tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14168956.post2750660743368643575..comments2024-03-29T08:14:32.748-04:00Comments on Bonfire of the Vanities: Confucius and same-sex attractionFr Martin Foxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01375628123126091747noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14168956.post-45630302574526724462013-06-07T13:46:00.451-04:002013-06-07T13:46:00.451-04:00Well, I can't force you to engage in a dialogu...Well, I can't force you to engage in a dialogue, but I do thank you for allowing me to share with you my thoughts and my reasoning.<br />-PatPathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02395546579597858011noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14168956.post-28895229706091885532013-06-06T20:36:56.891-04:002013-06-06T20:36:56.891-04:00Beautiful post Father, thank you!Beautiful post Father, thank you!McCall1981https://www.blogger.com/profile/15994727342516247857noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14168956.post-25419242167094379552013-06-06T18:21:30.168-04:002013-06-06T18:21:30.168-04:00Pat:
I have seen your comments here enough to for...Pat:<br /><br />I have seen your comments here enough to form a conclusion about what I think your purpose is. I stand by my assessment.Fr Martin Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01375628123126091747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14168956.post-66515731312242113822013-06-06T12:40:17.989-04:002013-06-06T12:40:17.989-04:00Father,
When someone challenges your assertions a...Father,<br /><br />When someone challenges your assertions about a matter that is in our newspapers every day you shouldn't take it as someone trying to harass or silence you. Quite the opposite. This is a dialogue.<br /><br />What doesn't hold water is the theory of Natural Law as you've applied it to human sexual behavior. In short, the theory as so applied holds (among other things) that a man and a woman who are dating are violating natural law theory if they engage in mutual, consensual, oral sex because that behavior is neither procreative nor is it occurring between people who are married to each other. That's ridiculous.<br /><br />Natural Law theory would say that such a man's genitals should be used only for (A) urinating, (B) impregnating a woman to whom he is married and (C) providing non-procreative sexual pleasure to a woman to whom he is married. And no other purpose. Again, that's ridiculous.<br /><br />I appreciate your attempt at analogizing to eyes and ears but those examples don't really advance the discussion because those body parts are limited. Arms and legs are a better analogy: NL theory, taken to its logical conclusion, would say that legs are for walking and arms are for lifting. And no other purpose.<br /><br />But we know that we don't limit the use of our arms and legs like that. It gives me pleasure to use my arms and legs to swim. Why is THAT behavior not disordered, but cunnilingus is disordered when not used in (C) above? Why aren't man's fingers, toes, tongue, nipples, etc, limited the way NL theory limits the use of man's genitals. It just doesn't hold water.<br /><br />NL theory fails miserably when applied to human sexual behavior and therefore certainly cannot be used as a basis for who deserves a civil marriage license.<br />Pathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02395546579597858011noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14168956.post-28511577549198917312013-06-06T07:46:50.980-04:002013-06-06T07:46:50.980-04:00Oh Pat, you just like to argue, and attempt to har...Oh Pat, you just like to argue, and attempt to harass into silence anyone who disagrees with your post-modern dogma.<br /><br />Of course certain functions of the body can be discerned.<br /><br />Do you know anyone who can hear with his or her eyes?<br /><br />Anyone who can eat food with his or her ears?<br /><br />Of course male reproductive parts are ordered toward female reproductive parts, and the combination results in...guess what? Reproduction.<br /><br />This is what you claim "doesn't hold water.Fr Martin Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01375628123126091747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14168956.post-39550619910390966932013-06-04T14:28:28.125-04:002013-06-04T14:28:28.125-04:00Father, this is circular reasoning.
You're ...Father, this is circular reasoning. <br /><br />You're merely saying that gay people cant have sex (or sexual love) because sex (and therefore sexual love) requires people who have different sexual organs. <br /><br />But your stating that doesn't make it a fact.] And the whole "ordered towards procreation" concept just doesn't hold water. To believe that concept requires that we believe something ridiculous: that certain body parts are "for" certain uses and not for others. I disprove that theory every time I swim.<br /><br />Also, our government doesn't require (or measure) love when it hands out marriage licenses - and that's a good thing. We don't want the government making love a requirement for marriage -- that would require, among other things, that government officials make determination about whose love is "really love" and whose love isn't. <br /><br />It's best to let the couple decide if they are in love or not.Pathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02395546579597858011noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14168956.post-21670774692308676812013-05-29T23:23:34.785-04:002013-05-29T23:23:34.785-04:00Exactly! Another way to put it is to ask, "I...Exactly! Another way to put it is to ask, "Is your 'love' contingent on a sexual favor?" The answer to that question tells you where the person's intent is. And if the person flees into the totally open, position of sex is unrelated to 'love' and my 'partner' can have sex whomever they please, then again they repudiate the connection and confirm the base nature of their goal. This is a fools errand for us, of course, because the statement that would totally frustrate them is, "I agree with everything you say about sex. I just don't want to have sex with you."rcghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09131930849106490711noreply@blogger.com