Gay parenthood

[Jeremy Taylor]

More blather. My opinion on the matter holds as much weight as yours. This isn't a university lecture hall. It's a message board.

You're entitled to your opinion. You are not entitled to make unsupported assertions and grossly fallacious arguments and expect people to respect them.

As I said, I was a Catholic and Catholic sexual teaching is based on natural law theory thanks to people like Aquinas and his horrendous ideas on sex. Since I reject Christian theology, why would I care to hold onto natural law theory? Some of my Gods are bisexual or pansexual, actually. The pre-Christian Gods didn't have a problem with it.

Classical natural law is not based on Christian theology and does not even assume its truth or the existence of God. This is basic stuff.

Anyway, calling something "unnatural" when it exists in nature is illogical. Humans are naturally homosexual, bisexual, asexual, etc. Non-human animals also engage in masturbation and non-reproductive forms of sex. The view of sexuality in natural law theory is very narrow and has blinders on.

This just confirms you don't know what you are talking about. Natural law is based on the essences or natures of things, and the final causes that flow from these, and not just what exists or some scientific idea of the natural world.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

You see, this is also a common forum full of mere commoners. We require common English during common discourse.

We're talking about the most basic technical terminology, like final causes and teleology. What you are asking is like examining basic political structures without mentioning terms like democracy or monarchy, or talking of basic mechanics without mentioning terms like acceleration or velocity. It is just rhetorical nonsense designed to dismiss arguments without understanding or refuting them.

But you are not a bigot at least.....

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

You're entitled to your opinion. You are not entitled to make unsupported assertions and grossly fallacious arguments and expect people to respect them.

Classical natural law is not based on Christian theology and does not even assume its truth or the existence of God. This is basic stuff.

This just confirms you don't know what you are talking about. Natural law is based on the essences or natures of things, and the final causes that flow from these, and not just what exists or some scientific idea of the natural world.

I know that natural law theory was cribbed from the Greeks and given a Christian veneer. So what? Sometimes philosophy gets its head stuck so far up its *** in its abstract pondering and ignores the reality of things and their impact in the real world.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

I know that natural law theory was cribbed from the Greeks and given a Christian veneer. So what? Sometimes philosophy gets its head stuck so far up its *** in its abstract pondering and ignores the reality of things and their impact in the real world.

So, natural law is wrong on homosexual acts because you feel it is wrong on homosexual acts?

I wouldn't mind that you serve up such question begging silliness, if I didn't know that you thought those who think homosexual acts are immoral are wicked bigots who could not reason their way out of a paper bag.

What you are advocating is bigotry, plain and simple: the dismissal of viewpoints without properly taking the time to understand or examine, let alone refute, them.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I wouldn't mind that you serve up such question begging silliness, if I didn't know that you thought those who think homosexual acts are immoral are wicked bigots who could not reason their way out of a paper bag.

They are bigots and they are illogical, no matter how much they want to dress it up with fancy words to make themselves seem wise and intelligent. You can philosophize all you please, but most of us live in the real world and prefer facts over fancy rhetoric.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

They are bigots and they are illogical, no matter how much they want to dress it up with fancy words to make themselves seem wise and intelligent. You can philosophize all you please, but most of us live in the real world and prefer facts over fancy rhetoric.

So you blatantly beg the question and fail entirely to show even the slightest knowledge of natural law theory, but you still manage to harshly dismiss it, and we are supposed to follow your opinion on who is bigoted and illogical?

 

[dgirl1986]

I am sorry but what has this got to do with Gay parenting?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

So you blatantly beg the question and fail entirely to show even the slightest knowledge of natural law theory, but you still manage to harshly dismiss it, and we are supposed to follow your opinion on who is bigoted and illogical?

And I'm supposed to care that you think I'm a bigot because I have a negative opinion of those who view gay sex as "immoral"? Jeremy, I don't care and I don't care for your pompous attitude, either.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I am sorry but what has this got to do with Gay parenting?

I don't know. These sorts of threads always get hung up on gay sex and how some people find it "icky"...oh, I mean find it against "the natural order".

 

[dgirl1986]

I don't know. These sorts of threads always get hung up on gay sex and how some people find it "icky"...oh, I mean find it against "the natural order".

If people want to debate natural order there are more appropriate sub forums on this site. The Social World / Family and Personal Living are not the right areas for it.

 

[Viker]

Opinions based on "nature" are fallacious. Natural order does not equivocate a basis for morality. If so rape, theft, adultery, murder and anything else would be perfectly moral as they exist in the natural world.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

And I'm supposed to care that you think I'm a bigot because I have a negative opinion of those who view gay sex as "immoral"? Jeremy, I don't care and I don't care for your pompous attitude, either.

I think it rather ironic that you, who seems to wish to dismiss anyone with a traditional position on sexual morality as an ignorant bigot, is calling anyone pompous.

You don't have to care what I think of you, but you should try and actually be consistent and thoughtful in your beliefs and views.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

Opinions based on "nature" are fallacious. Natural order does not equivocate a basis for morality. If so rape, theft, adultery, murder and anything else would be perfectly moral as they exist in the natural world.

This is of course a complete misunderstanding of natural law teaching, which is based in the essence or nature of substances and their final causes which follow from them. The nature being referred to is not simply what exists in the natural world.

 

[dgirl1986]

I think it rather ironic that you, who seems to wish to dismiss anyone with a traditional position on sexual morality as an ignorant bigot, is calling anyone pompous.

You don't have to care what I think of you, but you should try and actually be consistent and thoughtful in your beliefs and views.

a traditional position on sexual morality...thats an interesting way to put it.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I think it rather ironic that you, who seems to wish to dismiss anyone with a traditional position on sexual morality as an ignorant bigot, is calling anyone pompous.

You don't have to care what I think of you, but you should try and actually be consistent and thoughtful in your beliefs and views.

"Tradition" is a beloved buzzword for ignorant bigots to hide behind. Some traditions deserve to be thrown in the garbage bin of history.

 

[dgirl1986]

This is of course a complete misunderstanding of natural law teaching, which is based in the essence or nature of substances and their final causes which follow from them. The nature being referred to is not simply what exists in the natural world.

There are threads and sub forums that already exist for these types of discussions.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

"Tradition" is a beloved buzzword for ignorant bigots to hide behind. Some traditions deserve to be thrown in the garbage bin of history.

Indeed, like that of making unsupported assertions or that of believing that just because your views are right on and progressive you don't have to examine them or examine competing viewpoints. This latter behaviour is the definition of bigotry, and it is just as much a characteristic of enlightened left-liberals as the traditionalists you despise.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

a traditional position on sexual morality...thats an interesting way to put it.

Near universal might be another way. But, of course, all these peoples and societies were just ignorant bigots and we have no obligation to even examine their viewpoints, let alone grapple with them seriously. What fun it is to be an enlightened modern!

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Indeed, like that of making unsupported assertions or that of believing that just because your views are right on and progressive you don't have to examine them or examine competing viewpoints. This latter behaviour is the definition of bigotry, and it is just as much a characteristic of enlightened left-liberals as the traditionalists you despise.

I'm not a liberal. Actually, I'm more of a "traditionalist" than you since I support pre-Christian folkways over foreign imperialist religions. So you're actually the modernist one. :biglaugh:

 

[dgirl1986]

Near universal might be another way. But, of course, all these peoples and societies were just ignorant bigots and we have no obligation to even examine their viewpoints, let alone grapple with them seriously. What fun it is to be an enlightened modern!

I have no idea what you are talking about so in response I am just going to respond with...

science. I like science.