Is Gay Sex Morally Wrong.

[Didacus]

Only when humans affirmed selflessness through love did it become tolerable that humans cohabitate with one another. Only in the co-habitation between a man and a woman can procreate and engender a community. Thus the union between man and woman is morally superior than that of same sex unions.



Heterosexual unions procreate - homosexual unions do not. This is not bigotted or narrow-minded; it is a biological fact. By this singular difference alone it is impossible, in reason, to equate one union with the other. The fundamental difference of procreation cannot be discounted.

[Noel's angel]

[quote name='OraProMe' post='1908986' date='Jul 3 2009, 08:04 AM']Why must sex be procreative? Can you provide a logical argument that doesn't consist of "because the bible/magisterium says so" to prove your assertion?[/quote]

No offense, but the Bible saying something = God saying it. Is that not enough of a reason?

[Didacus]

[quote name='Noel's angel' post='1909267' date='Jul 3 2009, 02:56 PM']No offense, but the Bible saying something = God saying it. Is that not enough of a reason?[/quote]

Sadly, for many, it is not enough.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Noel's angel' post='1909267' date='Jul 3 2009, 02:56 PM']No offense, but the Bible saying something = God saying it. Is that not enough of a reason?[/quote]


No, not on the criteria of this thread.

I was under the impression that the natural law could be known through the exercise of human reason. I should think then that some rational proof could be given without recourse to revelation.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' post='1909235' date='Jul 3 2009, 12:30 PM']My point is simpler, the function of sex is procreation, it is the entire reason for its existance. This is true with the entire spectrum of sexual creatures, Plant, Protist, Animal, whatever. does the flower spead its pollen, its seed, to get pleasure? No it does it to make new plants.

Any arguement agianst this comes either from ignorance orknowledge of information which is little more than propoganda.[/quote]

No problem. I'm not against you on this, in fact I'd appreciate it if you had more to share on the post about the protista etc. that is actually something to consider. Or if someone from the other side could address that please

Edited July 3, 2009 by goldenchild17

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1909277' date='Jul 3 2009, 03:21 PM']No, not on the criteria of this thread.

I was under the impression that the natural law could be known through the exercise of human reason. I should think then that some rational proof could be given without recourse to revelation.[/quote]


And I have given it.

[kamiller42]

It seems there is multiple arguments in this thread. Some of the arguments are tangents to the original question.

Resolve the debate of the issues in this order:

1. Is the act of sex intended to be reserved between man and woman alone?

2. If yes, should it be open to life?

3. Should it be reserved to monogamous marriage?

Jumping to 2 or 3 is noise when there is a fundamental disagreement on 1.

The answer to question 1 would be a lot of easier if God, our Creator (as Jefferson put it), gave us a visible sign that man and woman were meant one for another, complements of each other.

He did give us a visible sign, you and me. We are made in his likeness, an image of Him. We are made of form (our bodies) and substance (our souls). While you can argue whether the souls of two people of the same gender complement each other, there is no mistake in God's design of men and women being a complement to each other. Each completes the other, body and soul, in a way two individuals of the same gender never can. The pieces simply fit properly. I am avoiding being too descriptive.

So our Creator gave us a very obvious, in your face, answer. Only through deceiving ourselves can we believe two people of the same gender were meant for each other completely.

Edited July 3, 2009 by kamiller42

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='mortify' post='1909130' date='Jul 3 2009, 09:50 AM']I'm not sure the Greeks held it in "high regard," I know Plato in his idea of a utopia thought that soldiers should be single and satisfy themselves sexually with each other, so I suppose it was a more practical purpose.[/quote]

By the end of his life, Plato came to have a negative view on homosexual activity.

"In the [i]Laws[/i], Plato applies the idea of a fixed, natural law to sex, and takes a much harsher line than he does in the Symposium or the Phraedrus. In Book One he writes about how opposite-sex sex acts cause pleasure by nature, while same-sex sexuality is 'unnatural'"([url="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/homosexuality/"][i]Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy[/i], "Homosexuality"[/url])

[Guest ReclaimTheFamily81]

Since this is my first post, I'll just be pithy and say: I believe homosexuality to be morally wrong.

There! It's official. I'm a poster

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='ReclaimTheFamily81' post='1909357' date='Jul 3 2009, 04:28 PM']Since this is my first post, I'll just be pithy and say: I believe homosexuality to be morally wrong.

There! It's official. I'm a poster [/quote]

Welcome to Phatmass!

[Kitty]

I'm not even going to bother continuing in this thread, because there is no point, one side is not going to agree with the other.

However, I want to just say why I don't have a problem with homosexual relationships/marriages.

Whether we like it or not, love is something we don't completely understand. People have died in the name of love before. Everyone wants to be loved by someone in their lifetime. Why is it that a person will love someone who is physically unattractive? Someone who is so severely disabled they cannot take care of themselves? Why are people willing to give up their lives for the one they love? We don't really know.

So how can we, who do not completely understand our own human love, claim that homosexual relationships are evil? What IS evil? For me, evil is cruelty towards another person; deliberate pain or death to a fellow human.

Homosexual relationships are nothing but a loving, private relationship between two persons who happen to be the same sex. They are not hurting anyone. They are two consenting adults.

Tell me, if homosexual relationships are so "evil" and "a danger to our society", why didn't our society turn foul THOUSANDS of years ago, when homosexuality was also practiced? If you ask me, our society has been more damaged by HETEROSEXUAL sex (on TV) than homosexual sex.

When I was younger, I accepted the church's teaching on homosexuality without question and accepted it as bad and evil. Now that I'm in college and made some friends, many of whom are gay, I changed my mind after I saw how they really are.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='kamiller42' post='1909325' date='Jul 3 2009, 04:41 PM']It seems there is multiple arguments in this thread. Some of the arguments are tangents to the original question.

Resolve the debate of the issues in this order:

1. Is the act of sex intended to be reserved between man and woman alone?

2. If yes, should it be open to life?

3. Should it be reserved to monogamous marriage?

Jumping to 2 or 3 is noise when there is a fundamental disagreement on 1.

The answer to question 1 would be a lot of easier if God, our Creator (as Jefferson put it), gave us a visible sign that man and woman were meant one for another, complements of each other.

He did give us a visible sign, you and me. We are made in his likeness, an image of Him. We are made of form (our bodies) and substance (our souls). While you can argue whether the souls of two people of the same gender complement each other, there is no mistake in God's design of men and women being a complement to each other. Each completes the other, body and soul, in a way two individuals of the same gender never can. The pieces simply fit properly. I am avoiding being too descriptive.

So our Creator gave us a very obvious, in your face, answer. Only through deceiving ourselves can we believe two people of the same gender were meant for each other completely.[/quote]




2. is directly related to 1.

[kafka]

meh.

the eternal moral law has nothing to do with emotions, opinions, evolution, having fun, animals, self-fulfillment, dolphins, grecians, plato, (did I miss anything?), etc. etc. etc.

Edited July 3, 2009 by kafka

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Kitty' post='1909374' date='Jul 3 2009, 05:41 PM']Tell me, if homosexual relationships are so "evil" and "a danger to our society", why didn't our society turn foul THOUSANDS of years ago, when homosexuality was also practiced? If you ask me, our society has been more damaged by HETEROSEXUAL sex (on TV) than homosexual sex.

When I was younger, I accepted the church's teaching on homosexuality without question and accepted it as bad and evil. Now that I'm in college and made some friends, many of whom are gay, I changed my mind after I saw how they really are.[/quote]

Society of THOUSANDS of years ago was pretty bad. I don't think that is much of an arguement.

I love how people asume that if you are opposed to homosexual acts on moral grounds then you must not know any homosexuals, or be their friend, or love them. It makes no differance, it is still wrong.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1909296' date='Jul 3 2009, 03:37 PM']No problem. I'm not against you on this, in fact I'd appreciate it if you had more to share on the post about the protista etc. that is actually something to consider. Or if someone from the other side could address that please [/quote]


What would you like to know.