Religion stifles Moral Evolution

[Brian37]

One of your "harm to society" items is a direct result of one of your 2 functional purposes, and mostly occurs inside those sacred bons.
As a matter of fact, more gay people would result in a lot less of that problem. (out of wedlock birth occurs, but the vast, vast, vast majority of birth, and therefore overpopulation, is from straight married couples).

If people only had sex while married, it would logically follow that less people would be getting conceived. Last I heard, 40% of children were being born to unwed mothers now a days. I'm not sure if that number is accurate or not, but even if that number was 10%, that's still millions of people. 

Also, men and women feel used inside of straight marriages all the time, and can possible not feel used inside gay ones.

Agreed. That is why I specified that the sex act be mutually self giving.  

Lastly, the first purpose of marriage you listed has nothing to do with the second, and people of all sexualities want exactly that out of marriage, that's one reason they want to be married also!  Why are you denying it to them?  You just said it's one of the main purposes!

I would disagree on the first and second not going together. The most basic, fundamental reason why sex exists in the first place is for successfully continuing on the human race. The procreation part of it, in and of itself, makes the babies. The unitive part of it creates a bond that will help the couple stay together to keep the family intact, thus providing the ideal environment for the future generation to be raised in. It's no surprise that many criminals come from broken homes or homes with no father figure. Family is very important to the foundation of society, and both purposes of sex are geared towards it. We believe sex outside of this context is contrary to natural law because it is being used outside of its intended purpose.      

So, quote me where Jesus says anything about gay folks.
Tell me why this is an issue for you, personally, but it's ok to wear mixed fibers.  I'm completely serious.

To be fair, I never claimed Jesus said anything about gay folks. If I did, it would kind of debunk my whole point that our thinking about morality isn't just "because God said so", as the OP claims.     

And where do you get that understanding?  If not "because religion told you so"?

Because none of your reasons are outside of religious ones.

Please let me clarify, I think I put a few too many questions in there.

Cl, you state that you do not hold beliefs soley because your religion told you so, but that there are books of study on many moral subjects, backing up your doctrines moral law.

Then please sum up your non-religious reasons for opposing homosexual marriage (or homosexual behavior).

(I still wouldn't mind if you answered my other questions, but I think this one covers the main conversation better).

Well, to clarify, I never said they aren't religious reasons. If we believe in God, it logically follows that we believe moral standards were set by Him. So they are always going to be "religious reasons" in that sense. 

But what I was saying was that it is important that we understand why our religion teaches what it does about morality, and not just settle with "Because God/religion says so." It's important to understand why we think something is immoral, and how we came to that conclusion. And that's where Natural Law comes in. 

I think I have already explained why I believe sex outside the standards I presented is contrary to Natural Law. Hopefully my answers above helped to further clarify.

NO CL sex isn't solely about leading to offspring. It is ALSO a form of social bonding. And as others here have said rightfully, STDs are not about married vs single and happen in both. You can even pick up an STD from a public toilet or even your own if not properly cleaned. 

Religion, not just yours, but worldwide, distorts our natural behaviors and creates unrealistic stories about the right path. Reality isn't a fairy tale where Roy Rogers wins the gale and rides off into the sunset. The reason we have answers to the things humans once thought were magic, is because humans dared to investigate and test and reject social norms. 

Sex education, knowing how your body works, and teaching society consent is what matters, while teaching the risks, are what reduce STDs and unwanted pregnancies, not old mythology.

[Minimalist]

[Catholic_Lady]

I assume the spread of STD would be greatly diminished if everyone only had sex with one person.

[The Grand Nudger]

Gay people are capable of having sex with just one person.  Next.

The explanation for classifying homosexual sex and relationships as immoral remains, and will always remain nothing more or less than "Magic book said so". Sure, a person can field a mountain of rationalizations meant to occlude that fact to others or even themselves....but...what's the point?

[Catholic_Lady]

If people only had sex while married, it would logically follow that less people would be getting conceived. Last I heard, 40% of children were being born to unwed mothers now a days. I'm not sure if that number is accurate or not, but even if that number was 10%, that's still millions of people. 


Agreed. That is why I specified that the sex act be mutually self giving.  


I would disagree on the first and second not going together. The most basic, fundamental reason why sex exists in the first place is for successfully continuing on the human race. The procreation part of it, in and of itself, makes the babies. The unitive part of it creates a bond that will help the couple stay together to keep the family intact, thus providing the ideal environment for the future generation to be raised in. It's no surprise that many criminals come from broken homes or homes with no father figure. Family is very important to the foundation of society, and both purposes of sex are geared towards it. We believe sex outside of this context is contrary to natural law because it is being used outside of its intended purpose.      


To be fair, I never claimed Jesus said anything about gay folks. If I did, it would kind of debunk my whole point that our thinking about morality isn't just "because God said so", as the OP claims.     

Well, to clarify, I never said they aren't religious reasons. If we believe in God, it logically follows that we believe moral standards were set by Him. So they are always going to be "religious reasons" in that sense. 

But what I was saying was that it is important that we understand why our religion teaches what it does about morality, and not just settle with "Because God/religion says so." It's important to understand why we think something is immoral, and how we came to that conclusion. And that's where Natural Law comes in. 

I think I have already explained why I believe sex outside the standards I presented is contrary to Natural Law. Hopefully my answers above helped to further clarify.

NO CL sex isn't solely about leading to offspring. It is ALSO a form of social bonding. And as others here have said rightfully, STDs are not about married vs single and happen in both. You can even pick up an STD from a public toilet or even your own if not properly cleaned. 

Religion, not just yours, but worldwide, distorts our natural behaviors and creates unrealistic stories about the right path. Reality isn't a fairy tale where Roy Rogers wins the gale and rides off into the sunset. The reason we have answers to the things humans once thought were magic, is because humans dared to investigate and test and reject social norms. 

Sex education, knowing how your body works, and teaching society consent is what matters, while teaching the risks, are what reduce STDs and unwanted pregnancies, not old mythology.

I would change "social bonding" to "marital bonding" and would say that the whole purpose of this bond happening in the first place is to help the couple stay together in case there is a child involved. That is literally why sex evolved the way it did.

[Brian37]

I assume the spread of STD would be greatly diminished if everyone only had sex with one person.

Don't assume, learn. If you contract one, a doctor is where you should go, a priest is only providing you emotional support. 

Our species evolved, not just men, but females as well, to seek out multiple(not fuck all at the same time), but survey partners to maximize potential for stronger offspring. NO, I am not suggestion large public orgies. I am simply stating that diversity is because of DNA being exposed to a variety. Monogamy in humans is sold as a fairy tale. Monogamy in reality is an individual trait. 


Penguins depending on species are far more loyal than humans. The problem with the way religion sells marriage, is that it sells you the idea that you are a failure if the marriage does not work out. The reality is, even with friends, sometimes things change and the bond you had when you started changes over time. I am quite sure you can name plenty of people you have fallen out of touch with or decided they were not the person you thought, and you don't have sex with them do you?

I am not knocking marriage. I am saying it isn't a magic cure. Nor is it a medical cure.

[brewer]

Priests, nuns, no divorce, no same sex unions, monogamy, natural law, good one.

[Aroura]

And gay people evolved the way they did for a natural, useful purpose also. It exists in nature, in human nature, and is natural. Studies even show quite a lot of purpose, and positive benefits to society.

Some people in your religion made an argument that you accept whole cloth, despite it not aligning with known scientific nature, and you are someone who accepts science generally, and yet this time you take your religions word for it.
It seems to me the very definition of "because my religion said so". The guys in charge may give reasons, but all religions give reasons for their rules. Your responses concerning other people, religious officials, coming up with reasons is, accidently on your part I think, a total srawman. That isnt what we are dis ussing, nor what theOP is asserting.
The question is whether adherants accept those reasons because they are part of their religion, or if they think them out independently.

Also, you keep saying we and us, saying gayness is against Natural Law, yet you personally don't deny their right to marry, correct? So you disagree with what your religion teaches here, or not? I'm honestly a bit confused on your personal stznce, compared to the RCCs stance.

Last question at this time, do you differ from official RCC teachings on anything, or do you accept it all as unquestionably true? That which you are aware of, of course.

[Brian37]

NO CL sex isn't solely about leading to offspring. It is ALSO a form of social bonding. And as others here have said rightfully, STDs are not about married vs single and happen in both. You can even pick up an STD from a public toilet or even your own if not properly cleaned. 

Religion, not just yours, but worldwide, distorts our natural behaviors and creates unrealistic stories about the right path. Reality isn't a fairy tale where Roy Rogers wins the gale and rides off into the sunset. The reason we have answers to the things humans once thought were magic, is because humans dared to investigate and test and reject social norms. 

Sex education, knowing how your body works, and teaching society consent is what matters, while teaching the risks, are what reduce STDs and unwanted pregnancies, not old mythology.

I would change "social bonding" to "marital bonding" and would say that the whole purpose of this bond happening in the first place is to help the couple stay together in case there is a child involved. That is literally why sex evolved the way it did.

No, sorry, that is wrong. If you don't want people telling you, you cant get married, then don't assume others cant socially bond without marriage. 

Marriage DID NOT exist 200,000 years ago. That is a word humans created as an artificial construct, and back when it became a written word it was a "bonding" between families mostly, not individuals by their own consent. Girls, females, worldwide in antiquity were not seen as equals to men, they were seen as property to be bartered between families.

[vorlon13]

I assume the spread of STD would be greatly diminished if everyone only had sex with one person.

Depends on who that one person is, don't it ?