Engaging in

[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

[Guest Aluigi]

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.

[Guest Aluigi]

[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.

[Don John of Austria]

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.

[Guest Aluigi]

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.

[Don John of Austria]

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.

[Guest Aluigi]

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.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[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.

[SirMyztiq]

[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.

[SirMyztiq]

[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.

[SirMyztiq]

[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