Are u going to leave USA now?

[fantome profane]

The rate of disease, mental illness, promiscuity, drug abuse, domestic violence, etc. are all higher among homosexual men than in the general population. Then there's also the Natural Law view that such acts (i.e. anal sex, aka sodomy) violate the natural order of sexuality, which is ordered towards procreation and bonding between a married man and woman.

Even if all this is true then it certainly is an excellent argument in favour of same-sex marriage. The institution of marriage is intended to have a stabilizing effect, encourage monogamy and commitment, and provide protection under the law. There is no reason to think that allowing same-sex marriage will make any of these things worse, and every reason to think it will improve the situation.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I'm curious.....what if the Church took a stand against it?

All the conservative Catholic arguments against it tend to be conflate it with homosexuality or think that it's a problem of child rearing or whatever. However, they also tend to either ignore or be ignorant of the array of intersex conditions that exist, which are wholly biological conditions. They seem to ignore that there are congenital sex defects in general, which I don't understand. Either way, it's not much of an issue in the Church at this moment. I do know of an intersex woman who is joining a religious order, though.

Overall, these conditions aren't something that have been factored into Catholic thought at all, really. Probably because they're so rare. This is an issue for me because of the matter of my baptismal record and whether I can have a sacramental marriage with a female.

 

[leibowde84]

The Church has no official standing on it. I've already looked into it.

But your boy Pope Bennedict was certainly against it. Have you read his Christmas speech where he discusses it?

 

[Nietzsche]

It's hellish. It's like, I want to get married one day and be a father, but I understand if a straight woman turns me down because of my anatomy and because I can't father children. That's fair and I don't see it as bigoted.

Well on that front(fathering a child) you may be able to do just that. It won't exactly be traditional, but we're rapidly coming to the point where your bone-marrow can be used to make viable sperm. It's genuinely not that far off, and it'll be cheap, too. Because you're going to have a massive demand where millions who're otherwise incapable of fathering a child(be they infertile men or lesbians in a relationship) give money hand-over-fist to do it.

 

[Cephus]

1. There is no proof that these cities are Sodom and Gomorrah.

2. Their destruction has been dated to before the Hebrew.

*

That's really the problem, something that even Biblical Archaeology Review acknowledges. In the early 20th century, during the heyday of Middle Eastern archaeology, you had people going out with a shovel in one hand and a Bible in the other and when they found something, they just looked it up in the Bible to see what it was, assuming that the Bible had to always be right. There are tons of sites out there that are incorrectly identified because of ****-poor scholarship. Some of them have been correctly identified after the fact, some have not. The fact is, you can't trust the identifications unless you actually find something on-site that confirms the identity in some way.

 

[Revoltingest]

All the conservative Catholic arguments against it tend to be conflate it with homosexuality or think that it's a problem of child rearing or whatever. However, they also tend to either ignore or be ignorant of the array of intersex conditions that exist, which are wholly biological conditions. They seem to ignore that there are congenital sex defects in general, which I don't understand. Either way, it's not much of an issue in the Church at this moment. I do know of an intersex woman who is joining a religious order, though.

Overall, these conditions aren't something that have been factored into Catholic thought at all, really. Probably because they're so rare. This is an issue for me because of the matter of my baptismal record and whether I can have a sacramental marriage with a female.

What if the Church decreed that your particular circumstance were wrong?
Would it affect your membership in the Church, or your course of treatment?

 

[Cephus]

I see this hatred too.
Tis the illiberal liberal syndrome.

Have you read the new book by Kirsten Powers yet?

 

[Revoltingest]

Have you read the new book by Kirsten Powers yet?

No.....I had to google her just to find out who she is.
These days I read only technological history books.
Yes, I really am that boring.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

But your boy Pope Bennedict was certainly against it. Have you read his Christmas speech where he discusses it?

He was actually talking about gender theory, the idea that gender is merely a social construction. I'm against that, too. It certainly wasn't speaking about people like me, because I don't deny biology and nature and I didn't just wake up one day and decide I was male. Either way, he wasn't speaking ex cathedra on the issue.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Well on that front(fathering a child) you may be able to do just that. It won't exactly be traditional, but we're rapidly coming to the point where your bone-marrow can be used to make viable sperm. It's genuinely not that far off, and it'll be cheap, too. Because you're going to have a massive demand where millions who're otherwise incapable of fathering a child(be they infertile men or lesbians in a relationship) give money hand-over-fist to do it.

I've heard about that. That is a great development and I hope it comes true for me. I'd like it even more if I could somehow get the full male plumbing but that seems even further away.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

What if the Church decreed that your particular circumstance were wrong?
Would it affect your membership in the Church, or your course of treatment?

I don't know. It depends.

 

[leibowde84]

He was actually talking about gender theory, the idea that gender is merely a social construction. I'm against that, too. It certainly wasn't speaking about people like me, because I don't deny biology and nature and I didn't just wake up one day and decide I was male. Either way, he wasn't speaking ex cathedra on the issue.

He said that people should stick to the way that God created them though, right?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

He said that people should stick to the way that God created them though, right?

And for transsexuals and intersex people, that's a complicated question. But I don't think it was aimed at us, to be honest.

I do think about that question, you know. I assume I have XX chromosomes. But my brain was flooded with testosterone instead of estrogen in the womb, which caused it to masculize (I have a male digit ratio, so that's proof of me being exposed to male levels of androgens in the womb). So I don't know if I was meant to be male or female. When I die, I guess I'll find out, won't I? But there's no way to change the sex of the brain, so I'm stuck with changing the rest of my body to conform to my brain. Changing the sex of my brain might turn me into a completely different person, anyway.

 

[Nietzsche]

I've heard about that. That is a great development and I hope it comes true for me. I'd like it even more if I could somehow get the full male plumbing but that seems even further away.

Mmm. A friend of mine works as a nurse at an office that does gender-reassignment surgery, and something the surgeon said to him was "It's easier to dig a ditch than raise a pole". So, yeah. A wee(groan) bit hard(I'msosorrydon'thurtme).

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Mmm. A friend of mine works as a nurse at an office that does gender-reassignment surgery, and something the surgeon said to him was "It's easier to dig a ditch than raise a pole". So, yeah. A wee(groan) bit hard(I'msosorrydon'thurtme).

Lol. No, I already know that. It's much more difficult to create a penis than a vagina. But I was talking about having real-deal male organs. That would involve growing organs in a dish, though. Science isn't really there yet although there has been some advances in that.

 

[sojourner]

That's a crappy argument because you could make the argument that anything people do is "by nature" and so we shouldn't voice disapproval of anything. Killing each other is part of our nature, going to war is part of our nature, xenophobia is part of our nature, anti-homosexual attitudes are part of our nature (especially among males), rape is part of our nature and so on and so forth. There's scientific evidence for all of those things. So let's not use that argument because I assure you that you will not like where it leads.

It doesn't really have to do with someone merely being different, either. That's a red herring. When it comes to homosexual sex, it's specific reasons why people tend to be against it.

Killing harms people. War harms people. Xenophobia harms people. Rape harms people. These aren't identities, they're actions born from selfish attitudes or emotional illnesses. Homophobia likewise. And it's harming people.

Being black harms no one. Being Jewish harms no one. Being female harms no one. Being Cherokee or Apache harms no one. Being homosexual harms no one. To say that the ills of society are "natural" isn't at all the same argument as saying that being Asian is "natural." Murder is illegal, and people who commit that crime incur consequences of the society against which the crime is perpetrated. Last time I checked, homosexuality isn't criminal -- just like being black isn't criminal. There should be no consequences from society, therefore.

 

[sojourner]

The rate of disease, mental illness, promiscuity, drug abuse, domestic violence, etc. are all higher among homosexual men than in the general population. Then there's also the Natural Law view that such acts (i.e. anal sex, aka sodomy) violate the natural order of sexuality, which is ordered towards procreation and bonding between a married man and woman.

You know why? Because homosexual men have been systematically forced to the fringes of society. The same things can be said about blacks.

Natural law says nothing about the fact that "all humans must procreate." The sex act isn't the orientation. Just as some heterosexual couples are barren.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The rate of disease, mental illness, promiscuity, drug abuse, domestic violence, etc. are all higher among homosexual men than in the general population.

Being against it for mental illnesses is insulting and offensive. As for the rest, you may as well oppose all marriages because those things often happen in heterosexual relationships.
And, of course, there is a high comorbidity between gender dysphoria and some mental disorders, such as Asperger's syndrome.
Also, a few years ago (maybe several), a study showed that those with mental illnesses are more likely to use marijuana than the general population. And things such as depression and anxiety often lead to drug use, which in those circumstances

Then there's also the Natural Law view that such acts (i.e. anal sex, aka sodomy) violate the natural order of sexuality, which is ordered towards procreation and bonding between a married man and woman.

If that was the case, the anus, mouth, and body in general, wouldn't be an erogenous zone.
It's also interesting that someone who is transsexual would cite procreation as a reason for being opposed to homosexuality, since treatment renders us infertile.

Isn't that forbidden by the Church, though?

It depends on the church/synagogue/mosque/whatever. Some of them are trans-reaffirming and see trans-people as their identified gender, others break out the pitch forks and torches, repparative therapy, and insist we are dirty, lowly, abominable sinners who are defying god's will and plans (they claim we were made "perfect" to begin with, and shouldn't change anything, and they tend to quote Deut 22:5).

 

[Cephus]

No.....I had to google her just to find out who she is.
These days I read only technological history books.
Yes, I really am that boring.

I was just wondering since you used the term "illiberal liberal" and that's one she's currently using. Good book though.

 

[Revoltingest]

I was just wondering since you used the term "illiberal liberal" and that's one she's currently using. Good book though.

I pick up stuff all over the internet.
Don't confuse that with being well read.

I like books with lots'o pictures, btw.