Motivation matters, and moral means to that end must be used. How is that any different from utilizing the knowledge that condoms are extremely effective in preventing pregnancy? Or the knowledge that hormones—totally natural—are the reason behind this, and by manipulating hormones—with natural substances—we can have more effective contraception? I even know of a woman with a tubal ligation getting pregnant!
We modern humans seem to be too clever by half. Contraception use is promoted in order to enhance the sex life of the partners Oh, by the way. Did you know that one of the side effects of hormonal contraceptives is decreased libido?
- Today's Paper - New York Times?
- The Ten Best Gay Bars in St. Louis.
- 240 Weed Edible Recipes Because F*ck It, Let’s Get High.
- The Peaceable Man?
- Memory: A Philosophical Study.
- Search form.
- Thursday, May 17, 2012.
Women on contraceptives are expected to be sexually available at any time. If the woman is unmarried, she is expected to be sexually available to any man who demands it. Also, those pills come with some pretty nasty side effects, such as stroke, pulmonary emboli or DVTs clots in the lungs or deep veins in the body. Then man is trained not to see his wife as just another means of satisfying his sexual craving in other words, his equal.
Not a masturbation tool. For example, we also have the knowledge to inflict total and completely indiscriminate devastation through the use of nuclear weapons. Since Hiroshima, we know the horrors that nuclear weapons produce, not only at the moment of detonation, but the lingering effects years and generations down the line. None of those effects were positive.
This same thing is now becoming apparent with the longtime use of contraceptives. Contraceptives are being proven carcinogenic again and again. Just look on WebMD. These instances of younger breast cancer patients has risen alongside the common usage of the poison pills known as contraceptives.
The answer is no. Scientific knowledge without rational, moral guidance is no benefit to mankind. History shows us this again and again. The point is moot, anyway. The point of my original post was not the efficacy of condoms; they were merely an example used to illustrate a point. Also, note the top two methods in that table—5 in couples would get pregnant over the course of a year. Not bad, eh? And really. These are absolutely and completely unbelievable, and I would my own foot if they were anything but outright fabrications.
To try and apply such a stupid generalization to the male populace at large is at best insulting and at worst dangerous. If these are the only kind of men that you know, you might try finding some other men. Those are your words, not mine. Remember that. Neither of us is religious at all, and we use contraceptives. We have sex when we want to, not just when one of us wants it. I never made the claim that knowledge of a thing justifies its actualization. The entire first part of your paragraph is nothing more than a straw man argument. I must admit, my favorite part is when you dismiss the coincidence of your made up correlation—clearly, you know nothing of science, and do not even have the tools to make such a dismissal.
Hitler frequently referenced what the Jews had done to Jesus as justification for his plans and eventual actions. You obviously feel strongly about this topic since you have responded to many, many comments.
- Also, does a vasectomy put the damper on a guy's sex drive?.
- (Book) Soup of the Month | Book Soup;
- Food Recipes on | Recipes | Soup, Soup recipes, Dinner recipes.
I disagree with you, but do not want to argue with you. I do want you to know that the World Health Organization classifies hormonal contraceptives as a Group I carcinogen. Group I means it is a substance known to cause cancer in humans. If your girlfriend takes hormonal contraceptives, I encourage you to read the insert that comes in the packaging and look at the potential side effects and risks. You may want to discuss any concerns together and decide how to move forward.
This lurking variable is the belief that divorce is morally wrong. Catholicism and, to the best of my knowledge, all other religions that teach that artificial contraception is morally wrong, also teach that divorce is morally wrong. It makes sense that tinkering with hormones can cause cancer. However, I have never heard any claim that barrier methods of contraception cause cancer. A lot of other things changed during that time. But I do think that the cancer rates of women who have vs. I am Episcopal and do NOT believe that using contraception is a sin. God has created us with bodies that feel sexual pleasure in a wide variety of ways, not all of which lead to conception, and that use the biochemical reactions triggered by sex for pair-bonding, stress relief, and physical health maintenance as well as for procreation.
Homosexuality was illegal, homosexuals were arrested, persecuted, sent to the camps, and treated like everyone else the Nazis deemed inferior to their human ideal. Stalin, too, hated homosexuality and banned it and made it punishable with years of hard labor. Mao, too. Arben, you are just wrong. Regarding divorce rates: Honestly, there is very little evidence existing. All that being said, however, further research is needed, because the data are not conclusive. Jennifer I really liked your articulate explanation of the Catholic teaching about the marital covenant with God of the unitive and procreative functions.
What I think you did wrong was cause scandal by socializing with two men who are in a gay relationship. To me and to the Church you are affirming their sexual relationship. Each of these men are engaging in a sin which cries out to heaven for vengeance, one which several of the saints have referred to as the worst sin. Too, those who engage in homo-erotic behavior have darkened heart and minds which are closed to the truths.
We are bound by Catholic teaching to admonish the sinner, but not to beset them. Yet to act around them as if what they are doing to each other is okay is really to validate them. Befriending the couple and continuing a relationship with them as good friends is like socializing with a man and his daughter who are in an incestuous relationship, or a pedophile and his young conquest.
These behaviors are not just disordered but are against the natural and divine law. Yes, I know I sound judgmental; but we must remove from our fellowship all those who sin egregiously if they are not willing to repent and sin no more. And yes, there are degrees of sin; homosexual behavior is so intolerable to God that not only did He destroy cities whose people engaged in it but he also turned the minds of those who practice it over to the depravity.
When people sin so egregiously, unrepentantly and repeatedly they incur a state of iniquitous sin which is that darkened mind that we see. Too, those who engage in homo-erotic behavior corrupt society and that is one of the reasons the sin is so egregious. We must never stand by and tolerate it. This is what the Church teaches, but much more compassionately than I could ever articulate I admit.
Something to watch carefully are the many priests who are soft on the sin because of their own particular proclivity for the behavior or because they are protective of priests in their order. These priests cloud the minds of the parishioners and teach us to be soft on the sin. They mislead for evil purposes.
We cannot underestimate the damage that those who practice or promote homosexual behavior cause. If they do not change, we must remove them from our community and pray for them always. Prayer and fasting, the Church tells us, when practiced together do much to eradicate the demons that have attached themselves to these sinners.
This information is pretty blunt, I know, but I have the lessons to back it up. God bless and thank you for your posts which I am certain are helping a lot of people to know and love the Church, the bride of Christ. I just converted from the left, and that part of Church teaching is the one huge thorn in my side. I love the way Jennifer has articulated here and elsewhere how the immorality of homosexuality is just part of the teaching on marriage. When same-sex attraction is construed as one of the many facets of concupiscence, and homosexual acts as part of fornication outside marriage, it makes sense to me.
But a sin crying out to heaven for vengeance? I am friends with a gay couple, who are civilly married, who are some of the kindest people I know. Surely the rape of a boy by a man, or a younger man being pressured into a homosexual act by an older one through some kind of power imbalance, cries out to heaven for vengeance. That I can see. I think the strain of disgust and hatred for homosexuals in our society is at least as pressing a problem as that of gay people setting up households.
I think there are many people in this country who are in grave danger of hating gays the way the Germans hated the Jews. Barbie, I know that what you are saying is deeply rooted in the Bible and Church teaching, and I am not saying that I think you are in this danger. And the idea that Jennifer gave scandal by having dinner with her old friends instead of cutting them out of her life takes my breath away.
By continuing to love them and presenting her beliefs honestly and compassionately, when solicited, Jennifer has probably done the most anyone can do to help them see the light and be saved. Excellent post! Thank you taking the time for insightful comments. Thank you in turn, Barbie. We may have darkened minds and hearts and may not see the sin. The Bible sources three more instances of the cry of vengeance: homicide in Genesis ; oppression of widows and orphans in Exodus ; and cheating laborers out of a just pay in Deuteronomy God has revealed to me or will reveal to me in the future everything I need to know for my salvation.
I am content in that. Fortunately i know not all christians are like you, but i think this is the kind of behaviour that makes many people see christians as intolerant bigots sorry for the blunt words, but so were yours. For not shunning them? I find Barbieahayes comments to fall in the same camp of those that want to shun family or friends that marry outside the Church or live together as an example.
We believers are the first line in the war for souls in the world. We are the first that they observe perhaps even before they care. Our actions must show that we attempt to live what we profess and we must educate ourselves to lovingly convey those things when asked. And I have to ask this? He dined with prostitutes and thieves.
He hung out with sinners of all kinds. I think love has to be the answer. Andrew may not accept the truth but he has heard it. Should any of us be socializing with any of us? I can understand that conception of marriage directed towards creating new life. But then you add specific prohibitions such as gay sex that are thought as sacrifices that somehow make you more in line with God. But what about the civil one? Anthropologically, marriage has existed to provide a stable environment for the procreation and rearing of children. Many studies show that children thrive best in an environment in which they have a mother and a father who are married to each other especially if you look at the optimal neurological development of boys and girls.
- Truth and Lies (Series #1 Book 2).
- Ah-ah-ah-choo! Orgasms make her nose stuffy - Health - Sexual health - Sexploration | NBC News;
- Best Happy Hour | Blue Martini Lounge | bars-and-clubs | Best of Miami® | Miami New Times!
- Sport Mechanics for Coaches: Third Edition!
- BEST CHICKEN SOUP | Ajo Al's | food-and-drink | Best of Phoenix® | Phoenix New Times.
- (Book) Soup of the Month;
Since the family is the primary developer of the individual within society, we owe it to society to encourage the stability of the family unit by discouraging promiscuity which often leads to single-parenthood , divorce, and other less stable family configurations for the greater good of society. I guess you agree we need statistically acceptable studies which shows same-sex parents is the problematic factor before considering the argument valid. For instance, if you read the works of Michael Gurian who is not religious about the neurological development of boys and girls you can see that each gender gets certain things from each opposite sex parent that is needed for proper development.
I believe we have lost sight of the fact that the Catholic Church does not change to fit the culture; the Church is supposed to influence the culture and keep the culture on track for She is the pillar and foundation of the truths of Jesus Christ. I am reminded that God is the author of civil government too. When politicians turned away from that truth, chaos in society ensued because of immoral behavior against each other. I have learned that when the Church changes to fit what society wants her to believe, she has failed in her mission and confused the people.
The Church does not decide matters of faith and morals based on opinion polls; the Church decides on what has been revealed to her by the Holy Spirit and through her long tradition. If the culture needs correction, it is up to the Church, and her authentic teachers, the bishops, to bring that culture back on track. I believe we are where we are as a society, because we, the Church, have not been doing our job effectively.
Tragically, we do have fallen priests and bishops who teach heresies and so we always have to take care in this day and age. But those priests do not comprise the teaching authority of the Church. I have a friend whose son is gay and since my friend converted to Catholicism, he has completely alienated his son. The son is very bitter and angry because his Dad accepted his lifestyle until two years ago after his conversion. All the father has done is push his son away and make him despise religion.
I need to love them but stand my ground. Thank you for this very helpful blog post! That totally captures the feeling I have often had when speaking to some people. Thanks for sharing. I am really hoping that it becomes easier for Catholics to articulate our position on homosexuality. What you said is a start but I have this itching feeling that there is more to say or a more effective way to say it so people will understand?
Maybe I am wrong. I just want to get it out here, to make sure you and your readers understand it. It goes further. This is hard — perhaps impossible — to say. It may even be difficult to understand. Honestly, it is why homosexuality was for ages classified as a form of mental illness. Start the screaming. If you, as a Christian, believe that homosexuality is a good, then you must, as a logical followup, believe that historical Christianity is a lie.
You make a great point. Paul appeals directly to natural law in Romans 1 when covering the topic at hand. The gay lifestyle and its many inherent, disproportionate health and medical risks can be just as easily refuted with the Origin of Species as it can with Sacred Scripture.
Mental illness is nearly always biochemical. Neurochemicals gone awry, hormones out of balance, gut dysbiosis wrecking the gut-brain axis — there are more causes today than ever of these, and the resulting neurological illnesses. Science is backing this up solidly. So what does this mean we are called to do as Catholics?
We were always called to love those with any kind of temptation to sin. I mean, our actions are fortunately not always directed towards the survival of our descendants. Are art or pure mathematics or many other useless hobbies perversions of nature? Homosexuality can be found in many animal species too. I wonder whether this creature also considers all of the other things that his religion denounces as perversions and feels as strongly about those as he evidently does about this.
Arben — Why do you feel the need to be so condescending to Christians? Why even read this blog? Why take time out of your life to read so thoroughly and comment so repeatedly on this blog? Why be rude even? What does it gain you or the world? Do you think that snotty remarks are going to suddenly make someone see the light? It is bizarre and illogical that you are spending any time on this.
You are free to not understand or agree with the teachings of the Church. Does this suddenly mean you also have the right to be rude to people who do? If you are just entertaining yourself then that is sad but better this than out harming small animals I guess. Thanks, Steve. I was thinking exactly the same thing.
I actually think Arben might be considering coming home to the faith but is fighting the urge:. There is a time and a place. You have to meet people where they are at. God in His great mercy does not reveal His entire plan for our life the minute we make the adult decision to follow Him. Loving and sharing the truth gently will bring people back to the faith.
And will they eventually come to see that indeed how they had been living is a perversion? Most likely, yes. Did Christ tell the adulteress she was sinner and living a life of fornication? But what we are trembling with uncertainty about is whether someone could ever possibly still love us? That is where conversion happens. I have thought of this, although I am still on the fence on this issue. What do all sexually deviant behaviors have in common not polygamy?
The person is sexually attracted to an object or being with which they cannot produce healthy offspring. Being sexually attracted to your brother if you are a girl is deviant and considered so by our society because of the very real problems of consanguinity. Being attracted to a horse is a stupid waste of valuable energy…. You cannot produce offspring with this person, so in a way, your arousal signifies a pathway gone wrong.
Likewise heterosexual attraction to young children or the elderly. Love is purified, increased and perfected by suffering. This means not only bodily pain, but crosses of all kinds. God sends everyone all the sufferings they need on earth to cleanse, strengthen, and perfect their love. But most people waste their sufferings. They do not want them, complain about them and try to escape them in every manner possible, even by committing sin.
Baltimore Catechism, No. Jennifer, you did a darn good job of something I would never have tried to do. To put yourself out there was very brave. This is something I struggle with on a daily basis. I keep comparing the struggle to the civil rights struggle and thinking that at that time, there were many many people arguing that people were less than and using the Bible to do it. Now we look back at that and wonder what people were thinking. I also consider the idea that being a Christian is usually constitutes taking a more difficult path and right now, the easier path seems to be just going along with the changing culture.
Barbie, please consider that you are asking more of Jennifer than Jesus himself did. Jesus was clear in his teaching about sin, but he broke bread and had friendships with sinners of all stripes while presenting his case and urging them toward His Father. In fact, what He did looks remarkably similar to what Jennifer did. Here are some documents on what the church teaches about treatment of gay people:. From the Catechism: The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible.
This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. It sounds an awful lot like unjust discrimination, especially since it seems that you are making a distinction between their sin and others. Jesus and his Church do not ask us to excommunicate them. So why do some Catholics believe that we should? Dear Kate, please forgive my brevity here. I guess my posts were more inciteful than insightful, lol. Seriously, Always Our Children is a deeply flawed document and even our Pope, when he was prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, requested a revision.
Many scholars asked for a retraction as well. Sadly the document is still widely available. Two deviant Catholic religious were responsible for much of the content and both of them were severely censured by the Pope. I could go on but this forum may not be the right venue for further discussion of the document. I will try to address your other issues as time permits. Great discussions going on, though. Thank you for your reply, Barbie. I would be interested in citations supporting what you claim about the document.
For whatever reason, the Pope has decided that any issues he or the Magesterium could have with it are outweighed by the harm it would cause to remove or revise it. Not to mention that you did not address the language of the Catechism, which pretty clearly backs up the sentiment in the document and is, I would hope, a pretty irrefutable source of information about what it means to be a Catholic. The Church is pretty clear about what she asks of us.
Going beyond that is of course up to you and perhaps necessary if, for instance, you are avoiding a near occasion of sin , but please do not paint it as the view of the Church that we are all required to conform to. There is a reason that the Church chooses to speak or not speak about things. There is a place in the Church for discernment within the bounds of what she teaches. People who put themselves in that position are treading a dangerous line.
Thank you for having that conversation and for sharing the gist of it here. You are so right about the new culture forcing the issue. Oh my goodness. Thank you for sharing this! Seejay- what are you talking about?! Not in the slightest. Humans are animals, too—we are merely smarter. If some ignorant person tries to claim that homosexuality is not natural, nature provides plenty of counterexamples. This is in no way insulting whatsoever, and your accusation is disingenuous at best, and utterly stupid at worst.
Chimpanzees eat their children; should we do that also, Arben? Dolphins bully each other. Should someone bully you, Arben? Not a single person here disputes the rare occurrence of homosexual behavior in some animal species. But, there are many things that animals do, that we as human beings do not, or should not, do. Unless of course, you wish Darwinian Social Evolution; it really is the only purely scientific socio-political view. How is that working out for you? That you lack the reading comprehension to understand this is downright baffling. If I were on any other forum of bigots, I would also appear to be any of those adjectives.
In the company of people who think rationally and are comfortable with their own sexuality and the sexuality of others, I am more than fine. Also, everything God created, He created with a purpose and for men to engage in sex with men or women with women is not the purpose for which our bodies were formed — human bodies were formed to fit each other. Homosexual men and women just like heterosexual men and women are tempted in many ways, not just sexual ways. However, for the homosexual man or woman, it is more difficult because in the plan of God, they can never marry.
The thing is that so many are taught through movie, tv, music, society etc. Your friend is a pretty typical gay rights activist — all sarcasm, pure immature emotionalism and name-calling. You are part of a group that engages in systemic discrimination of a non-violent group of people, and the best you can do is to call those who want equal rights for themselves silly names.
By the way, you might be tempted to respond with sarcasm, be emotional, and call people names if a majority of people in your country wanted to take away your rights because they considered you less than human. Not everyone in every situation is suitable or able to carry out the mission of marriage. This has been the basis of every surviving society in human history: the procreation of children who are brought up to be good citizens in the context of the stable family structure as a mini-society.
For this reason, those who are unable to engage in sexual intercourse cannot marry. The other aspect of matrimony is the increase of the spouses love for one another. Can two men or two women have genuine love for each other? Of course, no one is denying that. But matrimonial love is more than just sexual feelings or emotions. A man can benefit from gaining something of the natural emotional sensitivity characteristic of a woman, who can in turn gain something of the objectivity characteristic of a man. This is what true marriage is about: this emotional, physical, spiritual, and mental give-and-take that is fruitful in that 1 it makes both the spouses grow towards one another because they are naturally so different and 2 such love of the spouses for each other overflows into the procreation of children to whom the parents have a responsibility to raise to become productive and fruitful citizens of their own.
Not everyone can do the job. By human beings?
'Sodomite’s Walk' And Other Secrets Of 18th Century Queer London
If marriage were an absolute right, does that make single persons second class citizens? How about a woman marrying her niece? What polygamy? Why not let a father marry his 5-year-old daughter…. As for same-sex sexual behaviors in animals, they are performed in order to establish dominance of one animal over another, or else simply to provide sexual relief.
Is Arben saying that the root motivation for the same behaviors in human beings is dominance or sexual relief? Pretty poor basis for a marriage, if you ask me. Since when is marriage a right? When it started being a legal issue, is when. Thanks, though. Not even Latin and Greek were self-consistent in their vocabulary. The fact that you are trying to justify your bigotry by relying on ancient etymology is refreshing, because it reinforces in my mind the fact that you have absolutely nothing to stand on. The rest of your views are antiquated, poorly founded, and steeped in tradition rather than logic.
They are not worth responding to. I can only take solace in the fact that you and people like you are dying off in this country, and in the world, and that in not too long your belief system will be an entirely insignificant fringe. I take comfort in that. Do you realize how absolutely stupid that is? How are you sending this to me, by drawing in the mud somewhere? How are you alive right now? Did you pray that no plagues would occur, and that you would magically get better every time you got sick? Progress marches ever onwards, but you are left behind in the dust of your traditions.
I will also comment on your absolutely horrendous questions that even a five-year-old could see through. There is absolutely no problem with consenting adults marrying other consenting adults. Regarding homosexuality in animals, you are incorrect. As usual, you try to push your worldview into areas that you frankly do not understand, and probably will never understand, because you do not want to.
You are not an animal behavior specialist, and you do not have any sort of authority on this issue. You are wrong, and there is no way around it. Your last statement is reliant on a fallacious claim and is roughly as imbecilic as the rest of your post. Hey, Arben, no need for ad hominem attacks. The issue we should address is that their argument is utterly fallacious, not their intelligence. In this country, marriage is not a religious institution.
Tax benefits, hospital visitation rights, et al, depend on the government knowing two people are married. You can think a gay marriage is spiritually empty if you choose. Nobody can stop you thinking things. In many of your comments, you promote the false idea that progress is inevitable: Mankind is on a fixed upward trajectory. History is not linear. Marxists preached that worldwide socialist revolution was inevitable, but communism disappeared from the Earth because it goes against human nature.
The sexual revolution could be self-defeating as well. In Russia, more than 60 percent of pregnancies end in abortion; as a result, its population is projected to shrink by 20 percent by Aging feminists are despairing over their lost fertility because they were told as young women to put career ahead of family. After suffering the trauma of divorce as children, many young adults today take marriage more seriously than their self-absorbed Baby Boomer parents did.
As children raised by gays enter adulthood, it could become obvious that they missed out by not having a mother or a father. Finally, religious conservatives have more children than secular liberals, and the child-bearing will inherit the Earth. The Church has stood for more than 2, years. Think of all the governments, religions, cultures, and ideologies that have come and gone over that time.
Despite all the persecutions against the Church and the scandals the Church as brought on itself, the Church is still here because it was established by Christ, who promised that the gates of hell will not prevail against it. I wish I could print this on a t-shirt so I could reference it daily. Alas, I wear a small and this is rather long. Ah well. Thank you so much! Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.
Attributed to Plato and a slew of other greats. That was really good. It was a little surprising to read that actually no one is supposed to be having sex except married people. I had never thought of that before. Mina: I find it astonishing that you are astonished to hear the idea that no one except married people is supposed to be having sex. Have you really never heard this before?
This has been the norm in Christian countries for the past years, except for very recently, and is the norm in most other cultures as well. I am not amazed that someone would not agree with it, but I am amazed that someone would not know it. Or did you not understand that this is still what the Catholic Church teaches, and that many other kinds of Christians teach this as well? That would be less surprising, as people in the West have abandoned this notion wholesale in a very short amount of time. How we get that one back to normal is really a puzzle. However, I have no doubt that it WILL get back to normal, and that someday people will look on the rampant sexual license of the West as extremely bizarre.
I am afraid that if we cannot figure out how to fix it, it will be fixed some other way — through a major social shift due to a disaster or a war. We are not a Christian country, as the US was founded on principles of religious freedom. Also, we have plenty of wars already.
I wonder what would happen if someone dared, if it comes up again, to ask him if he can step back a bit and consider what the parts of the body are made for, and if he can see why sodomy would be a violation of the natural use of those parts? It seems to me that at some level people engaged in it have to sense that? In my experience, some friendships do not survive conversion as the world views and practices become too far apart, even though you still care about the person greatly…especially if one came out of serious sin and a crowd of friends deeply involved in sin.
It sure did for me, though slowly in some cases because my own growth was very, very slow in certain areas. It can be painful, and we each have to decide for ourselves what we feel the Lord would have us to do so that we can be loving and yet also not violate the Faith or give bad witness. The joy of Christ more than makes up for the sacrifices. Hmm, my reply to this seems to have disappeared. Gay marriage advocates?
That would be fine. You are aware that there are groups lobbying for gay marriage, though, right? And that they do put out PR to try to win people to their view, right? This was a great dialog and read. I brought this issue up at my Catholic Church; the reasons for traditional marriage. In short, I was heckled by the leader of my confirmation class. But, I kept upbeat and did not whimper away.
It takes guts to speak up on this issue. Ultimately all got ironed out— compassion and traditional marriage was agreed upon. My favorite person on this issue is Dennis Prager and your piece was a good one. I think you need some more practcice, Jenny. We need some more practice. If a couple is infertile than there is no chance that their sexual acts will create a baby…period. Not this time, not next time, not ever. If any couple is not at least trying to have a baby then they should be celibate by your logic.
Your logic is flawed because part of your argument invalidates the premise that you built it on. In the next breath they make an argument that privileges their status. It was sweet of your friend to look past the bigotry and remember the positive parts of your friendship. That is a real friend indeed. And that is why the Church does not allow sodomy of a woman by a man either….
All sexual acts, not just intercourse, are biologically natural. Please look up the Bonobo monkey for the poster-child of non-intercourse biological sexual interactions between wild animals. Wikipedia has a list of hundreds of animals with observed homosexuality. Homosexuality, and the sexual acts involved in it, are as natural as heterosexuality. We are the only species on the planet that tries to reject something that is as natural as breathing to our species, and I refuse to believe that monkeys and penguins are more intelligent than homo sapiens.
Careful, there. Question for them: If they were so obvious, why did you have to get them from a book, and probably from your parents? Look up Natural Law and get acquainted with it. Actually I used to think almost just exactly that opposite of what I think today. My approach is to try to apply reason to these questions, as well as listen to what people say they experience, and of course to listen to what revelation tells us about what a Christian should believe and do. I think you underestimate other people.
I am aware of these things you note and had already pondered what to make of them, although some claim they are overstated and not as prevalent as some would like us to think. And I think the idea that there are long-term monogamous homosexual animal couples was shown to be a myth, but if you have a reference that is credible on that, you could share it and I will stand corrected. Not everything on Wikipedia is correct! Either way, we should be careful, as far as logic goes: the fact that some animals do something does not necessarily mean that it is normal for human beings to do.
Some animals eat their own young. Is that normal for us? This is really a big difference between the different points of view on this subjct. Some folks believe human beings are no different than animals, just a little smarter maybe! We believe there is a human nature and that some things are not in accord with that nature or are not the best thing for that nature. The idea that following His teaching makes one insane or just a bigot is not a reasonable idea.
But the fact is that he does speak to this point in his teaching that a man and woman become one flesh in marriage, which is to be for life. And some of us at least, on both sides, have thought about this a lot, even struggled with it, and have come to different conclusions. So we have to be careful with one another, even if we may be very challenging to each other sometimes. Megan, you will be happy to know that the Catholic Church has never required that sex be limited to vaginal intercourse.
It was glossed over, like it was against the code, if you will, to even bring it up. This is no sound bite conversation. I pray your article will inspire people to read more about Catholic teaching on this subject. The faith is beautiful!! Nowhere on the body do two penises or two vaginas unite in this way, a way that can create new life. I think you know that though. Sarah: Yes it does. Whether the organs work or not has nothing to do with what they are for and how they are meant to be used.
You can learn to walk on your hands, but even if you do that is not what they are for. You can call people bigots for explaining a philosophical truth but you cannot make them actually BE bigots. In your view, does equality mean that those who believe marriage can only be between a man and a woman have to be silenced, or even forced to act against their beliefs? For example, in NY the law says you can marry a same-sex person. Or a Muslim printer who owns his own business should be forced to print homosexual magazines or wedding invitations? And how does that work with religious freedom?
In Denmark they are already forcing ministers to do ceremonies whether they agree or not. Some would like to force that same kind of approach here. This is where the matter gets really tricky. My view is that it would violate the 1st Amendment. As for the question, would you accept that i refuse to serve black people in my restaurant because of my religion? And I do not think anyone should refuse to serve gay people in a restaurant either, or transgendered people, or Catholics, or Muslims, or Jews, or poor people, or rich people, or whatever.
If you want to ask a parallel question, the parallel question would be this: Is it right to refuse to marry black and white mixed couples?
Don't boil the sauce!: October
And let me answer that for you:. There is nothing unnatural about marriage between a man and woman of different races. So it is wrong to refuse to marry them on the basis of disparate race. But there is something unnatural about same-sex unions. So it is ok to refuse to marry same-sex couples, because it is not actually marriage…it may be some kind of union, but it is not the same thing as marriage between a man and a woman. I do believe it is the truth though…there is a categorical and serious, real difference between marriage and the union of same-sex persons.
1. Cruising in Sodomite's Walk
There are others who want to force people who do not agree with same-sex marriage to marry them, or to host their events on Church property, etc. They say so openly, and they have already sued in some cases. And that is not right. It is one thing to say that you want to do something in your own spiritual community. It is another to harass those who disagree. Equality, in my eyes, is equality under the law.
I think that businesses should be free to refuse whomever they want for whatever reasons they want, discriminatory or not. People should also feel free not to do business with people that they see as bigots of any sort. Unfortunately, as I mention in my reply to slan21 above, not everyone feels that way. Already Christians are being sued, as private actors, over these kinds of matters, and already losing in some cases, so one can see why some of us are very concerned. People on both sides of this issue are trying to influence society to follow what we believe are the best ways to organize society.
To say that we are trying to subjugate others is assumes that we have malice in our hearts. That is not true, just as your desire to see gay mariage a reality is not founded on malice. Maybe there are some homophobic nuts out there and believe me, they embarrass us when they claim to be Christian , and guess what, there are some homosexual nuts out there who are making death threats to anyone who publicly speaks for traditional marriage and so on.
We just have dramatically different views of how to live and how society should be regulated. What on earth makes you think that? I am responsible for what I do, not what others do, or whether we get others to do something or not. And we care about all people, every single one on the earth. I guess you think that we only care about you if we agree with you? But actually we care about everyone, and not just that they would do what we think is right, but just because they—you—are created by God in His image and likeness, and therefore every single human being is of equal value and dignity just by being a human being.
That does not mean that every action or choice is ok, but it does mean that we must love and respect everyone, even those we disagree with, even those who persecute us. For example, I care very much if in having this discussion I injure you, even though I am only saying what I really believe is true…in fact, I thought about it a great deal the other night after reading these posts.
Congratulations: You are an idiot and have missed the point entirely. You know, what makes me sad about these discussions is that they degenerate into name-calling or provocation. I think it has got to be possible to have mature, calm discussions. We should really try. Sometimes very sincere people disagree seriously. We should be trying to understand each other, not just flipping out because others disagree with us, or intentionally being sarcastic with each other. Ultimately, we have to try to love each other, even if we seriously disagree, and may even disagree about what can fit in with being loving or not!
Responsible parenthood, as we use the term here, has one further essential aspect of paramount importance. It concerns the objective moral order which was established by God, and of which a right conscience is the true interpreter. In a word, the exercise of responsible parenthood requires that husband and wife, keeping a right order of priorities, recognize their own duties toward God, themselves, their families and human society.
From this it follows that they are not free to act as they choose in the service of transmitting life, as if it were wholly up to them to decide what is the right course to follow. On the contrary, they are bound to ensure that what they do corresponds to the will of God the Creator. The very nature of marriage and its use makes His will clear, while the constant teaching of the Church spells it out. Perhaps a more accurate statement would be that child spacing is fine if done naturally, for serious reasons, and with due respect to the Will of God, moral precepts, and the teaching of the Church.
This was a fantastic read…thanks for this. Kudos — and well-written. Hopefully one day soon we will be able to have a conversation like you did and I will be able to articulate myself in a way that he may not agree with my opinion but at least recognize that my love for him as my brother has never changed. I myself am a gay individual. See, just even mentioning this fact made it so very hard for me but it is the Truth and the Truth will set me free.
I will try NOT to comment much on this topic because Mrs. Jennifer Fulwiler had succinctly conveyed it in the article already. BUT one thing I do want to share with you all, my brothers and sisters in Christ, is that one needs the Holy Spirit to guide and help you. But you have done an excellent job here… thank you…. I also read a lot of theological blogs and by far I can say this was one of the best on the subject. Thank you, Jennifer, for having the conversation with your friend and for having done your homework on Church teaching.
I heard you on Relevant Radio this morning and got to my computer to read your post asap. Thanks for having the courage to be a friend and speak the truth. You encourage me, and I hope others, to do the same. The fact that you 1. Okay, now the more important sources of discomfort. Moreover: when you possess an attribute that has, for centuries, been used to denigrate people and justify abhorrent forms of violence against them, reclaiming that attribute as a positive element of your identity — or, at least, as a non-shame-inducing element of your identity — is simply a matter of self-preservation, a necessary and perhaps temporary step on the way out of a history of terror and disgust.
Sure, for some plenty? We have to do better than that. To put it succinctly: Thanks for writing such a great post. Hopefully, if she is still reading these comments and I can only hope that she is , your shared background will help to enlighten her more than might otherwise be possible. Thank you so much for putting it here. Cathy… you made some excellent points in your comment. As a gay person and a practicing Catholic I have attempted to convey some of these messages to others and explain that in the Catholic community gay people are stigmatized and treated as outcasts.
I love the Church, but I find these things extremely disheartening. This goes for every person, Catholic or no, in every topic, from moral behavior to what foods one eats or the extent to which one practices ecological conservation. Our hormones really do affect practically everything about us.
It really encompasses the whole person. This is a heavy, heavy cross. While my heaviest cross is nowhere near so burdensome, I help myself to empathize by thinking of it — that is the cross of an eating disorder. I pray daily for it to be lifted. I can give into it, with all the negative consequences, or I can battle it minute by minute and yes, that is what is required to succeed.
And so, in my limited way, I can see the path of those afflicted with other kinds of temptations they never asked for. And so my heart is absolutely torn apart with compassion and love for those with SSA. I have found myself taking the sacrifices I make for my own battles and offering them up for those with SSA. I do feel uncomfortable with the lack of whole-hearted acceptance of the people who find themselves in a homosexual inclination, and I feel uncomfortable with our current lack of understanding of the causes and effects of SSA. This is along the same lines of the discomfort I feel with the struggles that must be borne by those struggling with urges toward pedophilia, alcoholism, binge eating, anorexia, serious tics, drug addiction, rage, and more.
LYM and Cathy — Excellent points! Thanks for adding your thoughtful voices to this noisy combox…. It is not clear how they are all that much better off. With regard to the sex crazed society: Very well stated that we all are required to make sacrifices. Artificial Birth Control has paved a Direct path to Death. Because society did not listen, we are suffering massive amounts of sin, disease, divorce, and death! Love this post! Thank you so much. It is a very difficult subject.
I never used a slur, expletive or anything derogatory. The comparison to gambling seemed to particularly offend him, but then, so did everything. I told him he was far too easily offended and questioned whether it would be best to end the discussion. He never replied after that. I think he does it with some idea of spite or sarcasm. Belonging to a big group of bigots does not provide a legitimate excuse for bigotry.
Of course it did. Maybe it was the ukulele she brought out; maybe it was the participatory glee she incited when she handed instruments to the crowd; whatever it was, you were digging it. And then the tequila took hold and off to the curb you stumbled — but Rachel played on without you.
A Miami Beach native, the year-old musical phenomenon has been writing her own stuff since she was 12 and began performing at age The stuff she's working on these days — music she describes as "shakeabilly" — is a little bit rock, a little bit country, a little bit crazy-woman, and generally a whole lot of fun. Her only regular gig at the moment is Restaurant, every Friday night, but it's not hard to find her playing somewhere on any given weekend.
Check her MySpace page for upcoming shows. And if you're too lame to go out and hear her live, she's got an album coming out in a few months. Six signs of a serious afterhours party: 1. A crowd that goes to sleep insanely early, only to arise around 3 a. A hard-core subset of that crowd that won't deign to do afterhours, or even party much, anywhere else. A hour liquor license! Marathon sets by some of the world's superstar DJs, from Roger Sanchez to Dubfire, who show up after they've played gigs at regular clubs.
International mix CDs named solely for one geographical area — say, a terrace — of said afterhours party. A crowd on said terrace visible from the highway until, sometimes, 2 p. Space Saturdays boasts all of these. Nobody else in town can, and they don't even try. End of story. Induce is sort of like the dark horse of the DJ pack. What he lacks in superhigh-profile residencies at boring danceterias he more than makes up for in skill, deep musical knowledge, and diversity. A young DJ with an old-school mindset, he's the type of guy who still lives with rooms of old vinyl and who doesn't need Serato to school his weaker peers and move butts.
An Induce set is always a tossup because he does with finesse what the best DJs do: plays to the crowd. And because of his encyclopedic mental library, audiences are startlingly wide in range — everyone from indie types at Poplife to hip-hop heads at Purdy Lounge to fashionistas at Gen Art parties to Zen types at The Standard to the swank and pampered patrons at The Shore Club.
Meanwhile, he's been garnering web love for his own productions and for his turn as half of the duo, uh, Casual Sax, which has been blessed with Perez Hilton's golden wand. Boring laptop jocks, eat your hearts out. Shine, nestled inside the glam Shelborne Beach Resort, was a labor of love for DJ Jonathan Cowan, whose family has long owned and operated the hotel.
With a veteran dance-floor conductor at its helm when it opened in the spring of , the club quickly distinguished itself for its stellar Steve Dash sound system and even more stellar DJ lineup. But by early , weekly operations ceased and all kinds of rumors swirled — Miami New Times even declared it the "best club to die within the past year. Cowan was just on a break to take care of family business and retool the club's programming a bit.
So last summer, Shine came back with a bang, hosting special events during which the likes of Adam Freeland, Layo and Bushwacka! The remainder of the year, the club continues to open for special events, treating local dance music cognoscenti to house, techno, electro, and the rest of the best in new beats. The moral of the story: Patience pays, and Shine still sparkles.
As rumors flew that The Eat was spending a lot of time in a not-so-secret rehearsal space, the collective excitement felt across South Florida's music scene was palpable as far and wide as our hipsters are astute and with it.
Split Pea Soup
The Eat, previously named Best Band of All Time by this publication, had not played in about a dozen years, so the news was almost earth shattering to fans. But rarity wasn't the only reason the group's sides sell for hundreds of dollars — The Eat's catalogue is chock full of musical and lyrical gems on par with any chart toppers from that period.
Ever wonder how the Miami scene got its bizarre sense of humor? Those songs influenced young bands and other funny people for years afterward. The compilation itself was perhaps the biggest reason Mike and Eddie O'Brien reformed the band with longtime member Kenny Lindahl and newcomer Mike Vullo substituting for Chris Cottie, who passed away in to perform to a packed Churchill's Hideaway on Groundhog Day. The band was spot-on, and audience members left with huge grins on their faces.
The boys have already played at least one other unannounced set this year and promise more official gigs in the near future. We hope they really mean the actual "near future," not 12 years from now. This past December, it was just a little too easy for the local smart alecks to make cracks about Miami Beach regressing into a retirement community for musical has-beens. Kicking off Art Basel was one of the most influential bands of the late Sixties — led by rock's most emulated singer an adopted local no less and joined by punk's finest bass player.
Too easy. But when Iggy Pop and the Stooges came out full bore, those same cognoscenti knew right away they'd be gnawing on their Grecian Formula-coated words before the night was through. The Asheton brothers thundered through their own classics as Iggy sexily pranced around like a boy one-third his age. Mike Watt, formerly of the Minutemen and a cultural institution in his own right, took over the late Dave Alexander's spot to the delight of all — especially his own.
At one point, Iggy welcomed the audience onstage for a couple of songs, and several dozen concertgoers took up the offer to wriggle around, singing "No Fun" and smiling at the irony. The only things that made the evening more brag-worthy were the free admission, the starry sky overhead, and the sand you had to shake out of your boots afterward. The nonprofit Rhythm Foundation is celebrating its 20th year of spreading global musical cheer in South Florida, and each season seems to get better than the last. That's a tough feat, given the group's track record.
Founded with the intent of showcasing the best in "world music," the outfit has managed to shake that term's sometimes boring and crunchy connotations via a program of the planet's most exciting music, regardless of scene or language. For the season, Rhythm Foundation has helped push pop forward and reinvent some of the oldest forms of folk. Other times, it's meant even legendary Bollywood playback singer Asha Bhosle and tabla master Zakir Hussain.
The common thread? New explorations into sounds and textures, and some of the smartest, coolest crowds you could hope to amass in this town. The folks behind Rhythm Foundation prove time and again it's a small world after all, but there's room for all of us to dance in it. You don't need us to tell you which of the cavernous superclubs is "best" — that's a matter of nightlife politics and the quickly shifting winds of whatever the crowd deems cool. Instead, our pick for where you can really shake it is a not-so-well-kept secret: Love Hate Lounge, just south of Fifth Street and blocks from any of the bling-bling spots.
Infamous for being owned by the needle-wielding stars of Miami Ink , the place is known by locals as a no-fail, no-bullshit spot for getting down. Yes, it's kind of small, but all the better; this means half the space isn't devoted to bottle service, like everywhere else, and you're almost guaranteed to have to grind into — or at least brush past — a stranger.