The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent
vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums
here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules
document is now in effect.
Gays and Religion: In Which We Learn That Rend != Rent
Posts
I never said it was. Hell, just look at the low numbers of lesbians who have HIV, for example.
Is it a sin to knowingly marry an infertile person?
Then churches should not conduct marriage ceremonies unless both particpants confirm that they definitely intend to have children afterwards.
Hrmmm... that's interesting. I think that the lame answer would be that nothing is impossible with God's grace.
Oh, I know all about the Church's little brand of misinformation. That certainly doesn't help the situation at all.
How do you reconcile that with a justification from societal sustainability? If the argument is that people have a moral duty to reproduce, whether or not somebody happens to be having safe sex is completely tangential to that moral duty. Its relevance is negligible.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
What does heterosexuality have to do with building a family? In what way does heterosexuality actually even play in to something like raising a child, or maintaining a household? Monogamy helps to provide economic and psychological stability (multiple partners cost more attention and resources, and kids tend to do better when they don't have different parents every other day).
I'm just going by what Poldy says.
So if a gay couple had faith that God would knock one of them up somehow they could marry and have sex without sinning?
The Church is really good at giving lame answers to complex problems.
It's worth pointing out that the "sex is for procreation" angle is applicable strictly to the Catholic faith, and the official party line in most Protestant congregations is that the Catholics are a bunch of crazies. Considering that Catholic denominations in America aren't the most vocal or populous opponents of gay marriage, this kind of argument isn't all that useful. Though I always appreciate it when someone points out just how weird Catholics are when it comes to sex.
Episcopalians seemed pretty cool, they married my brother and his wife after the Catholic church kicked him to the curb for divorcing his crazy first wife.
And yeah that's about the nicest thing I'll ever have to say about religious people so I don't think I'll be contributing much more to this thread for fear of getting infracted.
Alrighty, then.
Do they ask every heterosexual couple they conduct marriage ceremonies for if they intend to have children or not?
I would imagine that the church would point to Abraham and Sarah and say there is biblical examples for the heterosexual couple, but no such supportive example for a homosexual couple.
There isn't anyone eating sandwiches in the Bible either.
"Flip to the page that shows where the mess hall is."
Do you enjoy eating sandwiches?
If you do I can guarantee you it's a sin.
I think it's fantastically silly.
If David and Johnathan weren't doing it in the butt, I'll eat my hat.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I only eat sandwiches in hopes that it will impregnate someone.
The same part of the bible with Abraham and Sarah also says rape victims should be forced to marry their attackers. Now tell us why heterosexuality is at all relevant to building a family.
So, does Podly have a sister? :winky:
fixed
Because the gays are icky!
Of course by then we'll have Zenmormons lobbying the Imperial Senate to ban polyunions between half-humans and Three-Socket Talzakkian sexbots from Rigel XIV.
Only because Rigel XIV is an abomination.
1) Deus carnitas est.
2) Sex is a physical expression between two loving people.
3) Sex between two people of the same sex who love each other is not immoral.
That does away with the tricky "God as the third party" deal, and it opens up all sex for morality. And, likewise, people who have sex with the opposite gender, even in marriage, will have to analyze whether their sex is moral or not. I also hope that the church establishes rites for gay union, though it should definitely be lower than marriage.
because I think the church's stance on homosexuality is wrong
edit* oh
Well, I think that, in the abstract, a heterosexual family is preferable. Both a mother and a father, who raise their own children. I see nothing wrong with heterosexual marriages and families -- I support them -- but I do think that the best situation is a heterosexual family.
**oh
You made a typo but I see what you mean. Cool beans.
Pretty much.
Also keep in mind that the Church is not some monolithic, internally consistent, uniform entity. To say "The Church's position is: blahblahblah" isn't a very useful statement. It may be the position of some in the Church that blahblahblah, but there are hundreds of orders and thousands of diocese and millions of individual clergy and faithful who all have different interpretations not only of scripture, but of doctrine derived from scripture.
It's about as meaningful as claiming that there is an official "American position" on the war in Iraq. The Bush administration may technically have an official position, but that isn't necessarily consistent with the beliefs of any given American citizen, member of the US government, or even those within the White House itself. So don't make the mistake of assuming that when Rome says jump, we say how high. Rome is a political institution with its own parties and competing ideologies, and intelligent Catholics recognize that.
A Catholic /= The Catholic Church /= A Catholic Church /= The Vatican /= A Priest. So on and so forth.
Keep all that in mind.
Fucking snot-eyed spoonheads.