. If all you have is a conviction that people should not be ashamed of what makes them feel good then don't waste my time.
My response: You know, I'll come up with a more detailed reply to this eventually. But let me just say that sexual deviancy is a very broad topic, some involving consensual sex and some not. (aka beastiality and trisexualism)
Its not a matter of what is a proper use of the human body, its a matter of how a consenting couple (some of which have better relationships than "normal" heterosexual couples) who, without this law, would not be able to express their physical love.
Another dude's response: The idea that our bodies are, indeed, 'ours' is likely the turing point of many issues regarding not only sexuality, but life issues such as abortion, contraception, and euthanasia (just to name a few).
Everything we have is a gift from God. That does not mean we are free to use those gifts other than for which they are intended. Our sexuality ... See moreexists for the purposes of procreation and unity and is only appropriate in the context of a sacramental marriage. Even for married couples, sexuality must a) be open to life and b) be an expression of unified love. Other acts of a sexual nature outside the context of normal intercourse is forbidden - even if the acts are consensual among the married couple. Those acts are not what our sexuality was intended.
There is no way a non-heterosexual relationship can exist within those parameters. Sexual acts among homosexuals cannot be open to life and that trumps all other arguments in support of advocating those relationships.
Our bodies are not 'our' bodies. They, as with everything else, belong to God. That is, of course, a faith-based statement and one that you likely may not accept. However, I offer this only so you may understand the perspective of those who do profess such faith.
My friend's response: Ah yes, "All Excusing Love" as Screwtape calls it. Keep everything grey and fuzzy and ill defined so that no one dares ask "Is it good?" "Is it
right?" "Is it just?" And obviously since many male-female sexual relationships are bad, that means male-male and female-female sexual relationships can be good. That is a false syllogism if I've ever ... See moreseen one.
If we have any meaning at all then it is to a purpose. To deny or ignore or pervert that purpose is to degrade our natural human dignity. And to say
that our human dignity has nothing to do with our bodies is to ignore the
fact that our bodies are the direct expressions of that dignity to ourselves
and others. So it is entirely a matter of the proper use of the human body.
To that end this cause that our President is backing is a deviation. But
I'm not prejudiced. Pornography, contraception, fornication, adultery,
bigamy, polygamy, bestiality, sodomy, pedophilia, ephebophilia, rape,
sadism, and so on are all deviations. It doesn't matter the person who does them. A man can be a deviant with a woman just as surely as a man with a
man. The difference is that a man cannot be anything but a sexual deviant
with another man.
My response: The Catholic faith is good, and I have no beef with it. It is a beautiful religion with some very sound logic and science to back it up. And that's not what I'm talking about here.
This is primarily a state issue and a state decision. The church should not factor into it, because not everyone is Catholic, and if they were, we would be living in... See more more of a religion-dominated totalitarianism. And those tend not to be successful.
But in a purely economic and sociocultural perspective, gay couples can make better, more stable home environments than heterosexual couples. Why might that be? Because they had to fight harder to have a decent, loving relationship. And as Americans, we have a right to express our love however we see fit in a consensual manner. It would only be fair and fitting that, as a free country, we would be allowed a month to understand our differences.
Another Catholic dude: "But in a purely economic and sociocultural perspective, gay couples can make better, more stable home environments than heterosexual couples."
Sorry, but you'll have to provide stats on that. I don't buy it. Even removing God from the equation, it goes against the natural law of life.
My statement: Please remember here that i said "can". There is no proof that families based on civil union and a homosexual marriage would be any worse off than a family based off a heterosexual marriage. Well, based on logic, wouldn't a couple and family if they chose to adopt a child and chose to be together, despite overwhelming odds and discrimination ... See moreagainst them? People who are homosexual can not help whom they are attracted to in life partner, and I feel nothing but sorrow for those who cannot make a choice as easily as those who were heterosexual from the beginning. People who have their life plotted A to B in front of them who never bothered to question who they are would be less successful in a commitment than those who actually decided to fight for it.
Despite this banter of mine and offerings of a logical conclusion to an age-old argument, I have to say that a state decision, such as celebrating the right to do what one wants behind closed doors if one is not hurting anybody, is supported in the constitution, and belongs there.
Please, if anyone has a comment to make, don't hesitate. Even those bashing my end. But I had to post this because I know you guys would have something to say.
EEEAAAARRRRGH!!!!!! WHAT ON EARTH IS YOUR BEEF WITH DIFFERENCES? Well, someone else says...
My response: wow. I love the way you call it 'sexual deviancy' and not 'freedom to be oneself'. Very cold.
His response: Believe me, I was censoring myself. Make a solid argument that those behaviors are the correct use of the human body and I won't say that they deviate from it. If all you have is a conviction that people should not be ashamed of what makes them feel good then don't waste my time.
My response: You know, I'll come up with a more detailed reply to this eventually. But let me just say that sexual deviancy is a very broad topic, some involving consensual sex and some not. (aka beastiality and trisexualism)
Its not a matter of what is a proper use of the human body, its a matter of how a consenting couple (some of which have better relationships than "normal" heterosexual couples) who, without this law, would not be able to express their physical love.
Another dude's response: The idea that our bodies are, indeed, 'ours' is likely the turing point of many issues regarding not only sexuality, but life issues such as abortion, contraception, and euthanasia (just to name a few).
Everything we have is a gift from God. That does not mean we are free to use those gifts other than for which they are intended. Our sexuality ... See moreexists for the purposes of procreation and unity and is only appropriate in the context of a sacramental marriage. Even for married couples, sexuality must a) be open to life and b) be an expression of unified love. Other acts of a sexual nature outside the context of normal intercourse is forbidden - even if the acts are consensual among the married couple. Those acts are not what our sexuality was intended.
There is no way a non-heterosexual relationship can exist within those parameters. Sexual acts among homosexuals cannot be open to life and that trumps all other arguments in support of advocating those relationships.
Our bodies are not 'our' bodies. They, as with everything else, belong to God. That is, of course, a faith-based statement and one that you likely may not accept. However, I offer this only so you may understand the perspective of those who do profess such faith.
My friend's response: Ah yes, "All Excusing Love" as Screwtape calls it. Keep everything grey and fuzzy and ill defined so that no one dares ask "Is it good?" "Is it
right?" "Is it just?" And obviously since many male-female sexual relationships are bad, that means male-male and female-female sexual relationships can be good. That is a false syllogism if I've ever ... See moreseen one.
If we have any meaning at all then it is to a purpose. To deny or ignore or pervert that purpose is to degrade our natural human dignity. And to say
that our human dignity has nothing to do with our bodies is to ignore the
fact that our bodies are the direct expressions of that dignity to ourselves
and others. So it is entirely a matter of the proper use of the human body.
To that end this cause that our President is backing is a deviation. But
I'm not prejudiced. Pornography, contraception, fornication, adultery,
bigamy, polygamy, bestiality, sodomy, pedophilia, ephebophilia, rape,
sadism, and so on are all deviations. It doesn't matter the person who does them. A man can be a deviant with a woman just as surely as a man with a
man. The difference is that a man cannot be anything but a sexual deviant
with another man.
My response: The Catholic faith is good, and I have no beef with it. It is a beautiful religion with some very sound logic and science to back it up. And that's not what I'm talking about here.
This is primarily a state issue and a state decision. The church should not factor into it, because not everyone is Catholic, and if they were, we would be living in... See more more of a religion-dominated totalitarianism. And those tend not to be successful.
But in a purely economic and sociocultural perspective, gay couples can make better, more stable home environments than heterosexual couples. Why might that be? Because they had to fight harder to have a decent, loving relationship. And as Americans, we have a right to express our love however we see fit in a consensual manner. It would only be fair and fitting that, as a free country, we would be allowed a month to understand our differences.
Another Catholic dude: "But in a purely economic and sociocultural perspective, gay couples can make better, more stable home environments than heterosexual couples."
Sorry, but you'll have to provide stats on that. I don't buy it. Even removing God from the equation, it goes against the natural law of life.
My statement: Please remember here that i said "can". There is no proof that families based on civil union and a homosexual marriage would be any worse off than a family based off a heterosexual marriage. Well, based on logic, wouldn't a couple and family if they chose to adopt a child and chose to be together, despite overwhelming odds and discrimination ... See moreagainst them? People who are homosexual can not help whom they are attracted to in life partner, and I feel nothing but sorrow for those who cannot make a choice as easily as those who were heterosexual from the beginning. People who have their life plotted A to B in front of them who never bothered to question who they are would be less successful in a commitment than those who actually decided to fight for it.
Despite this banter of mine and offerings of a logical conclusion to an age-old argument, I have to say that a state decision, such as celebrating the right to do what one wants behind closed doors if one is not hurting anybody, is supported in the constitution, and belongs there.
Please, if anyone has a comment to make, don't hesitate. Even those bashing my end. But I had to post this because I know you guys would have something to say.