(July 21, 2015 at 5:17 pm)Cato Wrote: What I struggle with is the fervent zeal with which some pursue denying fellow citizens participation in common social institutions. It's a clear example of attempting to use the power of the state to enforce a religious prohibition. .

I have a question in regards to you fervent zeal to give all rights.
So if i read right you are extremely opposed taking anyone rights away? No matter what? Even at the cost of denying another rights?

And before you assume that has nothing to do with religion or cake making. . .

(July 21, 2015 at 6:10 pm)Cato Wrote:

(July 21, 2015 at 5:57 pm)Anima Wrote: However, I will ask as I have in the other thread, what is your argument in their favor that is not a fallacy?  Biological, sociological, teleological, theological or otherwise.  I would like to hear it if you have one.

Homosexuality is a natural trait. This is well established and is found across the natural world. You of course cannot accept this since it alone invalidates your discrimination and renders your claims of fallacy nonsensical. If you cannot acknowledge that homosexuality is a natural trait and is most certainly not simply a volitional choice, there's no helping you. It's not up for debate, you're simply wrong.

Murder/necrophilia/cannibalism/rape/retardation/blindness/deafness is a natural trait. This is well established and is found across the natural world. Perhaps we may recognize that which occurs naturally is not biologically, sociologically, or teleologically good or beneficial.

As I said even if I recognize it as natural the discussion become is it a adaptation, inconsequential, or a defect. All occur naturally. In the end it would be classified as a defect and though occurring naturally not something which is to be encouraged, promoted, or desired.

(July 21, 2015 at 6:17 pm)Ace Wrote: So if i read right you are extremely opposed taking anyone rights away? No matter what? Even at the cost of  denying another rights?

You read wrong. We must give up some liberties in order to live in a peaceful society. I was specific in stating that governments exist to curb and protect rights. It's necessary to maintain order.

(July 21, 2015 at 6:12 pm)Cato Wrote:

(July 21, 2015 at 5:59 pm)Anima Wrote: Invoking a "right" because it is something you desire does not establish a right.  That argument is far more unreasonable.

I have made no such claim. Try this, go in search for the origins of rights. You'll have to use anthropology and biology, not history or philosophy to help find the answer. This should tell you something.

Ha ha. I really do not think you want to make an appeal to anthropology and biology. Anthropologically speaking marriage is for determination of the legitimate heir. As such it should be barred from homosexuals and all person not intending to have children.

Biologically speaking there is no such thing as a right. I think you are endeavoring to argue a thing should be allowed to be what it is biologically. Since we readily recognize we are not to allow the virus to be at the expense of human lives we may readily recognize that not all biological conditions are of equal valuation and to be promoted or encouraged. As such we must identify that which serves the teleological biological end and say that is to be encouraged and that which is in opposition to the end is to be prohibited. In this case hetero does serve that end and homo is in opposition to that end.

(July 21, 2015 at 6:18 pm)Anima Wrote: Murder/necrophilia/cannibalism/rape/retardation/blindness/deafness is a natural trait. This is well established and is found across the natural world.  Perhaps we may recognize that which occurs naturally is not biologically, sociologically, or teleologically good or beneficial.

Don't be absurd, Murder, necrophilia, and cannibalism are actions not traits. Perhaps your problem is that you can't differentiate between homosexuality and gay sex.

(July 21, 2015 at 6:22 pm)Anima Wrote: Biologically speaking there is no such thing as a right.  I think you are endeavoring to argue a thing should be allowed to be what it is biologically.  

Wrong use of biology. I thought my meaning would be clear given my previous reference to the study of other apes.

(July 21, 2015 at 6:22 pm)Cato Wrote:

(July 21, 2015 at 6:17 pm)Ace Wrote: So if i read right you are extremely opposed taking anyone rights away? No matter what? Even at the cost of  denying another rights?

You read wrong. We must give up some liberties in order to live in a peaceful society. I was specific in stating that governments exist to curb and protect rights. It's necessary to maintain order.

Ok good you are aware that all liberties can not be given to all. . . . . ( I am I correct in my summery of your statement? )



(as for order, that can be argued because the laws that are passed by government encompass all so as to impose a type of harmony of people to live as best they can and as much as in peace as possible. They are laws that government enacts that have nothing to do with rights what so ever. So if the governments existence is to only curb and protect rights, why is it passing and dealing with laws that do not address peoples rights?)

(July 21, 2015 at 6:36 pm)Ace Wrote: So if the governments existence is to only curb and protect rights, why is it passing and dealing with laws that do not address peoples rights?)

Curious, you had to insert the word only into the sentence in order for you argument to make sense. I did not make the claim that this is governments only function although it's rare that laws don't have an impact on peoples liberty.

(July 21, 2015 at 6:40 pm)Cato Wrote:

(July 21, 2015 at 6:36 pm)Ace Wrote: So if the governments existence is to only curb and protect rights, why is it passing and dealing with laws that do not address peoples rights?)

Curious, you had to insert the word only into the sentence in order for you argument to make sense. I did not make the claim that this is governments only function although it's rare that laws don't have an impact on peoples liberty.

Could be just me but no matter . . . .oh but their are many . . .home construction laws, tax laws, education laws, driving laws, banking laws . . . and so on. There are many laws with in these given examples that have nothing to do with rights or liberty.

But I diverted you (i am sorry) the true thing I wanted to discuss question was liberties and rights for all. To which you have said (and i am summering you) . . . . that all liberties can not be given to all. people must given some up to live in a society. . . . ( I am I correct in my summery of your statement? )

(July 21, 2015 at 6:22 pm)Anima Wrote: Ha ha.  I really do not think you want to make an appeal to anthropology and biology.  Anthropologically speaking marriage is for determination of the legitimate heir.  As such it should be barred from homosexuals and all person not intending to have children.  

Couples who enter marriage knowing one party is incapable of reproduction are clearly not entering into marriage with the intention of fostering a legitimate heir and yet are not barred from the institute of matrimony. Indeed, according to the Catholic tradition it's a heresy to suggest they can't due to "natural law" and the Pauline provisions for those not capable of being "Eunuchs for the sake of heaven" and whom "burn".

Catholic Matrimony is already open to those not capable of procreation whereas for some Christians it is not.

Quote:Biologically speaking there is no such thing as a right.  I think you are endeavoring to argue a thing should be allowed to be what it is biologically.  Since we readily recognize we are not to allow the virus to be at the expense of human lives we may readily recognize that not all biological conditions are of equal valuation and to be promoted or encouraged.  As such we must identify that which serves the teleological biological end and say that is to be encouraged and that which is in opposition to the end is to be prohibited.  In this case hetero does serve that end and homo is in opposition to that end.

You've entered into heresy again, Pius IX in his Syllabus of Errors makes it quite clear rights are an objective reality when he declared that everyone has the right to the practice of Catholicism, including but not limited to access to matrimony. This is why since homosexuals have been barred from the priesthood and most religious orders the Courage apostolate has increasingly encouraged them to enter into heterosexual marriages.

The arguments concerning biological teleological ends are nothing short of feeble. It is the teleological end for my hair to grow, but the bible and earlier papal decrees order me as a male to keep it short. It is the teleological end in your logic for humans to reproduce, and yet the highest possible calling unto which all are encouraged is the celibate religious life in your faith.