Sexual Relationships 
Sexual Health 
I know right off the bat that this is a contentious topic that will probably cause me to lose a lot of 'friends' if internet acquaintances can be called such. If my previous MyTakes have caused controversy and offended sensibilities, then this one is bound to take the cake. It will probably remain the undisputed, most offensive MyTake I have ever written. But in light of the culture wars and my duty not only as an Eastern Orthodox Christian, but as someone with common sense, I am compelled to take a stand even if it means effectively alienating myself from 90% of my demographic.
That said, if the tone of this Take comes off as angry, that is because it is. I am angry that in college I have to learn about HIV-positive sexual deviants like Matthew Shepard who have brainwashed my peers with LGBT rhetoric. I am angry that common sense and normality have been replaced with political correctness and insanity. But most of all I am angry that my future daughters and grandchildren are going to have to be raised in this perverse and Sodomite generation.
If you have remained with me thus far, then congratulations for not being an overly-sensitive, pansy assed college liberal. The rest of you can go cry me a river in your 'safe-spaces' for all I care. I imagine that those who will be the most offended by this article are ironically those who pride themselves on being the most 'open-minded' and 'liberal' about sexuality. In either case, my argument is simple and rests upon three topics that will be explored individually: a) the natural law, b) the role of government, and c) the disastrous results of when the two are not properly aligned
Thus my argument begins in ancient Greece, circa 400 years before the common era.
#1) From Aristotle to Aquinas: The Natural Law
The philosophy of a man who lived such a long time ago may seem irrelevant by our modern standards, as well as the topic of philosophy in general which we tend to associate only with academia. But understanding Aristotle and for that matter his greatest disciple, Thomas Aquinas, the pride of the Roman Catholic Church, is pivotal for understanding the foundation of Western thought and has enormous implications for politics and morality among other topics.
To quote Dr. Edward Feser, professor of philosophy at Pasadena City College, "Abandoning Aristotelianism, as founders of modern philosophy did, was the single greatest mistake ever made in the entire history of Western thought," (The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism).
Thus we arrive at the law of nature, or as it is more commonly known as, the natural law. Starting with Aristotle and reaching its peak with Aquinas, perhaps it would be better to start off by explaining what the natural law is not. It is not synonymous with merely occurring in nature, so check your appeals to homosexuality in the animal kingdom at the door. Nor is it an appeal to Divine Command Theory, so likewise check your Euthyphro Dilemma at the door. Rather, the natural law is a part of what older philosophers called the teleological vision. In short, it pertains to meaning, purpose, and design. It is what enables us to recognize some things as normal and other things as abnormal.
For example, a tiger being a tiger in the wild and a tiger being cruelly paraded around in a circus (pun not intended). We know this because we know the form of a tiger, that is, tiger-ness for lack of a better term. We know that a tiger has claws and fangs among other taxonomic features that make it a majestic predator belonging in the wild. More importantly, we know that a tiger is a tiger and not a fish, which in turn has its own form. For Aristotle and Aquinas, this was not arbitrary speculation but a precise and objective science. Furthermore, it was a metaphysical necessity.
To understand this, you have to understand its basic premise and the metaphysical dilemma that it sought to resolve. The basic premise is that there are four causes: a) the material cause, b) the formal cause, c) the efficient cause, and d) the final cause. The metaphysical dilemma that it sought to resolve is the question of how change is possible if something cannot come from nothing yet nothing is the only alternative to something. Aristotle resolved this by positing a distinction between potentiality and actuality--that is, what can exist and what actually exists.
For example, a table from wood. The potential is there, but it cannot actualize itself unless an external force acts upon it ("Whatever is moved is moved by another").Thus the four causes come into the play. They are the external force that transform potentiality into actuality, as in the illustration above. And it is from these four causes and the relationship between them that meaning, purpose, and design find their grounding. Thus the natural law which enables us to recognize some things as normal and other things as abnormal becomes inescapable. Hence a metaphysical necessity.
And that brings us to the elephant in the room.
Homosexuality has no basis in the natural law whatsoever.
Zip. Nada. Nothing. The fact that it occurs in nature does not make it normal anymore than the presence of tigers in circuses makes the captivity of animals who otherwise belong in the wild normal. It violates their purpose, meaning, and design. And it does not take a philosopher to recognize this fact. It just takes some basic common sense. This is true not only on the metaphysical level but even on the Darwinian level as well. Our evolutionary purpose is the propagation of our genes via sexual reproduction between a man and a woman. The form (I refrain from using the term 'design' since it implies religion) of our genitals bears witness to this basic fact.
Simply put, a penis is not a vagina and a vagina is not a penis. The meaning of both is that men are supposed to have sex with women and women are supposed to have sex with men. Thus in the words of Dr. Feser, "the very idea [of same-sex 'marriage'] is a metaphysical absurdity" akin to squaring the triangle. "It is no more up to them [the courts and people] to 'define' marriage...than it is up to them to 'define' whether the Pythagorean Theorem is true of right triangles, or whether water has the chemical structure of H20" (The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism).
The Left knows this. But they are in denial. So they try to cope with it in two ways. The first way is by denying that one or more of the four causes exist--primarily formal cause and final cause--in order to negate meaning, purpose, and design. But the problem is that they still utilize them whether they realize it or not. Again, a tiger is a tiger and not a fish. We know this only because of formal cause, because science allows us to understand the unique form of each. Furthermore, a formal cause implies a purpose or meaning. Thus a final cause becomes inevitable.
We know that the purpose of a tiger and a fish is to do whatever it is that a tiger and a fish do per zoology. The second way is by misrepresenting and/or deliberately crafting straw men of the natural law for the sole purpose of knocking them down. A common one is that it means infertile couples like the elderly are forbidden from having sex. This is false because it ignores potentiality and actuality. The potential for procreation is always there by nature of them being male and female, it is just that an external factor outside of their control (in this case, age) has prevented its actualization. The same cannot be said for same-sex 'couples,' where the potential is not even there because the very nature of their abnormal 'relationship' is contrary to it. It is wholly and unequivocally opposed to the natural law.
This has been but a crash course in Aristotle, Aquinas, and the natural law. My purpose is not to teach you philosophy but to teach you why I oppose same-sex 'marriage.' Philosophy just happens to be one component in my argument. For more information on this stuff, I would suggest reading any of Dr. Feser's books, particularly "Aquinas: A Beginner's Guide," "The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism," and "Scholastic Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction." Or just ask @ObscuredBeyond our friendly neighborhood Roman Catholic. Very smart guy.
#2) The Role of Government
Thus we move onto what Aquinas calls the positive law, that is, the 'law of the land' for lack of a better term. It means law as it pertains to government, the courts, and human institutions which most nations have at least to some extent (Somalia notwithstanding). In the United States we are a constitutional republic with a federal government divided into three branches: a) the legislature, b) the executive, and c) the judicial. On top of that, we also have various state and local level governments from city councils to governors like Jerry Brown and Arnold Schwarzenegger. It is within the context of positive law that the question arises of the role of government.
In a theocracy for example, the role of government is to uphold the precepts of a particular religion. Oftentimes the government is synonymous with the Church or other authoritative religious body. Most Islamic states like the former Ottoman Empire would be an example of this. Other times the government and authoritative religious body are separate but work in close harmony with one another. An example would be most Orthodox states like the Eastern Roman Empire and Russian Empire before the godless revolution. Long live the House of Romanov!
In either case, the role of the United States' government is pretty clear and well defined via the Declaration of Independence: "...to secure these [unalienable] rights, governments are instituted among men." That is, the role of government is to safeguard our rights. Notice it does not state to create, define, and/or 'make up' our rights, but to secure them. In order to be secured, something has to first exist. Thus our rights preexist government. And since they preexist government, they must come from somewhere else. Again the Declaration of Independence clarifies where: "the laws of nature and of nature's God." In other words, it comes from the aforementioned natural law.
Yes, you guessed it. It comes from the natural law.
In the words of Dr. James Stoner, professor of political science at Louisiana State University, "No public document gives more prominence to the idea of natural law, nor relies more crucially upon natural law as a premise, than the Declaration of Independence."
...the same natural law in which homosexuality has no basis whatsoever, and where same-sex 'marriage' is "a metaphysical absurdity" in the words of Dr. Edward Feser.
Thus we get to my main argument
Same-sex 'marriage' should NOT be legalized because it grants our government the power not only to 'secure' our rights, but to actually create and define them. Thus the natural law goes out the window and our rights become reduced to mere governmental decision which is arbitrary and subject to change.
In other words, same-sex 'marriage' undermines the very foundation of our rights as we know it.
#3) Tyranny of the Majority
A favorite book of mine is "I am Legend" by Richard Matheson. It was the inspiration not only for the Will Smith film of the same title back in 2007, but also the original 'Night of the Living Dead.' It singlehandedly created the modern zombie genre by isolating vampirism from its supernatural context. The ending of this book is terrifying not because it involves proto-zombies, but because it illustrates tyranny and the danger of when normalcy is determined not by nature but by the majority.
The protagonist Robert Neville--the last man on Earth--is executed by a new society of vampires who have found a way to stave off total infection like their reanimated counterparts, making them intelligent albeit still vampires nonetheless. What was once the monster to be feared has become the new normal while the normal has become the new monster to be feared. Why? Because in Matheson's own chilling words, "Normalcy was a majority concept, the standard of many."
Hence the danger of when the natural law is replaced with something as arbitrary as governmental decision. It means that our rights are no longer objective but subjective and prone to change depending upon the sentiments of the majority who influence the decisions our government makes. The same majority that decides to 'grant' one the freedom of speech could just as swiftly deprive it from one should they change their mind, and there is nothing one could do about it.
There is no higher, authoritative, and objective standard that one could appeal to when the majority and their government are wrong. In fact, wrong becomes right precisely because the majority and their government have decided that it is so. There is no foundation. And this is the reality we are destined for not only because of the LGBT movement's militant demand for 'marriage,' but from 'progressivism' itself which by its very nature is opposed to every and any sense of authority higher than fallacious human opinion. In other words it is a debate about the existence of Truth itself and the classical teleological vision of reality which makes purpose, meaning, and design possible, and the hollow mechanical view of the materialists which makes absurdity possible.
It is why, in their insane vision, a man can be a woman simply because he 'feels' like it and same-sex 'marriage' can be legalized, all because they dogmatically refuse to acknowledge purpose, meaning, and design despite the absurdities that their denial entails.
Well I am not drinking the Kool-Aid. A square triangle can never exist and a tiger can never be a fish. It does not matter what the majority thinks, its emotions, or how many votes it gets. The law of geometry cannot be changed. The same goes for the natural law. Neither the finest rhetoric in the world nor all of the appeals to emotion that the Left can muster will change a single iota of established scientific fact.
And I am not going to sit around and allow my rights to be undermined and reduced to mere governmental decision just because less than 5% of the population decided that the natural law is inconvenient to them. The objectivity of the natural law is absolutely essential for the security of our rights because it acts as the 'higher authority' that we can hold the government and the majority accountable to. And I am not ready to abandon it.
Some Final Thoughts...
This entire 'progressive' thought experiment is nothing but a petty act of rebellion against God and the divine. It is like younger siblings trashing the house and calling it 'progress' simply because it violates their parents' rules. Well I have been the oldest child for a while now and I can tell you that it is time to grow up and take responsibility.
This childlike rebelliousness is why the Left absolutely despises every and any source of authority beyond their own delusions, even the law of nature and objective Truth itself because it bears witness to its creator who is "the way, the truth, and the life," (John 14:6 NKJV). It would be like the fictional characters in one of my short stories having the audacity to think that he knows better than me the author who wrote him. But since the Left cannot harm God directly, they harm his creation and particularly humanity instead because it bears his image and likeness. Pathetic. St. John Chrysostom compares it to Roman citizens throwing stones at the statue of the emperor.
I have no desire to 'tolerate' the same inherently destructive, 'progressive' ideology that would just as soon throw my ideology out like yesterday's coffee grounds nor do I have any desire to 'coexist' with the same radicalized little Robespierre turds who need 'safe-spaces' because they find the very existence of a viewpoint other than their own threatening. My goal is to utilize my keen intellect and every fiber of my being to refute this 'progressive' ideology on sight and try to salvage some semblance of normality for the sake of my future descendants.
The great irony about all of this is that despite how much the Left hates objectivity and authoritative standards higher than their own, they will still have the audacity to accuse me of homophobia, intolerance, and bigotry unaware of the fact that their narrative admits no basis for such terms. It is like when atheists deny the metaphysical yet claim that we have a 'moral duty' to pursue scientific endeavors.
You cannot promote an anything-goes ideology characterized by the Manichaean notion that there is no Truth while simultaneously condemning homophobia, intolerance, and bigotry as objectively wrong. Morality loses its meaning because it is reduced to mere arbitrary opinion. Thus why should I care at all about what you think of me or the labels that you demonize me with? Does the lion think twice about hunting the zebra? Say what you want about Dr. Peter Singer, the bioethicist who argues that parents should be allowed to euthanize their disabled children, but at least he is logically consistent with his materialism.
That is the inevitable destination of the Left as the countless failed utopias, violent revolutions, and wholesale genocides since the 'Enlightenment' bear witness to. My Orthodox people encountered the Left and its product was the gulag.
But...
In Conclusion,
We cannot hate LGBT people as people no matter how much we may rightfully hate their lifestyle for the gross perversion of nature that it truly is and rightfully oppose same-sex 'marriage' for the metaphysical absurdity that it is.
In fact, since the Left which allegedly cares for the plight of LGBT people has not had the spine to speak up and say it, I the 'homophobic, intolerant, bigot' will be the first one to speak up on behalf of the LGBT community and say what should have been said a long time ago.
Radical Islam is the single greatest threat in the world to LGBT people. It is wholly and unequivocally opposed to their very existence as human beings. How and why any 'progressive' moron thought it would be a good idea to combine the two is beyond me. And the fact that the Left refuses to acknowledge this fact for what it is means that they have the blood of the 50 LGBT victims of the Orlando Shooting on their hands.
Cliche I know, but "hate the sin and not the sinner" as St. Augustine of Hippo is believed to have wrote. St. Isaac the Syrian wrote the same thing in his Ascetical Homilies, and it is from his version that I believe the underlying theology is better made known.
"Do not hate the sinner," he writes. "If for the sake of God you are moved to oppose him, weep over him. Why do you hate him? Hate his sons and pray for him, that you may imitate Christ who was not wroth with sinners, but interceded for them," (Homily 51).
Blessed Seraphim Rose above was gay, but bearing his Cross, he became a monk and battled his passions for the rest of his life. The result was that he is now recognized as a literal Saint by many Orthodox people including myself, because the grace of God was made manifest through him.
We cannot hate LGBTs because as people they are still icons made in the image and likeness of God. They have the potential to be the next Seraphim Rose. But we absolutely have to speak out against the abomination known as same-sex 'marriage' and condemn it on sight for the disastrous implications that it has for our rights. The natural law must be upheld. I do not expect to change anyone's mind, but merely to prove that there are legitimate reasons for opposing same-sex 'marriage' apart from "The Bible condemns it!" and inspire a greater sense of respect for the classic teleological vision of Aristotle and Aquinas, which has unfairly been ignored by ignorant 'analytical' philosophers for the modern materialist vision.
#SeeMyWork
What Girls & Guys Said
38 44Excellent and thought-provoking myTake. Very well written and well reasoned.
This is truly excellent! You beautifully articulated the sane view that is becoming lost during the "crazy years" period we are currently going through! By way of delusional "idiot think" rationalizations, major pillars of normalcy are being cast aside in a mad decline of decadence! We are watching society unravel around us! We now have same sex marriage actually sanctioned as "normal" by the U. S. Supreme Court! What's next? Will a person be allowed to marry a cat or a dog? Will adult sex relationships with prepubescent children become legal? We already have a situation where U. S. President Obama issued his bizarre transgender school bathroom directive, requiring that rest rooms and locker rooms no longer be separated by actual physical gender, but by the gender a person "identifies" as! These are indeed the "crazy years".
Your layout talents and commentary are far beyond GAG! You should be doing magazine articles and books! Perhaps you should even consider public speaking on the topic. Your sane view point resonates with many people. We are going far beyond "tolerance" of degeneracy. We are now being asked to EMBRACE degeneracy and approve it! Well, good luck to you and I hope your high talents sane outlook reach far and wide on other avenues! Peace!
I feel that people that hate gays are not admitting they are gay too
Yet nowhere did I write that I hate gay people and actually devoted an entire section of the article toward explaining why we cannot hate them.
Do you respect gay if he stood next to u?
Absolutely. One of my coworkers was gay. In fact, I devoted an entire section of this article to explaining why we cannot hate them even if we hate their lifestyle and have to oppose their 'marriage.'
Ok lol ahem
But the priests in catholic are gay closets but they still doing the greatest service for humanity.
Too bad. The majority lost this time. LGBT is the minority.
Aristotle was brilliant but I think they guy thought the Earth only extended to somewhere to India. Old thoughts were great but they got it wrong too. Confucius was also pretty good. "A woman must pray to her father when young, pray to her husband when married and pray to her son once her husband dies". Say stuff like that to the feminist and they might nail you to a cross like that other guy.
I wonder how it is that the majority "lost", I am heterosexual and so is my girlfriend, and all of them have been. Not once did I feel that I've lost something from acceptance/legalization of gay marriage anywhere.
@Deconstruction Lost as in they didn't get what they want. Not as in losing something you already have. A lot of people are conservative and religious so they don't like LGBT. On the other hand, LGBT is pretty minor compare to vanilla relationship.
What did they want, to restrict others from having their privilege? Well, if that sole privilege is what they lost, I am glad they have.
Fortunately however Aristotle's philosophical arguments never rested upon his science. There is a difference between metaphysical demonstration and the scientific method. The former is akin to mathematics and drawing premises from what we know to be true. The latter is empirical and rests upon evidence. Unfortunately this distinction seems to have gone over most people's heads, which is why Aquinas' arguments for God's existence are so misunderstood. They were never connected with science, rather metaphysical premises that he believed to be true.
man, if a gay guy or gay woman wants to be as miserable as the rest of the straight population by getting married. who are we to deny them such a right?
Because it undermines the very fabric of rights as we know it.
lol whatever, man. People thought free the black people, and giving the black people of the USA rights would "undermine the fabric of society," but how many years later? we clearly see this ain't the case
Interesting take indeed, with point ! couldn't you say that marriage isn't natural and would you say it's wrong to have sex without the purpose of procreation because at that time it's pointless and can be actualized and is in their control. I mean honestly who cares if on a philosophical level it's pointless if anything that makes it good I mean it doesn't affect anything so why even complain?
Thank you for the compliment. Marriage legitimizes that which already exists via the natural law so there certainly is a connection. As for sex without the purpose of procreation, the traditional view as espoused by Catholic moral theologians is that it is an abomination. Clearly I do not agree with this thinking. It is my view that it is natural because it reinforces a union which is inherently natural and may lead to reproduction.
I kind of get what you mean I still feel like marriage isn't needed to legitimise anything. What would you say about those who purposefully get like vasectomies so there's no chance.
I have to agree that homosexuality is unnatural. That's a fact. It goes against our intended nature. But cars are also unnatural. Sex with contraceptives or any reason but reproduction. Smartphones and TVs and acting and women shaving our legs, armpits, pubes and a million and one other things we do. All unnatural.
Most of the things that we do that make up our society are unnatural and don't serve the intended purpose of living, breathing, eating, sleeping, fucking, making waste and dying.
What says us apart as human beings is the way in which we set ourselves above the laws of nature. We make the rules. We choose our evolutionary path. And we often times say "fuck you" to our pre established biological purpose.
We live for ourselves. If we don't want kids, we don't have them. We make our meaning and purpose. Drawing the line at gay people is counterintuitive and bigoted.
*sets
I agree with your first statement that homosexuality is unnatural and violates our intended nature. But I disagree with you on cars and technology. There is nothing about those things which frustrates another natural process and/or uses something outside of its nature. As for sex and contraception, that is admittedly a gray area in this philosophy. The traditional view is extremely rigid. But it is my view that non-reproductive sex between heterosexual people is permissible because it can strengthen a relationship which is inherently natural and may inevitably lead to reproduction, whereas a same-sex one will never be natural nor can the act between them ever serve a natural function.
I don't know if you want to take the Darwinian approach. A lot of people get left behind with that. Not just gays. I can agree with the premise that homosexuality goes against our biological nature but I don't think it's wrong. Just like I don't think it's wrong if I it or any woman chooses to have sex and never have kids EVER.
comparing homosexuality to cars. love it
First, we have to look at what is to be homosexual vs. being straight. There is neurological evidence to support that sexuality exists in the brain.
brainblogger.com/.../
Now, if we take into account that homosexuality is in fact, not a choice as neurology has definitely shown... Then we are faced with the fact that homosexuality is a physiological norm and not an aberration. And as such, as beings with higher neurological capacity than most animals on the planet, it is fair to say the could be an emergent phenomena based on this type of chemical and synaptic organization of the human brain.
We can also see it in other higher animals, despite the attempt to kick animal homosexuality out the door.
news.nationalgeographic.com/.../...ayanimal_2.html
www.huffingtonpost.com/.../...nding_n_6218406.html
And before you respond, yes. I understand there are plenty of studies to the contrary.
But ultimately, homosexuality is here, it is here to stay, and no amount of talk, legislation, disagreeing will make them go away. Genocide will not end it. They will continue to be born.
The only thing you can really do, is decide to not interact with gays. But I'm pretty sure 10-20% of people you will interact with will be gay whether you know it or not. And maybe as much as 37% of the population have had homosexual activities of one form for or another.
And if you REALLY want to get down to it... 'gawd' created gays right next to non-gays. Therefore, 'an omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient' couldn't possibly have made a mistake. Because if 'gawd' did make a mistake in creating homosexuality, then that begs the question of what other mistakes could 'gawd' have made? Then invariably the argument goes immediately to, if gawd made a mistake, then gawd must not be those things. This is all pretty basic rhetoric.
But if you come out against gays because of gawd, then you are basically saying gawd made a mistake and your personal beliefs therefore must be of higher perceived moral character than the being that created them.
Except nowhere in my argument did I assert that homosexuality is a choice nor was that a premise. In fact the entire issue was skirted since it is not relevant to my argument at all. I reiterate, occurring in nature is not the same as being natural. So even if homosexuality occurs in nature, that does not make it natural anymore than when animals behave outside of their normal pattern of behavior due to human encroachment or deforestation. In other words, it is a perversion. I am not opposed to the existence of gay people nor do I care what they do. I only care about them forcing the law to recognize a metaphysical absurdity and thus threaten the very foundation of my rights as we know it, because the natural law which is objective becomes replaced with human opinion which is arbitrary.
Natural law? Unfortunately 'natural law' is subjective to the opinion of the person speaking about it. For example, it was believed that the Earth was flat. And it was also believed that the the sun went around the Earth. It also was considered natural law to not breed with other ethnicity, and that there were sub species of humans which inevitably produced slaves. There is a new theory that cancer exists as a means to stop mutations from spreading by removing the cancer carrier from the gene pool? Perhaps homosexuality exists for the same purpose. I mean, until *very* recently, homosexuality couldn't produce a child from the genetic parents of a homosexual couple. They would have had to have had an introduction of outside genetics to produce an offspring. I submit that what we interpret as 'Natural Law' is simply an incomplete (and sometimes purposely perverted) understanding of Nature due to personal bias and in many cases, biases passed down and taught by religion.
Yeah good enough for me I'm not a fan of it anyway.
Thank you. Glad to hear that.
Mhmm.
You do know they'd still be gay even if marriage wasn't legal right?
That's kind of how it became legal in the first place. Dude it DOES NOT affect you that other people are getting married. You sound like any other run of the mill autocrat in history. Homosexuality fits perfectly into nature. It helps with population control. To compare it to captive animals is not even remotely similar by any stretch of logic.
This is not how the metaphysical cause works. You are bastardizing it. You're just using non sequitur's.
Rofl @ 99percentangel. Pretending to reply me, but blocking me right away. Toppest of keks.
Anyway. Good MyTake. I like your reasoning and I was learning something new along the way. Unfortunately most people will not grasp your argument around here.
And if you are at ancient greeks, it is interesting that they also had a high level of homosexuality during their time. My theory is that it is something that occurs in times of high amounts of decadence.
Thank you friend for the compliment. I agree. It seems like most people stopped reading after the first section without continuing and then seeing as it connects to my main argument, which was actually about government and legality.
Awesome post! :)
Again, thank you :) It is always gladdening to see that someone agrees.
*shrugs shoulders* you make a good case but too bad the whole United States already legalized same sex marriage and I'm glad they did because love is love.
What about when a man loves a little girl and has sex with her, is that love? What about a man and an infant? How about a man and a dog? Is that love, too?
@thetundrawolf that's not the kind of love in talking about. If two people are both of age or at least the same age love each other it shouldn't matter what gender they are.
@thetundrawolf I'm talking about gay marriage here not that.
@thetundrawolf don't twist my words.
I'm not twisting anything. You said love is love. I called you out on it. Now you're getting defensive, because you are wrong.
I'm sorry i have no choice but to downgrade you to maybe 15% angel.
@thetundrawolf yes love is love in the sense that it doesn't matter what gender you are. Sure love isn't exactly right every time when you bring up pedophilla, but that's not what I meant by love is love and I think you knew that. by the way a person can love their pets in a none sexual way and there is nothing wrong with that. And lol thanks for the joke about my username. It's just a username lmao.
@thetundrawolf yes a old man loving a little girl is wrong. It's repulsing but like I said I wasn't talking about that.
@thetundrawolf I'm guessing you're maybe homophobic and that's fine that's you're belief but I personally think there's nothing wrong with loving the same gender. That's all I have to say. If you disagree that's fine that's your belief and I don't feel like arguing about it.
@99percentangel Wow this dude really was trying to twist it XD.
@MindYourEyes ikr lol
@MindYourEyes Love is love except when it isn't love? I exposed her hypocrisy, and yours too, apparently.
@thetundrawolf dude just stop already that wasn't what I was talking about and you know it.
@99percentangel this dude is too much! You didn't even have to write pages n pages and you made perfect sense. So great answer !. 😊
@MindYourEyes thank you
@thetundrawolf Love is love, as in two people who are IN love. Not one person violating a child who does not want that "love", or an animal being forced (consenting) into sexual acts by a creature of another species. Stop trying to be a dick to get people riled up.
@thetundrawolf if a guy rapes a girl, even if he loves her, he goes to prison. A guy rapes a guy, even if he loves him, goes to prison. Same for the infant, same for the dog. What point were you trying to make exactly?
@thetundrawolf The little girl is unable to give willful consent thus that's automatically RAPE. Same for the infant. (I don't care really about the dog as long as there's no cruelty involved)
@Aetumn The point he was trying to make is that the opinion owner said same sex marriage is justified because love is love. But that argument is a logical fallacy and he mocked it by using different examples where all peoples moral compasses go up the roof.
@FakeName123 I get the point he was trying to make but like I said love is love in the sense that it doesn't matter what gender you are as long as you both are legal. He was just trying to twist my words I never mentioned anything about how pedophilla was okay, and I never said anything about how dogs and humans are allowed to have a sexual relationship because that's wrong but I meant that it doesn't matter what gender you are as long as you both are legal it doesn't matter what gender you are because love is love.
Strawman, strawman everywhere.
@FakeName123 love is love in the sense that if the love is reciprocal (this cannot apply to an infant or animal by law), then who cares who the two individuals are. I don't see the problem with that statement.
@Aetumn yessss thank you.
I will still devote my life toward working to repeal that disastrous decision and the way I see it, lust is lust.
I agree with @thetundrawolf. The argument that "love is love" can be applied to anything: pedophilia, beastiality, incest, necrophilia... Every deviant form of the word. So to say gay people can marry because "love is love", then you can't deny a man the right to marry a dog or an adult the right to marry a child because love is love. Assume a small child claims she loves an adult man, and he her. Is that to be legalized as well? What about a brother and sister who claim they love each other (despite incest being illegal and dangerous for reproduction, objectively speaking)? Can they get married because their love is love and MUST be accepted? I agree your argument is quite flawed. If you want to use the argument that love is love, then you must be prepared to accept what you believe to be "love" in ALL forms. You can't pick and choose.
@OP why do you care so much about what other people do? If they want to love someone who is of the same gender or opposite gender let them. Gays have just as any right to get married that straight people have. Even though you seem to think they don't through your mytake. By the way it's kinda of a waste of time to making gay marriage illegal again. It's already legal and I don't see that changing anytime soon. But okay.
@LittleFinch *sigh* That argument has already been closed. Stop trying to create drama. Jeez.
Great take. Very informative. Your should spread this past this site. People are ignorant to the fact that policy decisions follow natural order but the line can be blurred and erased by social movements. The ruling class trying to appease the masses and keep them in control to prevent revolution? Gay marraige is an affront to every natural system. Its amazing things have to be laid out like this. Common sense, which isn't so common now, should tell them whats right and wrong. All the jargon put out there in the world to muddy the waters has totally camouflaged tbe most basic points. People are blindfolded in mazes now just trying to live basic lives
Thank you friend. I appreciate the kind words. This Take was actually shared on the Facebook page but the Taliban of "Tolerance" bullied them into removing it for political correctness.
More erosion of our freedom of speech. The west is just like nazi germany now. Globalisation is fascism. There should be no group, powerful or not, who should get the right to tell the masses what to say or like or dislike. The people should get together and make their own media and keep it free from corporate control
Well written but neither 'Natural Law' nor 'God' have been proven to exist.
Not convincing thus.
"In other words, same-sex 'marriage' undermines the very foundation of our rights as we know it."
Your rights are NOT concerned.
You don't like homosexuality or gay marriage? OK
Don't have homosexual relationships or a gay marriage if you don't want these. I don't want them either but I don't try to stop others from having homosexual relationships or a gay marriage.
They like it that way? Good for them.
You want to abstain? Good for you. I abstain too.
You write "Radical Islam is the single greatest threat in the world to LGBT people." You call people defending the right to gay marriage 'morons', and yet you defend the Muslim POV about gay marriage. (without saying it) Isn't that a bit contradictory?
The Islamic view is not merely that gays should not marry but that they should be exterminated.
Not only Islamists, Matt McLaughlin too: www.theguardian.com/.../california-lawyer-shoot-the-gays-proposal-2016-ballot
And American anti gay activist Scott Douglas Lively went to Uganda to convince the govt there to institute death penalty for LGTB people.
You're in bad company.
Their is no such thing as "Radical Islam", they are not even following Islam or even Muslim anymore, There will come a people from the east who recite the Quran but it will not go beyond their throats. They will pass through the religion just as an arrow pierces its target and they will not return to it just as the arrow does not return to the bow. The are Khawarij, literally "Those who Went Out" they left Islam. The Kharijite ideology is based upon the following evil tenets: 1. Declaring Muslims to be unbelievers. 2. Rejecting lawful obedience to the rulers. 3. Justifying violence against Muslims and innocent people. They also kill more Muslims the non-Muslims in their countries. The countries that are war torn cause of the US.
Thomas Aquinas proved the existence of God. If you respond by criticizing the premise that everything that exists has a cause, then I will know that you have not truly studied Aquinas apart from the misunderstandings of him by Protestants and atheists. Aquinas never made that premise. Moving on however, then if the natural law does not exist, do you deny that our genitals have a clear form and serve a clear evolutionary purpose? Because that is really all the natural law is about. It is not abstract philosophizing but merely the articulation of what we know to be true. What is more surprising is the clever ways that the Left will try to ignore such a self-evident truth about biology.
Aquinas proved nothing.
SHHH!! You'll destroy their illusion!!!
In all seriousness though, great mytake 👍
Why does it bother you?
Did you read the main argument? Because of the implications it has for our rights.
I love my boyfriend and i plan on marrying him. :D
#GayPride
Aw, thats sweet.
Don't worry about what anyone says. Love who you love :)
Lust won.
what does that even mean?
As an atheist I'm also against same sex marriage.
While I don't believe homosexuality is sinful I don't support same sex marriage. I don't believe society should redefine marriage for the sake of 2% of the total population.
I don't plan on getting married myself but I do respect the tradition. Marriage is between one man and one woman.
So you're against same sex marriage? OK, don't have one. I'm against marriage with a much younger adult woman. Thus I won't marry one. Do the same: abstain.
@jacquesvol No. Marriage should not be redefined.
The marriage you want is available to you. It's within hand reach. Just say a clear 'Yes' in presence of the person authorized to conclude marriages and sign.
@jacquesvol I'm talking about society as a whole not just for myself. For society, marriage is between one man and one woman. I'm not going to change my mind about this.
By telling consenting adults who they should prefer to love for the greater benefit of society? They're consenting adults. Lots of people dreamed about telling others what they should do and feel. Many failed.
@jacquesvol They can have sex and love all they want but they can't have marriage. Marriage is exclusive for one man and one woman.
@kavyareddy2 Says who?
@jacquesvol Says me and many other people who believe in marriage between one man and one woman.
Appeal to authority or Argumentum ad populum? ;)
@jacquesvol The natural law. The formal and final cause of human genitals, our evolutionary purpose. Marriage is merely society's legitimization of this reality which is already true via the natural law.
The natural law is just philosophical terminology. Nothing scientific (or legal) about it.
@jacquesvol I see no reason to change the definition of marriage.
You can keep yours. Nobody stops you.
@jacquesvol It's not about me specifically. I see no reason for society to change its definition of marriage.
So many things change: 60 years ago being pregnant and not married excluded people from society , Some talked about 'bastard children', about 'born out of wedlock', they would be shunned in school. Interracial marriages were almost nonexistent. Just accept society changes.
@jacquesvol So you deny the words of the political science professor in the article and deny that our genitals have a clear form and evolutionary purpose for sexual reproduction to pass on our genes? Because that is essentially what the natural law is. It is not abstract philosophizing but rather the articulation of common sense, what we already observe. The Left is making this more complex than it needs to be.
Damn bro, you went off the deep end there. Come back to shore.
But while we're on the topic of form, design, and purpose, what are your thoughts on oral and anal sex between a man and a woman? Surely, we can both agree that a mouth and an anus are not a vagina yet guys gleefully drop their spunk into these orifices as if they were one. So, is heterosexual oral and anal sex an abomination because it goes against the 'natural law' or would you be first in line to splooge on the tongue of some hotty? Your thoughts on this please.
This is actually a gray area. The strict interpretation as espoused by Catholic moral theologians is that such acts are prohibited. I however disagree with this position, and believe rather that they are permissible between men and women since they reinforce the strength of a relationship which is natural.
But they're not being used for what they're meant for. It just seems like you're cherry picking for your own self interest.
lmao