Kentucky clerk who refused gay couples taken into federal custody; ordered jailed

[TracerBullet]

Rape is also natural, it occurs in many other species, it comes from a biological imperative to perpetuate the species.
In the other species it may not be a choice, but in humans it is a choice and it is immoral.
Homosexuality, like rape, is both a choice and is immoral.

hate and prejudice is a choice just like sexually abusing children and both choices are immoral

 

[TracerBullet]

I suppose then obesity via gluttony is also natural?
And to simply help oneself to that which one wants is also natural?
Humankind is surely held to a higher standard than the animals, that is, other animals?
We have the ability to foresee the consequences of our behavior.
I do defend freedom of choice. But I do see that homosexual unions may have serious negative consequences.
How, for instance, does the daughter of two men pattern herself as a female?
Or
the son of two females pattern himself as a male?

how does the son of a service man killed in the line of duty pattern himself as a male?

 

[Jose Fly]

Who's talking about Christians deserving special treatment?

That's an interesting question. Do you think government employees from all faiths and non-faiths should be able to decide what parts of their duties they do or don't perform?

Could a Muslim 911 operator refuse to send help to infidels?

Could Mormon firefighters refuse to put out fires at non-Mormon houses?

Could an atheist bus driver refuse to transport theists?

 

[TracerBullet]

What body in government has the power to pass laws?

I thought it was Congress, or am I mistaken?
Supreme Court interprets the law to make sure that the law is constitutional, is it not?

I have not seen Congress pass a law about man/man marriage; woman/woman marriage. I could have missed it though.

So, how come the Supreme Court opining on a nonlaw this nonlaw becomes the law of the land?

Can someone point me to the law Congress passed regarding gay marriage?
I might have missed it somehow.

This reminds me of "First they came for the communists and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a communist; then they came for the Jews and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew; then they came for the trade unionists and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist; then they came for me and by that time no one was left to speak up (Pastor Martin Miemöller (1892 – 1984)"

It is UNJUST for this lady to be in jail and we should wake up if anyone think that what is being done to her is just.

The case heard by the supreme court involved state laws.

 

[TracerBullet]

no, that's ethereal territory beyond my comfort level

I stick with the basics

Homos molest children and should be executed

Almost all child molesters are hetersexual

 

[TracerBullet]

Who's talking about Christians deserving special treatment?

you are for one. You want Christians to have the special right to ignore the law and be able to discriminate

 

[Selaphiel]

I rely on God for that

That is a rhetorical cheap shot, not very convincing when you think about it. I rely on God, but I do not equate God with a book or set of books. We know a whole lot about the history of and the development of the books of the Bible, more than enough to understand that it is not some verbatum revelation from God himself.

In fact, at this point, a simple consideration of the reproductive faculty should show us that things like abortion and contraceptives are disordered. Which faculty or power does the animal use in sexual intercourse? He makes use of the reproductive faculty, which he shares in common even with plants. What is the “purpose” of this faculty? Its purpose is the production of a new individual which is specifically (or, at least, generically) the same as the parent (thus, dogs beget dogs; even horses and donkeys, when they produce offspring with each other, produce something similar to horses and donkeys (i.e., mules). The use of contraceptives, then, as contraceptive, involves the exercise of the reproductive faculty with the expressed intent of circumventing the end or goal to which that faculty is ordered. (Note, this isn’t my argument; this is a common Thomistic argument; with respect to contraceptives, one should also consult Humanae Vitae by Pope Paul VI.) It would be like eating with the expressed intent of failing to be nourished. Thus, the one who uses contraceptives makes use of the reproductive faculty with the expressed intent of failing to reproduce. His intent is to sterilize the operation of his reproductive faculty, the very nature of which is to be fecund. (Note that the same argument also applies to other sexual acts which subvert the natural ordering of the reproductive faculty in the same way (e.g., sodomy))

Problem with this form of argumentation is that it restricts the purpose of a natural function. It is a form of what I can only call telic reductionism. It is a form of argumentation that also relies on empirical observation of nature and reasoning based on that. It is evident in thise case that it is rather selective in what it observes. Animals do not merely use sexuality for reproduction, observe an ape and you will see that they more than just reproducing. Of course, you can argue, and rightfully so, that animals and nature is not a good guide to right and wrong, but then you undermine your own natural law argument as well.

Further, to reduce the purpose of eating to mere nourishment is just as inadequate and ignores the cultural significance of the practice. The raison d'être of meals might be nourishment, but to reduce it to that is simply overzealous reductionism. More complex purposes of eating has emerged from it, a feast is more than mere nourishment of more than one person, it is a cultural event with a multitude of social functions as well (and nowhere is that clearer than in the feast culture that make up the culture of antiquity). Similarily, the purpose of sexuality cannot be reduced to mere reproduction, it is the raison d'être biologically speaking, but more complex functions has emerged from it in our cultural and biological history. It is the ultimate expression of affection, intimacy and love (love here used in a multifaceted way, it cannot be reduced to merely eros) between two people. If that is granted, the case for ruling out homosexuality based on the biological raison d'être of sexuality becomes questionable to say the least.

 

[TracerBullet]

you'd issue them to anybody who asks?

If you were to ask I would have to consider refusing.

 

[chrysostom]

I rely on God,

how does God join two guys together?

 

[Selaphiel]

how does God join two guys together?

How does God join man and woman together? Love and commitment.

 

[ok doser]

How does God join man and woman together? Love and commitment.

you think God joins two men together by love and commitment? :nono:

 

[chrysostom]

How does God join man and woman together?.

with a child

they become a family

 

[Selaphiel]

with a child

they become a family

Plenty of men and women that are married that does not have children.That is not a necessary part of marriage.

 

[Traditio]

Problem with this form of argumentation is that it restricts the purpose of a natural function.

This is presupposed in the very notion of a faculty. A power or a faculty is related to its activity or operation as first to second act (being vs. doing). The operation or activity of a faculty is the due perfection of that faculty.

It is a form of what I can only call telic reductionism.

There's already a word for that. You could have replied that it's a "teleological moral argument." And I'll answer you that teleology is presupposed in the case of every power or faculty.

Morality ultimately is about acting according to right reason. The first principle of practical reason, as St. Thomas tells us, is "do good and avoid evil." [Here, against Kant, there is no need to distinguish between "moral" good and evil and the "good" and "bad" which appertain to animal satisfaction and are more properly called "doing well or poorly." There is a prior, ontological sense of "good" which is convertible with truth and being. Reason, having appertained the truth or being of the thing in question, subsequently recognizes, in its practical considerations, the good to be done.] There is an intrinsic deformity, which reason recognizes, in using a power or faculty with the expressed intent of frustrating or circumventing the end or goal of that faculty.

It is a form of argumentation that also relies on empirical observation of nature and reasoning based on that. It is evident in thise case that it is rather selective in what it observes. Animals do not merely use sexuality for reproduction, observe an ape and you will see that they more than just reproducing. Of course, you can argue, and rightfully so, that animals and nature is not a good guide to right and wrong, but then you undermine your own natural law argument as well.

Irrelevent.

Further, to reduce the purpose of eating to mere nourishment is just as inadequate and ignores the cultural significance of the practice. The raison d'être of meals might be nourishment, but to reduce it to that is simply overzealous reductionism. More complex purposes of eating has emerged from it, a feast is more than mere nourishment of more than one person, it is a cultural event with a multitude of social functions as well (and nowhere is that clearer than in the feast culture that make up the culture of antiquity). Similarily, the purpose of sexuality cannot be reduced to mere reproduction, it is the raison d'être biologically speaking, but more complex functions has emerged from it in our cultural and biological history. It is the ultimate expression of affection, intimacy and love (love here used in a multifaceted way, it cannot be reduced to merely eros) between two people. If that is granted, the case for ruling out homosexuality based on the biological raison d'être of sexuality becomes questionable to say the least.

Once again, all of this is irrelevent. Reread the argument that I've given. At no point did I say anything like: "The sole 'point' of any given act of sexual intercourse, in every animal instance of it, is reproduction." Yes, it is true, as we ascend to higher forms of life (brute animals and human beings), the lower powers can take on new kinds of significance (though these powers do not take on these new kinds of significance insofar as they are those powers). I fully grant that. In human beings, sexual intercourse becomes a kind of political or social activity (i.e., in the "society" of the household of a man and his wife), insofar as the human being is a rational and political animal.

But ultimately, this point has absolutely no bearing on the point that I made above. The generative power as such is not related to the social union of a male and female animal as first act to second act. Its due perfection as such is generation, and this is true regardless of what kind of living thing we are talking about.

 

[chrysostom]

Plenty of men and women that are married that does not have children.That is not a necessary part of marriage.

they are not joined together

do you see any reason why they should stay together?

 

[Quetzal]

they are not joined together

do you see any reason why they should stay together?

Love for one another is more than enough.

 

[chrysostom]

be fruitful and multiply
and
until you do that

you are not joined together

 

[chrysostom]

abortion is not settled law
same sex marriage is not settled law
until
we stop fighting it

God bless kim

 

[Selaphiel]

they are not joined together

do you see any reason why they should stay together?

Pretty sure that goes against the understanding of marriage as a sacrament in your own church. Man and wife are bound in matrimony during the sacrament of marriage, at which point there are no children.

They should stay together because they love each other, which is not to be equated with fleeting feelings, but a loving commitment that vows to help each other grow as human beings despite of momentary fleeting shallow feelings.

Yes, it is true, as we ascend to higher forms of life (brute animals and human beings), the lower powers can take on new kinds of significance (though these powers do not take on these new kinds of significance insofar as they are those powers). I fully grant that. In human beings, sexual intercourse becomes a kind of political or social activity (i.e., in the "society" of the household of a man and his wife), insofar as the human being is a rational and political animal.

But ultimately, this point has absolutely no bearing on the point that I made above. The generative power as such is not related to the social union of a male and female animal as first act to second act. Its due perfection as such is generation, and this is true regardless of what kind of living thing we are talking about.

Well, this could then be expanded by looking at the function of homosexual relationships in nature. They are believed to have a primary function biologically speaking as well, at least in social animals that live in packs or forms of proto-societies (if they didnt, it is very unlikely that they would have survived at such a steady ratio given natural selection). If such a basic function can be discerned, then there is a natural telos of homosexual relationships as well as heterosexual ones.

This could supplement what I wrote above. Then homosexual relationships in human beings would be a higher emergent form of a basic natural function of homosexuality, as is found in several animal species, particlarily social animals.

The idea that heterosexual relationships and the generation it provides is a form of natural perfection is thus invalid, it simply is not the case in nature, since homosexual relationships seems to have its own necessary function in nature as well.

Even if you want to go the route of natural law, although I remain skeptical of its applicability (at least in very particular issues, since it seems to rely heavily upon interpretations and presuppositions), at least do it in light of current biological knowledge. You could say that there has been some developments in what we know about the biological world and complex dynamics and functions in animals and plants since St.Thomas and Aristotle.

 

[Rusha]

with a child

they become a family

Does every married heterosexual couple produce children? According to your logic, there should be a law requiring them to produce children IF they wish to marry.