Subject:
|
Re: Christian morality (cont)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 14 Dec 2000 20:41:56 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
387 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Steve Thomas writes:
> Two persons - one male and one female - not
> one, and not three (or more), can procreate a child. Take away the
> reproductive principle grounding marriage (as homosexuality does) and you
> also dissolve the exclusivity of marriage (as polygamy does).
>
> More directly, homosexuality may be understood as the alternate extreme from
> rape. Rape is a violation of other unities (emotional and dispositional,
> though not bodily) that marriage enjoins because it occurs without the
> consent of the individual. Homosexual relationships may seek to fulfill
> those unities, but forsake the final (consummating) unity of the bodily
> aspects of the individuals involved - oddly, in the very aspects directly
> involved in the acts in question.
Does this mean that you beleive that a person who is, for whatever reason,
infertile should never seek out the other kinds of completion involved in a
romantic/sexual union with a member of the opposite sex? Your reasoning for
finding homosexuality immoral would also find that kind of marriage equally
immoral, right?
Does your answer change if the infertility is caused by:
1) An operation that the person has (vasectomy, tubes tied, etc)
2) A physical accident?
3) A disease?
4) A congenital defect?
Just wondering,
eric
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Christian morality (cont)
|
| "Lorbaat" <eric@nospam.thirteen.net> wrote in message news:G5Ks5w.9nG@lugnet.com... (...) from (...) a (...) for (...) equally (...) Eric, Those are common questions (you're in good company), and I'll answer them all in the negative. What I'm (...) (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Christian morality (cont)
|
| (...) Kevin, I ask only because if you have disagreements that constitute such a "wide [moral] gulf," and are willing to lay down statements such as "there's no non-religious reason [by this I take you to mean 'rational']...," perhaps it would be (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
34 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
