Subject:
|
Re: Christian morality (cont)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 15 Dec 2000 00:21:17 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
387 times
|
| |
|
|
"Lorbaat" <eric@nospam.thirteen.net> wrote in message
news:G5Ks5w.9nG@lugnet.com...
> 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
Eric,
Those are common questions (you're in good company), and I'll answer them
all in the negative.
What I'm relying on is the complimentary _nature_ of male and female
sexuality, which doesn't depend on contingent factors like those you've
listed above. Men and women - together - have certain reproductive
capacities which need not be actualized (by offspring) to provide the unity
I described. Heterosexual intercourse is reproductive in type, even if not
in effect. Just as eyes are organs for sight (even if an individual is
blind), male and female sexuality is inherently reproductive.
Put another way, heterosexual sex brings with it the possibility of
procreation (however remote, or blocked by contingent factors it is);
homosexual sex cannot do so even in principle. This marks a qualitative
difference between the two.
If you're interested, I could point you to some resources that go into this
point in more detail.
Thanks and take care,
Steve
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Christian morality (cont)
|
| (...) This happens to turn out to not be actually true if one steps outside the human species. Further it's not true in principle for humans today, and as medical science continues to advance, soon it won't be true in actuality. (...) What does the (...) (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Christian morality (cont)
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
