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 44Homosexuality in others is in no way harmful to you personally, get your head our of your ass. Thank God no is has given you power and that you are a minority.
Except if you had actually read until the main argument, you would see that it DOES affect me as well as every American by threatening the foundation of our rights. The natural law which is objective and the higher authority becomes replaced with governmental decision which is arbitrary and subject to change.
Oh yes two people of the same sex being allowed to love each other is the doom of humanity. Get over yourself you entitled prick. Who cares about the natural law? There are homosexual animals, too, so clearly it's not just a man made invention. The world is over populated as it is, maybe the homosexuals will take care of some of the children heterosexuals have bred and trashed.
The ancient Greeks were gay and worshiped gods that are way more awesome than that piece of shit from Abrahamic mythology. Marraige is a social construct and falls into the same trap as that what you argue for gays. This argument has little substance despite the big words. Any argument using the bible or adrahamjc mythology as a reference is already flawed.
I'm not gay but I love anything that pisses off Anybody that is into Abrahamic mythology. Go gays!!
Except I never appealed to Abrahamic religion or theology in my main argument, only in my final thoughts which were unconnected with the former. Marriage is the legitimization of that which already exists via the natural law. Finally, both Plato and Aristotle were opposed to homosexuality.
There's nothing wrong with gay people😊 I think you're wrong
Well it's already legalized. Too bad. :P
Congress is currently trying to overturn it.
@babylips14 bet it won't pass. 👌
Lmao this guy is late 😂
@sixnineanon late to the party
Doesn't make it right or mean that I cannot fight to repeal it.
That's a big waste of time
@sixnineanon As with every tremendous movement in history, there were those who told the leaders "you're wasting your time." If one has the support for his cause, the courage to see it through, and the determination to have that realized, then it can became a reality.
*become. Excuse the typing error, please, it's difficult to type around a broken phone screen.
@sixnineanon I don't think they would overturn it anyway.
I'm so tired of people being sore losers and always interjecting religion into their arguments.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlhVh5GqU-8To me any use of the Bible to justify a belief makes that belief invalid since the person is simply taking a quote from a 3000 year old book that was designed for a different time by different people.
The communists you hate and I do too were actually against homosexuality. In the Soviet Union for example homosexuality was a crime.
Now onto same-sex marriage.
I oppose it. Not because the Torah, Bible or Qu'ran told me so or because they're sexual deviants; no my objection comes down to two simple points.
1. The definition of marriage.
I've used the video below many times here on GAG because I think it clearly articulates my perspective.
If gays want to live together in a quasi-marriage they should have every right to do so but only if they give it a separate name and have their own traditions instead of copy pasting what straight couples are doing.
2. Marriage is a private affair the government shouldn't be involved.
The fact that our taxes go towards family benefits is ridiculous. Why should my tax dollars be given to someone just because they have a kid or are married?
The government shouldn't even have the authority to ban one union or another it should be up to the individuals. At one point interracial marriages was illegal, simply because a bunch of racists didn't want people marrying outside their race.
Did you follow the post past the first section? The point was not natural law rather the natural law was merely one component in my argument which was actually similar to yours: namely, definitions and the implications it has for our rights when government gains the power to define things. The natural was merely my objective standard.
Interracial marriages is not the same as same sex marriages. Race is a Social Concept, Not a Scientific One, the racial divide was started by white people cause they think that they are superior to everyone else.
@PrinceOfCrows Race is biological. Blacks, Whites, Asians and e. t. c. are different from each other. Each race has their good and bad qualities, for example Black people tend to be more athletic than Whites, while Whites are less likely to be in prison than Blacks. No race is better than another. White supremacists like to think that the progress achieved by Whites makes them superior but I'd argue that if I had to choose a superior race it would be Asians. Just look at China, South Korea and Japan and you'll see that they're far more developed than we are. They're not perfect, no one is and placing any group on a pedestal only leads to conflict.
If race is biological, how can DNA tell that, people in all regions of the world, Wells and colleagues concluded that all humans alive today are descended from a single African man. It is mostly in the US you find that most people of color are in prison, white people get a free mentally ill card.
@PrinceOfCrows What about genetic difference between races with some being more likely to get certain diseases than others?
Why do you think blood donations are separated by race?
https://www.economist.com/node/6795348
Not just the US. In Canada Blacks and Native Americans are the majority in prisons.
I am not from Canada, so I did not know that. You can have genetic difference, that has to do with your ancestry for that set of people, also diet and exercise also have factors in to. I don't read or trust the economist cause they tend to lie or state untrue facts.
@PrinceOfCrows The Economist is a highly reputable source of information but ok I'll give you a couple of other links.
time.com/.../
physanth.org/.../
www.wsj.com/.../nicholas-wade-race-has-a-biological-basis-racism-does-not-1403476865
I believe you, I just wanted to know why everyone can be traced back to single African man.
@PrinceOfCrows Who knows? Maybe one day we will learn how we evolved from a tribe in Kenya to what we are today.
I don't believe in evolution, they have yet to find the missing link and human came from apes. Human and apes would be able to reproduce cause we have same genus but of different species. But their are no human apes hybrid, human sperm and an ape egg is always sterile. Their is a a hypothetical chimpanzee/human hybrid, but that is not proof.
@PrinceOfCrows WOW just wow you don't understand how evolution works.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4S2qJboi4I
If we came from them we would have the same genus but of different species, able to have a hybrid offspring. Like Liger, Tigon, Coywolf, or Grolar Bear. Evolution is not real, people are not from apes.
@PrinceOfCrows We share about 90% of our genetic code with apes. The evidence is there. We evolved over millions of years to where we are today and will continue to evolve or devolve depending on our environment. Do they not teach you about evolution in American schools? It's basic knowledge that you can't deny, the equivalent to which would be denying that we live in a heliocentric solar system.
Very good take with very good arguments my man.
I especially like the concept of " hate the sin, not the sinner". I can totally relate to that. While its hard ( actually for me its impossible) to do that in case of a rapist or a killer, in homosexuality thats a case for me. I have no problem with gay or bi people. But gay sex to me is just repulsive and dirty. It disguists me. I just choose to ignore that, i haven't been around any gay people, in my knowledge ( though a few, i have doubted their heterosexuality) and if i would, i wouldn't dislike them just for what they do behind closed doors.
I dont really like the muslim bashing that i hve seen on this site ( not you, just general) i know a lot of muslims and they are good people. Its hard to see that for many people , muslim is synonimous with terrorist.
Thank you. I appreciate the kind words.
You're right, you will lose friends and people will now view you as being retarded.
Marriage is a legal thing, has nothing to do with a specific religion because all religions across the planet get married and most important of all it's none of your goddamn business who gets married to whom.
It is not some natural law, it was a law invoked by humans for humans to control their actions and behaviors, in this day in age it is no longer needed.
No, rather, the natural law was merely the systematic articulation of what we already observed and knew to be true via common sense. What is more surprising is the way that the Left is trying to ignore these basic truths to justify abnormalities like transgenderism and homosexuality. Are you going to tell me that penises and vaginas do not have a clear form and evolutionary purpose?
Nope, im not going to sit here and try to change your beliefs. good luck.
So after the tragic shooting in orlando your going to put this shit up?
But it is perfectly acceptable for the Left to exploit this as an opportunity to push their gun-control agenda?
what gun control agenda. We just want people to be safe.
You "just want people to be safe", yet you import more of the people doing the killing, and disarm the rest of us. Yah, that's going to work out well.
@Curmudgeon Dude he was born in New York. He was an American citizen. We aren't disarming anyone bud.
His parents were not, and by all investigative accounts, are jihad sympathizers and hence quite accomplices. Ditto for the cretins in Boston, and the San Bernadino ones were actual immigrants.
@Curmudgeon yea bro his parents didn't shoot up the club.
who the fuck cares? it does not impact you in any way, shape, or form. let
let people live their lives the way they want to. if two legal adults are in love, who cares what their gender is? they're happy, let them be. you don't have to agree with it, but stay out of It.
Except if you had read until the main argument, you would see why it DOES impact me and the very foundation of every American's rights.
I read it and it's still stupid. sorry
The book I am legend, the ending narration where Neville Says, "I am legend" Was because he was killing sentient creatures in the form of partial vampires, that essentially he is not a legend like King Arthur but Rather like Vlad the Impaler, That he was in a sense the bad guy without realizing it.
So in a sense its not tryanny of the Majority but rather it is essentially the actions of a lone wolf terrorist. Thats my interpation at least.
Now onto my rebuttal, "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. "
Okay, so that means the following sex acts are out as well,
1. Blowjob
2. Handjob
3. Footjob
*The human race needs more variety in how they name things.
4. Mutual Masturbation
5. Tittyfucking'
6. Fingering
All those can be performed with opposite sex partners, none of them have reproductive purposes.
Now since you bring up evolution, Lets talk about nerve endings and erogenous zones, The Anus, specifically inside the anus against the prostate. That is a product of evolution, It is a pleasurable sensation for men, and the fact is that being penetrated there is the best way to achive this. Now I'm straight so that involves sticking either a finger or something inorganic in there but Gay people can stimulate that be anal sex. So in effect, Evolution already does account for homosexuality.
"Our evolutionary purpose is the propagation of our genes via sexual reproduction between a man and a woman." Ironically thats a very Dawkinsian way of looking at it considering his book the selfish gene (And before you act like I actually like the man, I do not, I hate him, he is just as extreme as the people he opposes, plus I'm not an atheist nor an agnostic nor a humanist)
That in a sense implies that our only purpose is to make sure our genes survive, that life is not about living it, its not about finding something that makes you happy, nor is it about falling in love, nor is finding your own spiritual views but rather that its soley about biology. Essentially Genetic Destiny. That is a very horrific and depressing concept to most people. It would also mean the at couples should stop having sex once the woman is no longer of reproductive age and old people sex may be gross but as long as its behind closed doors I don't give a fuck.
"Long live the House of Romanov!"
Lastly, the czars were tryants
Those actions can however strengthen a relationship which is natural and thus lead to reproduction down the line, whereas the same cannot be said for homosexuality since the union is unnatural by its very nature (pun not intended). You said it yourself that this zone is not the anus itself but merely that the anus is the best way of reaching it, so I believe that connecting it to anal sex is an extrapolation. Furthermore we know that it does contribute to the propagation of our genes in any way whatsoever, so at best we have to leave it as an anatomical anomaly. I likewise disagree with Genetic Destiny and the rigid view espoused by the materialists. But for the sake of argument I only appealed to that which is empirical and relevant to the debate. I do not believe you need to appeal to anything higher as far as this topic is concerned. Kudos to you for realizing that atheistic materialism admits no room for anything higher than Genetic Destiny.
Why does nobody bring up STD's, or that humans and animals are much healthier emotionally/physically when monogamous? Why/how do new strains of infectious bacteria come into existence? If STD's are ANYthing like common viruses, then it all becomes very clear. Pathogens 'must' steal from larger organisms - feeding off of them, and proliferating temporarily in secret, so that their mutated offspring get a chance to leap to other host organisms. STD's pass between creatures exclusively through sexual contact, so if you only have sex with a single mate, you won't be giving STDs a chance to proliferate, develop, adapt, or grow. Sexual promiscuity is ethically wrong; talk about an inconvenient truth. ;)
STDs can be naturally eradicated, simply through strict societal adherence to the family unit. Those same STDs come back though, as soon as sluttiness sets in. It's... It's... It's almost like multiple sexual partners causes a mutation of natural bacteria present in the body, turning it into STDs! Also, to say it's natural to have homo sex because it's uniquely pleasurable... is just dumb. fecal bacteria is harmful, DUH! Many narcotics also feel good, but destroy the body.
Hmmm...
1. The Thomist teleological vision includes the idea that the final form of humans is to reproduce to carry on the species (i. e., long term survival). This is in line with Aristotle's Four Causes at an elementary level, but most modern philosophers (including the Founding Fathers of the United States) interpret the basis of Aristotelean natural law to be *of man* rather than in a strict biological sense. That is, humans have other final forms that explain our existence as a species than simple evolutionary survival.
2. Aquinas said sex must be generative (it must produce offspring) in order to be considered morally just, flowing from the idea that the final form for humans is reproduction. He acknowledged, but glossed over the idea of other final forms by saying that sex for the purpose of demonstrating love can be moral. A strict interpretation means no form of sex that isn't aimed at reproduction is moral, including but not limited to oral sex, masturbation, or use of contraceptives, or sex with someone who is infertile/sterile.
3. Evolutionary biology is the only scientific discipline (including the social sciences) that does not use the Baconian method, which only incorporates the material and efficient causes. This is due to the fact that the concept of reproduction is inherently teleological in nature. So, outside of biology (i. e., political science), the Thomist conclusion is baseless.
4. The Declaration of Independence, and the concept of natural law in political science and jurisprudence, is based on the Greek interpretation of natural law, not the Thomist view. This is made very clear in both Aristotle's Ethics and the Federalist Papers. Thinking otherwise shows a lack of familiarity with both.
5. While you presented the church's position on this quite well, it remains just that - the political position of a church. Several hundred years of philosophical thought has eclipsed this way of thinking - perhaps next time you could include that into your analysis.
Hello friend. 1) I would likewise agree that humans possess more final forms than just reproduction. But as far as marriage is concerned, I believe that is the only (or at least most) relevant form. 2) I am fully aware of this, though I personally disagree with it. I believe that non-procreative sex can be justified since it reinforces a union which is natural, whereas homosexuality by its very nature (pun not intended) is intrinsically unnatural. 3) I disagree. I believe that scientists use all four causes in more ways than they realize. But for the sake of argument, it is irrelevant since evolutionary biology is the only scientific discipline relevant to my case. 4) Except the Greek view also condemned homosexuality for the same reason. See "The Nicomachean Ethics." Thus the distinction is irrelevant. 5) Thank you, but I believe that most philosophers have merely forgotten about the natural law opposed to actually debunked it. Misunderstandings are passing for fact, even in academia.
commentphotos.com/.../...Photos.com_1392063544.jpg
Thank you :)
Just let same sex people stay in live in relationships. Trust me, the divorce and alimony settlements for the ending of a same sex marriages would confuse the fuck out of the lawyers...
I agree. I have no problem with them living together and doing what they want. I just do not want them getting 'married' because of the threat it poses to the very foundation of our rights.
Marriage is about relationships, not about procreation. It is not natural for a woman and man to have sex, and the woman does not get pregnant. It is not in nature that you must be arranged in a social bond before your bodies are allowed to produce offspring. You will impregnant a woman no matter if you are married or not. A woman will get pregnant no matter whose seed enters her body. She conceive the moment her body reaches maturity. That is natural law. The fact that as long as the sperm enters the womans body, and is able to fertilize her egg, is the natural order of things. In fact it is not natural for one sex to be bound to another sex in a monogamy. Human beings are basically the only species that practices this social bondage. In the natural world it is often the male species spreading their seed to awaiting females who find their mates with strong seed for proper children. That is natural law.
Humans on the other hand do not follow natural law, they tend transcend the natural world. If we do not we would not have had our achievements the way have them today. Speaking of philosophy, science, and any form of teaching. In fact even in the bible though there were husband and wife, many times these nobles, or couples, often had concubines, and lovers on the side. With children as the outcome. One noted story is how Abraham fathered Ishmael from his wife's handmaid Hagar. This man was to be the patriach of the Islamics. But it was Isaac a boy born of Abrahams wife, Sarah, who was said to be barren. This boy was said to be favored by God, and the patriarch of the Jews. So it said here that he still bore children from another woman, and not his wife. In fact it is mentioned in the bible that Jesus says that what God has brought together, let no man put asunder. Yet he also cares about all mena and women. In fact if two people are brought together to be bonded together in a social union, or bond, then they should do so in order to prevent possible diseases, and uphold a certain righteousness in the promise of the act in bondage. By doing this can we all live in harmony and prevent adulterations of the human race. But are we all ready for the next step in acceptance, and evolutionary step in our social existance.
Fuck this annoying clickbait contest. Whoever came up with it should be fired.
I agree that it lacks integrity and was a lousy standard to base a contest off of.
This take is absolutely great. Well done.
Thank you. I appreciate that. Please share it so I can win this contest. The Facebook page removed it because butthurt liberals bullied them.
You go on as if it is not already legal for a homosexual couple to get married which it is.
Doesn't mean I have to agree with it though, or that I cannot work to repeal it.
I dont see any reason to be against same sex marriage, if you want to marry a girl you can do it but why shouldn't I be able to do it too?
Because of the implications it has for our rights by replacing the natural law with something as arbitrary and shaky as governmental decision. Did you even make it to the main argument?
I was giving my opinion
You're butthurt because the world no longer fits your sexist and homophobic views.