It’s just a question, not a right or wrong answer, per se. Unless you disagree with me, then you are wrong. 
If you consider your self a centrist that’s fine. I am assuming then you see human nature as generally neutral?
I lean towards generally good, with a few evil mixed in. Most people are only trying to get by and are largely a reflection of their community. I don’t think the few evil represent the whole, although somebody surrounded by evil can have their “good nature” tainted due to how people are largely a product of their surroundings. The evil unfortunately currently have the means to be louder and reach more people than they ever have before.
1 Like
Well allow me to pressure you a bit further you say the evil are few. The few range from 49% to approaching 0 percent. So lets say we have a billion people and 80% of them are generally good. 20% are generally evil. Would you not also consider that a disproportionately high number of evil people? That’s even though they make up 20%. But 20% in this case is still 200,000,000.
I do not think it is even close to 20% but I guess it depends on what you designate as “evil”. I think there are assholes who are criminals, game the system and get caught. Are they evil? If so, you could look at the percentage of the population that is a criminal. Another way to look at it is you are evil if you commit a violent crime but I have no idea what percentage of the population falls in that category, although I hardly think its 1 in 5.
My apologies for the delay, but I will try to be better, plus I am here now ; )
Homosexuality by its very nature in intrinsically disordered. The act and therefore the "marriage” are the unions themselves are troubled and they always will be. People commit all sorts of evil things, everywhere in the world, with vast numbers. Yet I will NEVER support any evil because the act / s are performed behind closed doors.
If my children were to come out as gay and wanted to marry OR even if they were straight and supported the idea of gay people being accepted when they “marry” I would simply ask them why. What makes those emotions unique? The love of a heterosexual couple will produce children every time, if both parties are healthy, etc. A gay couple has never and will never produce another unique life, ever. There might be theories or ways it could happen, yet I envision a future just like with animals who have been cloned. The life will be short and they would be very sick. That gets into the whole issue of a life that has a very poor existence.
What made for the sudden need for gay people to be married, like right now? Please do not tell me they wanted to visit one another in the hospital or anything like that. Gay people recognize in their true nature that they are disordered and flawed, yet by being able to legally “marry,” they now have societies stamp of approval saying what they do is a good thing.
1 Like
Without trying to be bad and doing active wrongs, I find myself screwing up. Too many times I find myself instinctively lying to make myself sound better than I really am, in a way protecting myself. Rather than always face my mistakes, without trying I cover my own butt. In my honest opinion, it takes serious effort on my part to stop from doing any sort of evil.
Some choices are always wrong. For example, an abortion, no matter what the reason or excuse, the act is ALWAYS an evil. Always, with zero exceptions, no wiggle room! I also know if people where more honest with themselves, they would realize how often they screw up. I try to work on my salvation in fear and trembling. Will it be enough? I sure hope, but I deserve Hell just like nearly everyone else. If a person supports abortion, gay marriage or contraception for example, please explain to me how in any way shape or form that is a “good action.” Not a feeling or emotion but a good choice on even a single level.
In my honest opinion, massive amounts of people in our culture are evil. Remember that an evil ignored is evil accepted. Now I am including myself in that group because I should do more to stop an evil when I see it.
You say “There might be theories or ways it could happen, yet I envision
a future just like with animals who have been cloned. The life will be
short and they would be very sick. That gets into the whole issue of a
life that has a very poor existence.”
Isn’t that better than no life at all though? If we had the ability to do that who are you to deny them the right to life just because you think its unnatural?
Not even close to true unless you have a very narrow definition of healthy. If that were true why would in vitro fertilization exist? And if the couple is not by your definition “healthy” even though they are normal age and functional, should they be able to be married? Is having children the only purpose of marriage?
[quote=“kneedragger79, post:25, topic:213400”]
If my children were to come out as gay and wanted to marry OR even if they were straight and supported the idea of gay people being accepted when they “marry” I would simply ask them why.[/quote]
Because they love each other and want to be recognized by the law that they are a legal couple, granting them specific rights that only apply to married couples. If you want to take the side that government should get out of the marriage business I’m all ears, but that is different than allowing marriage rights to some couples and not to others, as the supreme court ruled.
[quote=“kneedragger79, post:25, topic:213400”]
What made for the sudden need for gay people to be married, like right now? [/quote]
To be a legal couple.
How have you determined that they are flawed/disordered, as in, where is your logic coming from? Is everyone with a flaw not allowed to marry? What flaws are allowed/disallowed and who makes that determination?
I know where kneedragger is coming from so I will add my $.02. In this case, as it is dealt with here ‘flawed/ disordered’ is not a derogatory term but a statement of condition. In as much as schizophrenia is flawed/ disordered. The language originated in the DSM 1-3 (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) manual, when homosexuality was still considered a mental disorder.
There was and still is controversy over it’s removal as many scientists considered the moved a politically motivated rather than a scientifically based assessment. Many believing, as do I, that the science of psychology/ psychiatry should be the driver over what is considered a disorder or not. Popular opinion nor political or personal motivations should not trump scientific discovery.
This simply means that the human species is naturally conducive to heterosexuality in that, that is the most natural state of a health person, all else being equal. So that those conditions appearing outside the bell curve of the most natural state for a human being is intrinsically disordered. That does not mean that person who is disordered is a bad person, or is an asshole, or is by default, immoral. Disordered simply means, outside the most natural state of a human being. Being that those who can be considered a true homosexual are a small percentage of the human population at large, the assessment is about right.
Pat, thank you for being logical with the “disorder” classification. I doubt that is where it came from, but if that is true that is a fair point. Still, what does that have to do with marriage and “evil”? Are people with disorders not allowed to get married? What disorders are allowed and which ones aren’t? Who makes that choice? Are all disorders evil?
Getting along with other people is important for your tribe, which can help you survive. It’s an evolutionary advantage to be ‘good’ when others consider the behavior beneficial to the group.
If evil is there, it’s probably mental cases, bad days, desperation for resources, showing power to appear stronger, etc. Some Evils have a motive, others are a byproduct.
I help you, you help me.
I believe the human life should never be created when the fact remains that the technology is flawed and those lives will have a challenging existence. You want to support a flawed technology, yet you support the open slaughter of healthy children whom some of society find inconvenient. Do you see a problem with the position you hold?
Marriage is for the raising healthy children to help society to grow and become better. In vitro fertilization exists for people who cannot have children. The technology might produce a healthy child in the end but how many embryos were destroyed in the process. Many innocent children die in the end.
So based on the emotion of love, which changes, gay people are allowed to “marry.” Look to history of our world and the countries which accepted homosexuality, how long before they collapsed? They all collapsed, every single one in a short time.
A legal union can have the same rights as a married couple. Nope, gay people want to be “married” to have societies approval.
What is the purpose of married sex? The creation and raising of children. To perform an act that cannot fulfill its intended purpose, that action by definition and very nature is flawed and disordered. Pat adds more clarification above. Now if one person of a heterosexual couple cannot have children, they can still raise healthy kids because there is a male and female portions of the family. Together they create healthy children. Can a single mother or father raise children by themselves, sure but it will be a major challenge. A gay couple has no idea how to raise a heterosexual child because they have no idea what it is like to be straight.
EDIT - ever so slightly
Hypothetically… if the future technology is NOT flawed, what is your response?
Well, I have known Kneedragger for quite some time and while I do not pretend to speak for him, I know that he genuinely hates no one and condemns no one by default. I know where the language he speaks came from which is the Catechism. And from the point of view of the Catechism the term ‘disordered’ is meant in the benign way which I described. The context in which the term is used bare this out.
Of course he elaborates on it, personally speaking from the heart in a provocative manner. I assume he does this to provoke discussion but like I said I cannot speak for him, that’s my take on what he says. But this is as far as I will go on my assumptions on his statements.
And, Kneedragger, if I misrepresented you in anyway, feel free to correct me. I don’t mean to.
As for my personal take let me start off with where gay marriage and homosexuality in general lands on my totem pole of important issues, it’s pretty low. For the most part, it’s not my problem. Let me put it this way, if my biggest problem was worrying about homosexual acts and gay marriage, I would be living an epic live devoid of any real problems at all. Since I have real problems, this is small issue to me. That does not mean I don’t care at all or that I don’t have an opinion, it’s small issue compared to most of the horrors occurring on this planet and I have plenty of flaws to fix before I can judge others.
Now my only actual issue with gay marriage is mainly the term, “marriage”. That term is taken historically and actually. The pair bond between a man and a woman who has made the ultimate commitment to one another is unique to any other kind of human relationship. It’s deeper and actual meaning can scarcely be understood by those who have not been in and endured a true marriage for a while. The level of commitment required to make it work and to be a true marriage is incomparable to anything else. It requires so much of a person that half the people who enter into it do not make it for many reasons, including, but not limited to vastly exceeding the expectation of what is required by a man and a woman to make it work. And for it, to be what it is, requires the dichotomy between an man and a woman. What each sex intrinsically brings into the relationship cannot be emulated by any other kind of human relationship. First and foremost it takes a man and a woman.
This does not mean that a same sex couple cannot pair bond. Any two humans can pair bond and be committed to one another; and there in lies the problem. Two people in a committed relationship does not a marriage make, even if they consummate the commitment with sexual acts and sex is a big part of the relationship. It may be a committed relationship, it may have romance and sex, but it’s not a marriage. You cannot emulate or fake marriage by plugging in different things and expecting it to be the same.
Bottom line, a same sex relationship is not and cannot be the same as a hetero relationship. It may have similarities, but it’s not the same thing. Similar is not ‘same’. At the end of the day a man is a man and a woman is a woman and in a relationship, that fact looms large over it. So call it something else, create your own name for it. We have had the term ‘marriage’ to describe hetero sealed relationships for millennia. People can’t just come and hi-jack the name to describe anything they want. When people say that ‘gay marriage’ waters down ‘marriage’, that is what is meant. It’s not the same as a hetero marriage. It isn’t, it wasn’t and it cannot be the same thing.
I consider something to be evil when it is done as an act of malice. By what means is the joining of two people of the same sex to share their lives with each other an act of mallice?
Furthermore, if it is a bad action, done with the intention of harming others, wouldn’t that be a conspiracy?
Do you guys actually believe that so many people are acting against society, both as couples and as a social subgroup in unison with the intention of doing harm to humanity as a whole?
I don’t. I think that they’re just trying to experience some level of social acceptance. That is probably due to my own narrow definition of evil though. I think that true evil is actually a pretty rare characteristic. More of an anomaly than a basic human trait.
1 Like
A lot of pseudoscience and nonsense here. First, if you feel the need to publicly ruminate on the removal of homosexuality from the DSM without being able to say off the top of your head exactly who Evelyn Hooker (to take one of many, many examples) was, stop talking and take a few moments to meditate on the avoidable grievousness of a life wasted as an opinionated dunce.
Second, sentences like “[heterosexuality] is the most natural state of a health [sic] person” don’t mean anything. Homosexuality, being a phenomenon well-attested across the spectrum of natural life, is by definition natural. If a naturally-occurring trait is “less natural” by virtue of its being expressed in fewer than 50 percent of individual constituents of a given population, my blue eyes are “less natural” than my brother’s brown eyes. But they aren’t: they’re merely less common.
The same goes for gibberish terms like “order.” Let’s get to the heart of the matter: penises are “supposed to” go into vaginas, right? Supposed by whom, and on what evidence do we affirm the existence of this supposition? Is it like how hair is supposed to keep our heads warm? Is a shaved head therefore a “disorderly” head, or is this all bullshit? Door number two, please.
The simple fact is this: all of this vague beating around the bush is a way of getting around the truth, which is that, in the kinds of books that feature talking snakes and Mohammed riding flying horses into the sky, gays are said to be weally weally bad. It isn’t anybody else’s fault that this sounds ludicrously silly.
Edited: Didn’t realize I had published half of this post.
You answered with your OPINION on in vitro fertiliztion but you did not answer the questions about marriage. I suspect you avoided the questions because there is a major flaw in your logic. People who can not have children can (and should) be able to be married. Therefore, your procreation requirement is not valid.
If you want to live in fantasy land where people who can procreate can get married and everybody else can get a legal union that is not “marriage” but gives them legal benefits, go right ahead. That is not reality. There is only one way a couple can be legally recognized as a couple, and that is marriage.
[quote=“kneedragger79, post:34, topic:213400”]
What is the purpose of married sex? The creation and raising of children. To perform an act that cannot fulfill its intended purpose, that action by definition and very nature is flawed and disordered. [/quote]
There is more to sex than the creation of children. I shouldn’t have to explain this. The majority of sexual acts in our society have nothing to do with creating a child. The flaws in logic are immense here. Is any sex act that does not result in a child “flawed and disordered”?? Are you going to include oral sex into your evil classification?
I’ll comment on pat below, but his approach is of reasoning and not speaking in absolutes. Can a single mom not raise a boy because she has no idea what it is like to be a male? No, again with flawed logic.
I also see you took down the “all societies that have allowed homosexuality have failed” which was the biggest blunder. There is no point in debating this further with you, as you lack any sound reasoning behind your firmly held beliefs. I feel sorry for your child if they do not fit into your narrow world view.
I don’t and will only take what he said at face value. From what he said, all non-straight people are evil.
Agreed. I fall into the camp where I literally don’t care what you do in the bedroom. That is why I found it interesting that homosexuality came up in a good/evil thread as there are much more evil things happening every day.
I don’t understand what of your requirements are associated with gender. Can a male not be feminine? Can a women not fill masculine roles?
I’m not trying to say they are the same thing. Even defining hetero sexual marriages as all the same is a terrible generalization. The problem with your argument is that there is no other legal classification for the union between people who are not child bearing. The law recognizes marriage and has specific benefits for married couples. That is why marriage has been ‘hijacked’.
I appreciate the comments pat, and realize we’re on different sides for this one. I don’t disagree with most of what you’ve said and would be interested to see if we could go back in time and create a ‘legal union’ classification, but unfortunately that is not how it was brought to the supreme court.
The technology would work if organic chemistry changes, i.e. it will never happen. Nice try to argue with a straw man though ; )