Guest Aluigi Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 however, based on the studies cited at the bottem of the artical i posted with the Dutch study in it, married heterosexuals are not nearly as permiscuous and even the ones that are aren't common. that applies to sodomy. sodomy is anal or oral sex regardless of the two geners, there is heterosexual and homosexual sodomy. the difference is that with homosexuals, the only possible type of sex is sodomy, while with heterosexuals there is a good form of sex. promoting heterosexual marriage is good for the general welfare, promoting homosexual marriage is bad for the public welfare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aluigi Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 [quote]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.[/quote] no, you're wrong. we should be conserned with the state and should not merely give up on it. the State has a moral obligation to recognize the moral law according to Catholic Teaching, and no matter how much you wine about how much it opposes the moral law currently that doesn't change the fact that this is one good thing the government can do- to promote monogomous heterosexual marriage and not to promote homosexual marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don John of Austria Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 I am not whinning-- and I am not wrong--- the Church has repeatedly stated that the State has no Authority over marriage as such I don't see what point its recognition has, their recognition has no moral wieght, it cannot. Instead of worrying about what they do or don't recognize we should be distancing ourselves from the States presumed Authority in that area at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aluigi Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 whining is just the first word i thought of. no offense intended. they don't have authority over it: correct. they do have the moral obligation to recognize it. that recognition has no moral weight, it would still exist as morally strong as ever without the state. but the state is obligated to recognize it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don John of Austria Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 Aliugi I don't disagree but a secular State by its nature feels the need to control ALL that it recognizes I simply think it would be much better for the State to recognize no marriages at all than for them to attempt and " regulate them". Morethan that a lack of official recognition would completly defang the entire gay marriage movement this is really all about the money anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aluigi Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 ehh... no, i think it is a good thing for the state to recognize/promote heterosexual marriage. the government of the two people should view and recognize these two as if they are one. it's a bad idea to just tell them not to recognize heterosexual marriage anymore. if they tried to regulate it, all they'd really be regulating is what is required for them to recognize an existing union. we should work to make sure they recognize just unions. anyway, i really wanna get back to the debate with dairy regarding whether or not the US government, on its own terms of purpose for existance, should recognize same sex unions. I claim that on its own terms, it shouldn't recognize them. on Catholic terms we all know and accept that on Catholic terms it shouldn't recognize them either. getting involved in the government, even a secular government, and working so that it conforms better to the moral law is a just practice for any Christian. now I really want to get back to the debate with dairygirl. if you really want to, you can believe a better policy would be not to recognize either type of union. however, that doesn't excuse the government from it's moral responsibility to recognize marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dairygirl4u2c Posted November 24, 2004 Author Share Posted November 24, 2004 [quote]however, based on the studies cited at the bottem of the artical i posted with the Dutch study in it, married heterosexuals are not nearly as permiscuous and even the ones that are aren't common. that applies to sodomy. sodomy is anal or oral sex regardless of the two geners, there is heterosexual and homosexual sodomy. the difference is that with homosexuals, the only possible type of sex is sodomy, while with heterosexuals there is a good form of sex. promoting heterosexual marriage is good for the general welfare, promoting homosexual marriage is bad for the public welfare. [/quote] How do you think just because some homos are promiscious you have to punish them all? If this is part of your argument, then I recommend dropping that part. You say that sodomy is wrong, yet you have no substantial facts to back that up. You have that one thing that I quoted that might mean that it can led to infection. Of course that might just be a note, just like a note can be made that regular sex can lead to bad things. Probably only when something is abnormal I admit. Perhaps that's the case for homosexuals as well. It matters about the context of that quote. You can't just say that one is good and the other is bad and then conclude that about the welfare. That's your opinion. You have too look into the article. Beyond that, rectal sodomy is not the only type. Plus people may want to get married for other reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirMyztiq Posted November 29, 2004 Share Posted November 29, 2004 [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. 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! Same-sex unions are not marriages and should not be legally recognized as such. As you've admitted, homosexual practices carry much higher risks of diseases (which of course are not exclusive to gays, but are also a good argument against similar practices in "straight" people - levels of such diseases are much lower in monagamously married couples.) Sodomy does not lead to the creation of human life, but helps destroy it. You people keep saying it is "good," but what is good about it - it's affects are negative, especially to those who practice them. As for gay marriage, children need a mother and a father, not daddy and his roomate! Stop imposing your immorality on us! [/quote] My immorality?! How bout you STOP opposing what you call morality ON THE REST OF US!? Gay marriages AREN'T marriages? How come? Because they aren't sanctioned by the Church? Who cares? A child needs love, care and attention. A mother and a "mother" could do just fine. I hardly know of any heterosexual people who raise their kids good just because they are a "mom and a dad" Homosexuality is not an "action" We aren't discussin what goes own on their sexual lives here-we are discussin their way of life and whom they want to be legally together with all priveleges that marriage offers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirMyztiq Posted November 29, 2004 Share Posted November 29, 2004 [quote name='Aluigi' date='Nov 23 2004, 05:09 PM'] no, you're wrong. we should be conserned with the state and should not merely give up on it. the State has a moral obligation to recognize the moral law according to Catholic Teaching, and no matter how much you wine about how much it opposes the moral law currently that doesn't change the fact that this is one good thing the government can do- to promote monogomous heterosexual marriage and not to promote homosexual marriage. [/quote] LOL Right. A state has always had the constitutional right to deal with those issues. This issue came up when neo cons got their Bibles thrown at their face. There is no "Moral" law other than those that are beneficial and accepted as necessary ethics that keep our people from destroying each other. The "Morals" you speak of are imposed by your religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirMyztiq Posted November 29, 2004 Share Posted November 29, 2004 (edited) [quote name='Aluigi' date='Nov 23 2004, 05:06 PM'] however, based on the studies cited at the bottem of the artical i posted with the Dutch study in it, married heterosexuals are not nearly as permiscuous and even the ones that are aren't common. that applies to sodomy. sodomy is anal or oral sex regardless of the two geners, there is heterosexual and homosexual sodomy. the difference is that with homosexuals, the only possible type of sex is sodomy, while with heterosexuals there is a good form of sex. promoting heterosexual marriage is good for the general welfare, promoting homosexual marriage is bad for the public welfare. [/quote] "good form of sex" So there is bad and good sex!? I have yet to have bad sex. I'm too good...at being good... Anyways: NEWSFLASH!! Heterosexual couples have anal sex ALL THE TIME! And also oral and other kinds which I will not even think about...scary stuff So what exactly is good sex? Penis and vagina? And again...what is this general welfare you speak of and how would it be affected? Edited November 29, 2004 by SirMyztiq Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now