Gays In Military

[Laudate_Dominum]

I walked in on the wrong thread... *turns around slowly*

[kujo]

Let me rephrase, due to HCF's astute reference to the modesty thread: I like girl boobies.

[kujo]

[quote name='MIkolbe' timestamp='1338576554' post='2439495']
quit duckin me, boy
[/quote]

The only thing I'm duckin' is the poo you call "argumentation" that you're throwing at me!

[MIKolbe]

No, honey

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1338583201' post='2439631']
Let me rephrase, due to HCF's astute reference to the modesty thread: I like girl boobies.
[/quote]

What about male boobies??

[img]http://images.nationalgeographic.com/wpf/media-live/photos/000/004/cache/blue-footed-booby_473_600x450.jpg[/img]

Mr. Booby says "hmph!"

[Socrates]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1338508050' post='2438987']
Never said we [color=#000000][font=arial, helvetica][size=3]must keep [/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=arial, helvetica][size=3]morality out of the law. What I did say, or what I [/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=arial, helvetica][size=3]mean to say, is that there will always be a divergence of belief about what constitutes [/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=arial, helvetica][size=3]morality. Catholics have a fairly different idea of what [/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=arial, helvetica][size=3]moral behavior is than, say, an atheist. The box has the sa[/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=arial, helvetica][size=3]me label, but the contents are different. That's what debates and discussions are for.[/size][/font][/color]
[/quote]
My original "text dump" post wasn't directly in response to you, though you felt compelled to bash it.

My point is I believe that citizens of the various states have every right to work towards the law reflecting their moral beliefs in such matters as whether the states must reward recognition to "gay marriage." Whether or not their views are influenced by their religious faith is irrelevant.
There is absolutely no reason that a person of religious faith must be required to abandon one's religious beliefs or values and think like a staunch atheist when entering the voting booth.


In such moral issues, there is no single clear line separating my "religious" from "non-religious" beliefs on the matter, as my Catholic Faith and attendant philosophy affects how I view all aspects of life, including the meaning and value of human life itself, the role of the state, sexuality, and marriage. As Q has pointed out, I don't think regarding marriage as something that can be only between a man and a woman is strictly a matter of religious faith (such as belief in transubstantiation, or baptism), but is a matter of natural law morality. A sodomitic "union" between two persons of the same sex is not and can never be the same as a marriage between man and woman, and the state is under no obligation to re-define "marriage" to recognize it as such. Yes, my faith does influence my thinking on this matter, but there is certainly nothing wrong with that, and it is ridiculous to try to artificially excise faith from all decisions involving one's beliefs on morality and the common good.

I believe you've said you're pro-life. My beliefs as a Catholic regarding the sanctity of all human life are quite different than those of one holding to an atheistic utilitarian philosophy, which holds that human life has no intrinsic sacredness and value in themselves. But this does not make opposition to abortion a strictly religious issue, as many pro-abortionists like to claim. There is no reason to think that Christians must think the same as most atheists on this issue, even though a few atheists are pro-life.

One's philosophy of life can be influenced by many things, including religious faith or lack thereof, and this will play a part in how a person votes or political philosophy. There's no reason to demand that law must conform to an atheistic viewpoint.

[kujo]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1338590417' post='2439680']

My original "text dump" post wasn't directly in response to you, though you felt compelled to bash it.

My point is I believe that citizens of the various states have every right to work towards the law reflecting their moral beliefs in such matters as whether the states must reward recognition to "gay marriage." Whether or not their views are influenced by their religious faith is irrelevant.
There is absolutely no reason that a person of religious faith must be required to abandon one's religious beliefs or values and think like a staunch atheist when entering the voting booth.


In such moral issues, there is no single clear line separating my "religious" from "non-religious" beliefs on the matter, as my Catholic Faith and attendant philosophy affects how I view all aspects of life, including the meaning and value of human life itself, the role of the state, sexuality, and marriage. As Q has pointed out, I don't think regarding marriage as something that can be only between a man and a woman is strictly a matter of religious faith (such as belief in transubstantiation, or baptism), but is a matter of natural law morality. A sodomitic "union" between two persons of the same sex is not and can never be the same as a marriage between man and woman, and the state is under no obligation to re-define "marriage" to recognize it as such. Yes, my faith does influence my thinking on this matter, but there is certainly nothing wrong with that, and it is ridiculous to try to artificially excise faith from all decisions involving one's beliefs on morality and the common good.

I believe you've said you're pro-life. My beliefs as a Catholic regarding the sanctity of all human life are quite different than those of one holding to an atheistic utilitarian philosophy, which holds that human life has no intrinsic sacredness and value in themselves. But this does not make opposition to abortion a strictly religious issue, as many pro-abortionists like to claim. There is no reason to think that Christians must think the same as most atheists on this issue, even though a few atheists are pro-life.

One's philosophy of life can be influenced by many things, including religious faith or lack thereof, and this will play a part in how a person votes or political philosophy. There's no reason to demand that law must conform to an atheistic viewpoint.
[/quote]

I love how you're natural response is to say "don't touch my religion, bro." All I'm saying is that you can't expect to win an argument with me by dumping a bunch of quotes from the Bible, the Catechism or whatever the CDF is. The fact is that you could bring 150 different popes, cardinals, archbishops and priests into my apartment right now, and I would disagree with each and every one of them on this matter. So citing them as evidence that gay marriage, or gay servicemen, is this great moral evil is useless.

Same goes for most of this country, who simply don't see these folks as the end all be all that conservative Catholics like yourself do. And if it's possible to arrive at the same conclusion by traveling through sometimes radically different ideologies, such as the example about being pro life that you provided, I would think that becoming conversational in these areas would bolster your the quality of your argument and make your mission--to evangelize the world--more likely to succeed.

[Groo the Wanderer]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1338571659' post='2439439']
Careful not to derail this thread. We wouldn't want franciscanheart to come in and close it down!
[/quote]

actually that would not be a bad thing

[Ice_nine]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1338575137' post='2439478']
Again, I really do.not.care.who.marries.who.provided.there.isn't.coercion.and.both.parties.are.of.legal.age

EDIT: I will no longer respond to posts which attempt to draw a correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia, incest or any other clearly illegal activities.
[/quote]

so by your own definition incest is ok, so long as the parties or of legal age. I'm in my 20's, I should be able to marry my father if we both think it's razzle dazzle. Don't discriminate. This is why people are having a problem with you. You're only willing to apply your logic selectively and not operating by a universal principle as you claim.

Admit that incest is OK with you as long as both parties are of age. Unless you want to quite arbitrarily add the asterisk (as long as the parties aren't first-degree relatives) in which case, what right have you to make such a stipulation.

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1338575619' post='2439486']
Have you ever met someone who came to their conclusions about who they were sexually attracted to based on the sort of cost-benefit analysis you are inferring here? I like girls. I have liked them for every second of every day that I can remember. I don't know that there's any "impediment" that shuffled my thoughts towards that direction.
[/quote]

Just because you're not conscious of all the external factors that affect decision-making does not mean they are irrelevant. Thus the idea of the "repressed homosexual" who, despite a proclivity towards same-sex sexual attraction decides not to adopt a "gay lifestyle" because the negative moral and/or cultural impact such a lifestyle will have.

You take for granted the fact that you grew up in a Judeo-Christian culture and in a Catholic family with a presumably "standard" nuclear family. So yes you always consciously knew you liked girls, but if you grew up in New York city in a secular household whose parents were friends with gay "married" couples, in your formative years before you had any long-term memory, are you still 100% sure you'd automatically like girls?

Of course, any rational person would admit there are far too many factors, such as the ones that Anamoly speaks of that influence this.

[Jesus_lol]

well im kinda glad i lost track of this thread about 20 pages ago, what are we talking about now? let me guess, just like every "gay" thread we are now on the topic of pedophilia, bestiality, and incest.

I am half tempted to derail every thread about heterosexual marriage or attraction onto those same topics, as you would find that the majority of people involved in pedophilia and other child abuse, bestiality and incest would identify as hetero sexual.

that would be fun times.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1338687655' post='2440070']
well im kinda glad i lost track of this thread about 20 pages ago, what are we talking about now? let me guess, just like every "gay" thread we are now on the topic of pedophilia, bestiality, and incest.

I am half tempted to derail every thread about heterosexual marriage or attraction onto those same topics, as you would find that the majority of people involved in pedophilia and other child abuse, bestiality and incest would identify as hetero sexual.

that would be fun times.
[/quote]I think it ended up there as a series of questions about whether all sexual acts are morally licit if legal. Some of the arguments thus far in favor of homosexual unions could be applied to pedophilia, bestiality, and incest. I think that any legitimate defense of homosexuality cannot also work to validate those other three options (or polygamy etc.). All these tangentially related examples do serve a legitimate, necessary, and good purpose.

For example, if someone says that no sexual actions are the business of anyone else, child sex abuse is an example that limits the first claim. In fact, some sexual acts are the business of other people, so what makes homosexuality different? This leads to the claim that all consensual sex is only between two people. That's a necessary distinction for this debate.

Another argument might be that sex only affects the two people involved and it's up to them what to do. If that's the case, then why is incest wrong? There has to be a logic behind the law, otherwise the law is unjust and we have a duty to fight it.


All this is to say that the implications of an argument are fair game. If an argument can be legitimately used to defend another practice you are against, then how is the argument still valid? Or is your other opinion false?

[Kia ora]

[quote]There has to be a logic behind the law[/quote]i'm pretty sure there is a logic, and it's 'whatever we say goes'.

personally, i'm fine with incest and polygamy. obviously not child sex, since there needs to be an (arbitrary) age of consent and most places in the world have decreed that it should be between 14-18. anything below that is off limits.

we shape the law with our opinions. 150 years ago in the confederacy, slavery was a-okay and legal. the weight of opinions has now shifted to saying that should be illegal, if not morally wrong although i don't think the law is really there to enforce morality. the weight of opinions has also shifted to say that homosexual sex should not be criminalised, and now it's gone to homosexual marriage should be okay.

some people are fine with homosexual sex but for some reason (social, religious etc) they draw a line with incest. i think that's dandy. sure, it may be 'illogical' to put an arbitrary line there, but our entire system is illogical. so if you're afraid about slippery slopes and such...you should be, because that's what societies do. we slip and slide every which way.

Edited June 3, 2012 by Kia ora

[Jesus_lol]

obviously the law in the USA favours people who marry their cousins or get it on with their barnyard animals, as it is legal to marry first cousins or to have sex with horses in more states than it is legal to have a gay marriage.

[ardillacid]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1338696558' post='2440144']
obviously the law in the USA favours people who marry their cousins or get it on with their barnyard animals, as it is legal to marry first cousins or to have sex with horses in more states than it is legal to have a gay marriage.
[/quote]I'm not going to ask why you know which states you can have sex with a horse legally.

[kujo]

The difference between gay marriage and the various insidious acts that have been referenced:

2 non-related adult human beings
Free will (see also: consent)

You wanna talk about polygamy? That's for another thread. There's no reason that we can't decide, as a society, that willing adults who are not related can get married. The line is arbitrary now, and we can move it back any arbitrary length we want.

And with that I end my participation in this thread.