Engaging in

[Socrates]

As for Don John, Kilroy, and others who stand with the Church, but say we shouldn't oppose "gay marriage," you should stand with us.

If good people refuse to participate in or influence the public sphere, how can we complain if the other side prevails?

Remember, all it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing!

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Aluigi' date='Nov 22 2004, 09:35 PM'] pedophilia can have mutual consent, since when has consent become the ultimate deciding factor??
[/quote]
Pedophelia in inherently non-consensual in that no child can give consent. Consent hasn't become the "ultimate deciding factor"; it does, however, differentiate pedophelia from same-sex marriage.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Nov 22 2004, 09:38 PM'] Unfortunately I am very busy today and don't really have time to give much of a response, but . . .

As to burnspivey, or whoever it was that said abortion had "grand history" of being legal - it's only been legal since 1973 - America's been around since 1776 - It was not legal for almost 200 years! Legal abortion and demand for same-sex marriage are evidence of the corruption of America's morals, and the slippery-slope arguments are quite valid - if no one can "impose morals" then anything goes - There are pedophile rights and bestiality rights groups out there.

[/quote]
For the record, it's burnsspivey.

From 1307 to 1803, abortion before the fetus moved perceptibly or "quickened" was not punished under English common law, and not regarded by society at large as a moral problem. Because most abortions took place before quickening, punishment was rare.

I'd say that that is a grand history of abortion being legal.

[quote]The racism comparisons are bogus - as I've said -we're against legal recognition of a particular action, not a race of person.  Homosexuals have just as much right as anyone to vote, work, own property, and to marry. . .a person of the opposite sex![/quote]

I'm not comparing racism -- I'm comparing miscegenation.

[quote]Same-sex unions are not marriages and should not be legally recognized as such.[/quote]

Because you say so? You'll have to do better than this.

[quote]Sodomy does not lead to the creation of human life, but helps destroy it.[/quote]

Helps to destroy it how?

[quote]You people keep saying it is "good," but what is good about it - it's affects are negative, especially to those who practice them.[/quote]

We people keep saying that is good because of it's net effect of goodness.

[quote]As for gay marriage, children need a mother and a father, not daddy and his roomate![/quote]

Children need parents and even heterosexual couples can guarantee that they'll provide this. It's actually dads (or moms). In heterosexual couples where a woman has an egg donated from somewhere else it isn't 'daddy and his roommate' so why is this situation any different? Because you say so?

[quote]Stop imposing your immorality on us![/quote]

Oh please! It is far more difficult to create and maintain one's own moral code and to stay true to it than to simply follow a guideline set out by someone else. Just because my moral code doesn't match yours completely doesn't mean that I'm immoral.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]Please stick the issue.

Your argument:
A. Thomas Jefferson owned slaves (therefore was wrong with regards slavery)
B. Thomas Jefferson was against homosexuality
C. Therefore Thomas Jefferson was wrong about homosexuality.

This argument is invalid. It proves absolutely nothing one way or the other about the rightness of same-sex marriage.

My argument was simply against your baseless assertion that gay marriage is what America was made for. If those who made this country were against homosexuality, that cannot be what America was made for. (Just proving the "opposing homosexual marriage is un-American" argument - nothing more)[/quote]

That is not my argument that you are saying. My only point in pointing out the slaves is to debunk what I thought is your faulty argument. This may be your argument, I'm not sure.

I thought you meant this: They wrote the constitution. They were against recognizing homosexuality. Therefore, homosexuality recognition is not constitutional.


Because you are not making yourself clear.. perhaps we bot hare not.. I was showing you that that argument MIGHT BE false. It MIGHT BE false as can be shown with the slave argument that I used.
You are not making yourself clear, the only reason I am sort of maybe getting you right now is because I'm making a concerted effort. The fact that you think I was arguing that makes me realize yet again that you are not even trying to understand me.

But anyway I think I may have figured out what you mean.

I think you're saying that for Amercian's to be against something such as that in general.. not necessarily that issue.. is not wrong. I nevered said it was wrong for you to be against it. It's your perogative as an American to think it's not reasonable and shoulnd't be part of the law.


[quote]Same-sex unions are not marriages and should not be legally recognized as such.

Because you say so? You'll have to do better than this.[/quote]

Exactly privy. You guys are being hypocritical to think that you can just make assumptions from arguments and that we can't. or else it's "just because we say so".


I just disagree with why you think it is wrong. These are value statements.

I can say marriage is between two consenting adults and you can say this.
[quote]Marriage is the monagomous union of a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation and raising children. [/quote]

If we are going to disagree with teh science of it, then we are goign to disagree with this especially if we both have legitimate natural law concerns.


I don't think it's just dominacne that animals do hat. I'm sure it's not consentual a lot, but if the animals wanted to get together and they knew it, I'm sure they would. In fact, I think they do. Now don't get mad because I'm speculating; you're not doing much more than speculating.. or at best applying on concept to them all.

My main point is that I am trying to be honest and admiting that I don't know what the case is. If it's natural law i don't know. I'm sure they are attracted and I lean toward thinking it's geneteic. It consentual and not dominance. And yes they "love" each other. Considering all the side evidence, I think ti's reasonable to think it might be natural and htat's how I allow it.

Edited November 23, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]QUOTE 
Stop imposing your immorality on us!

Oh please! It is far more difficult to create and maintain one's own moral code and to stay true to it than to simply follow a guideline set out by someone else. Just because my moral code doesn't match yours completely doesn't mean that I'm immoral.[/quote]

Also. We.. well I.. am not saying that you guys are imposing your morality on us or gays. No matter what, someone is going to get imposed on. You guys shouldn't be saying that as we aren't. Otherwise you're the ones being whiny, not us.

In the sense that you do not agree with them on that specific subject I think you're imposing your morality in that you are not truly moral to begin with.

I don't mean tat in theory you shouldn't do that hole imposing what you think ir right. You can't avoid that.

These last two sentences are different. I know I didn't make myself clear but think about them. If you don't undersand I will try better. (this is related to how I began to understand soc if that helps) again please ask me to clarify if you don't understand because I didn't make myself very clear.

Edited November 23, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Nov 23 2004, 01:02 PM']
Also. We.. well I.. am not saying that you guys are imposing your morality on us or gays. No matter what, someone is going to get imposed on. You guys shouldn't be saying that as we aren't. Otherwise you're the ones being whiny, not us.

In the sense that you do not agree with them on that specific subject I think you're imposing your morality in that you are not truly moral to begin with. [/quote]
I definitely don't understand. Because I don't agree I'm imposing the morality that I don't have? That doesn't make sense.

[burnsspivey]

browser error

Edited November 23, 2004 by burnsspivey

[Socrates]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Nov 23 2004, 12:51 PM'] For the record, it's burnsspivey.

From 1307 to 1803, abortion before the fetus moved perceptibly or "quickened" was not punished under English common law, and not regarded by society at large as a moral problem. Because most abortions took place before quickening, punishment was rare.

I'd say that that is a grand history of abortion being legal.



I'm not comparing racism -- I'm comparing miscegenation.



Because you say so? You'll have to do better than this.



Helps to destroy it how?



We people keep saying that is good because of it's net effect of goodness.



Children need parents and even heterosexual couples can guarantee that they'll provide this. It's actually dads (or moms). In heterosexual couples where a woman has an egg donated from somewhere else it isn't 'daddy and his roommate' so why is this situation any different? Because you say so?



Oh please! It is far more difficult to create and maintain one's own moral code and to stay true to it than to simply follow a guideline set out by someone else. Just because my moral code doesn't match yours completely doesn't mean that I'm immoral. [/quote]
Not sure your facts on English law and abortion are correct - the Church (and Christian societies) have always opposed abortion. Anyway, the fact that someting is legal does not make it right - as you yourself would attest (as to slavery). (Maybe this argument can be continued on another thread)


[quote]I'm not comparing racism -- I'm comparing miscegenation[/quote]

"Miscegenation" = man + woman.
"Gay marriage" = man + man or woman + woman.
This is a big difference - the act itself is intrinsically different.

[quote]Because you say so?  You'll have to do better than this.[/quote]
This is how it has always been defined (until a few years ago). You can't just arbitraily change the definition of something. I've given my reasons earlier.

[quote]Helps to destroy it how?[/quote]
AIDS and other diseases are rampant among homosexuals. I any case, this act certainly does not bring about new human life.

[quote]We people keep saying that is good because of it's net effect of goodness.[/quote]
A non-argument. "We say it's good because it's good." HOW is it "good"?

[quote]In heterosexual couples where a woman has an egg donated from somewhere else it isn't 'daddy and his roommate' so why is this situation any different?  Because you say so?[/quote]
This is wrong too.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]I definitely don't understand. Because I don't agree I'm imposing the morality that I don't have? That doesn't make sense. [/quote]

Just scratch that I said that. We all have morals and someone's gonna get theirs imposed on others, that's all.

Did I clarify the slave example soc? You definitely had me misunderstood. Did I have you misunderstood from the beginning?



[quote]A non-argument. "We say it's good because it's good." HOW is it "good"?[/quote]
For all the reasons that regular marriage is minus the procreation.

Put in the gay couples adopting and it's pretty much equal regarding comparing homo and non. Then comparing what could be.. a parentless child.. and a child with parents, and you have a new good aspect. You ask, who am I to say? Well, you'd probably say it's worse, so who are you to say?

But irregardless of this, for all the reasons that regular marriage is minus the procreation.


[quote]This is how it has always been defined (until a few years ago). You can't just arbitraily change the definition of something. I've given my reasons earlier.[/quote]
If the definition applied to something wrongly or unjustly, why would you want to keep the definition?

What really matters is the arguments. I know we can continue making points about why we think it's natural law for homosexual marraige based on science.
I'll give mine as I hve and then say this. Edit this quote from me.
[quote]My main point is that I am trying to be honest and admiting that I don't know what the case is. If it's natural law i don't know. I'm sure they are attracted and I lean toward thinking it's geneteic. It consentual and not dominance. And yes they "love" each other. Considering all the side evidence, I think ti's reasonable to think it might be natural and I say natural law respects that reasonable margin of error and allows it. [/quote]

And you guys can continue seeing why soc thinks he can just say whatever he wants as a definitive argument just because he says so.

Edited November 23, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[Guest Aluigi]

dairygirl, you are coming closer to adressing my argument, but still not. are you afraid?

i didn't show it unhealthy? i cited medical studies showing that by the nature of homosexual sex it is unhealthy, the dutch study shows homosexulity is promiscuous even when people have state-sanctioned same-sex unions, other medical studies i cited show disease rampant in the homosexual population supporting the fact that it is very permiscuous, and the high suicide rate amoung practicing homosexuals.

[quote]The Archives of Internal Medicine, "Homosexually active men are significantly more likely to report syphilis and less likely to present with primary syphilis than heterosexual men."

New England Journal of Medicine, "At least 80 percent of homosexual men presenting to our sexually transmitted disease clinic with anorectal or intestinal symptoms were infected with one or more sexually transmissible anorectal or enteric pathogens. Such infections were also found in 39 percent of homosexual men presenting to the clinic without intestinal symptoms."

Harrisonís Principles of Internal Medicine, "In one New York Study, all nontraveled immunocompetent males with giardiasis were, in fact, homosexual."

New England Journal of Medicine, "Anal intercourse may predispose to anal cancer through the transmission of an infection, most probably infection with human papillomavirus."

The Journal of the American Medical Association, "among men, report of any lifetime homosexual activity was associated with an elevated risk for HSV-2 [herpes simplex virus - 2]."

American Journal of Medicine,"... heterosexual men in a sexually transmitted disease clinic have a substantially lower prevalence of cytomegalovirus seropositivity than do homosexual men."

The Centers for Disease Control reveal that homosexuals make up 80 percent of all AIDS cases in America. Heterosexual contact accounts for only 8 percent of the cases.

In addition, the rate of suicide attempts among homosexuals is three times higher than that of normal males.[/quote]

this doesn't just show it is unhealthy if they are permiscuous, it shows that it is unhealthy. even if it was promiscuity: that's why the state doesn't promote promiscuity with benefits. however, it is not, there are other points that show it as unhealthy you have failed to adress.

please, this is the only way we're going to get anywhere, if we stick to a specific thing arguing. the argument is whether the government should promote homosexuality through marriage benefits. the government is supposed to only promote something if it is for the public welfare. i have provided numerous facts and statistics supporting that it is contrary to the public welfare. either address my points or concede the argument.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote]As for Don John, Kilroy, and others who stand with the Church, but say we shouldn't oppose "gay marriage," you should stand with us.

If good people refuse to participate in or influence the public sphere, how can we complain if the other side prevails?

Remember, all it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing! [/quote]


Agian you misunderstand I don't think the government should make any laws regarding marriage AT ALL, I really don't think the Government should be recognizing anyones marriage except in such a method as to protect childrens property rights. Since we now have little differance between a ligitiment and illigitiment children then I would just as soon have the government recognize NO marriages and as for marriage benefits that should be done on an employer to employee basis--- if Boeing wants to give benifits to homosexuals that is their concern so long as the act of Homosexual sex is legal ( now if you want to restore the anti sodomy laws that is a completely different story in that area I would be completly supportive) if not that is their business as well. the State should have NO role in marriage what so ever.

[Guest Aluigi]

no. the government can and should recognize real marriages with benefits. we are required as Catholic citizens of this republic to work to make our nation's laws as closely correspond to morality as possible. the government should recognize when a man and woman are joined together and should promote marriage. to say they shouldn't because there's a bunch of other stuff wrong with the government is ludicrus. we must work to make it better.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Nov 23 2004, 02:25 PM'] Not sure your facts on English law and abortion are correct - the Church (and Christian societies) have always opposed abortion. Anyway, the fact that someting is legal does not make it right - as you yourself would attest (as to slavery). (Maybe this argument can be continued on another thread)
[/quote]
I generally attempt not to argue what is good or bad. I'm simply pointing out that simply because something does or does not occur historically does not relate to its validity today.

[quote]"Miscegenation"  = man + woman.
"Gay marriage" = man + man or woman + woman.
This is a big difference - the act itself is intrinsically different. [/quote]

Marry: to unite in close and usually permanent relation or to perform the ceremony of marriage.

I have to disagree with you. The act does not intrinsically differentiate between heterosexual and homosexual couples.

[quote]This is how it has always been defined (until a few years ago).  You can't just arbitraily change the definition of something.  I've given my reasons earlier.[/quote]

Actually, changes made to definitions of words are based on usage, thus they are not arbitrary.

[quote]AIDS and other diseases are rampant among homosexuals.  I any case, this act certainly does not bring about new human life.[/quote]

As they are rampant among heterosexuals. Most of the sex between men and women do not result in "new human life" either. Also, this still does not answer the question of how sodomy destroys human life.

[quote]A non-argument.  "We say it's good because it's good."  HOW is it "good"?[/quote]

In the same way that heterosexual relationships are good.

[quote]This is wrong too.[/quote]

"Wrong"? So, creating human life is wrong? No, I know that this is not what you are trying to say, so let's not head down that path. It doesn't matter that you think it's wrong. It is still a situation in which a heterosexual couple would be in the same situation as a homosexual couple. How about when a child is adopted? Are they just roommates of the child? Biological links are not the only ones that determine relationships. Would a mother whose husband died and then she remarried be considered mother and roommate?

[Don John of Austria]

The Govenment has no authority over marriage in anyway to say that they do is a defined error why as Catholics would we care about the sanction of a State which flatly rejects the Church and Her teachings.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]New England Journal of Medicine, "Anal intercourse may predispose to anal cancer through the transmission of an infection, most probably infection with human papillomavirus."[/quote]

This is the only one that doesn't look like it could not apply to heteros. Actually, something similar could. I'd have to look into this one more closely eitherway.

All the other ones appear to be applicable to heteros who are promiscious. They're kind of short cops you cut.

Where do you get your sources from? (I realize that it's nejm and stuff but I mean I'm giong to have to find that specific article to see the conditions)

Edited November 23, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c