Honestly I don’t see the point.

This is why, unlike shrill atheists, I have respect for the beliefs of others, even if they contradict mine.

What a beautiful sentence, perfectly self-righteous and entirely unaware that its language contradicted its argument.

So while others may have different beliefs on sexuality, we can objectively reason that same-sex attraction is disordered since it is an “offense” to the telos of man.

How very amusing. Arguing that one can “objectively reason” by appealing to the teachings of one’s church and declaring that they define the meaning of humanity.

And don’t you love it when people capitalize “Truth” as though it just makes it more true? My “Truth” is objective because I subjectively say it is so.

Brian is, nevertheless, clearly an intelligent man. What a pity that he is leaping through hoops to try and convince himself that his religious beliefs are objective and universally true and that the only reason that other don’t see the obvious is because they are products of modern thinking rather than ancient belief.

I am a Christian. But I certainly hope that my expression of my faith is not so arrogant and certain as is Brian’s.

Same-sex attraction is a disorder from the teleology of man, from his nature and from his end – but it is NOT itself a sin.

I was just going to say how “Catholic” this sounds but Brian confirmed it and he’s very “into” the whole religious explanation of same-sex attraction and explains it with a tone that declares his belief like he just dug up hard scientific evidence in an rocky dry riverbed in Ethiopia.

Using religious jabberwocky to explain homosexuality nets nonsense, Brian. I look forward to your scholarly, peer reviewed evidence. Paul Cameron has a pay-as-you-publish “scientific” journal. I’m sure he’ll accommodate your views.

And keep in mind that your original post does not contradict any of those statements.

You said: So while others may have different beliefs on sexuality, we can objectively reason that same-sex attraction is disordered since it is an “offense” to the telos of man.

No we cannot Brian because it has been objectively reasoned that homosexuality is not disordered, so it appears that objectivity is relative – interesting :)

For the record, a man can marry another man by religion in almost all states, and in several of those states it is recognized as well.

It most certainly has to do with you treading on the rights of others and attempting to use “objectivity” to rationalize a reason to legislate your own personal beliefs on others. Trying to pass prejudice off as objectivity and reason is an old and dangerous game. That sort of thinking was used to deny African Americans rights as well.

I should tell you I have a few gay friends, men, in Midwestern states where same sex marriage isn’t recognized who married gay women for tax and health ins benefits but they lead their own separate romantic and sexual lives. Is this the kind of set up you want?

Brian said “Man has an innate sense of the eternal, and man’s attempts at apprehending it are beautifully expressed through the world’s religions.”.

Wow, are you ever out of touch with reality. The religions of the world call for unbelievers to be put to death, demand the unequal treatment or murder of gays and you see this as “beautiful” – wow!

Brian said “This is why, unlike shrill atheists, I have respect for the beliefs of others, even if they contradict mine.”.

If you had respect for other’s beliefs you wouldn’t be here trying to convince us that its good to deny gays the right of marriage. You most certainly have no respect for anyone’s beliefs other than your own.

Brian said “I also have a respect for the Truth, which we can discern through reason because the Truth is rational…we can objectively reason that same-sex attraction is disordered since it is an “offense” to the telos of man.”.

Any time someone capitalizes the “Truth” you can be sure they’re talking about anything but the truth. The truth is that the essence of morality is “Do whatever you want but harm no one”. As same sex attraction harms no one and brings people together in love to care for each other it is an offense to no one and is not in anyway disordered.

In modern popular thinking, there is only the will of the individual, and there are only disputes when the will of one interferes with with the will of another. Notice, there is no regard for reason or Truth.”.

Reason shows us that the truth is that it is moral to do whatever you want as long as you harm no one. Your believing something for which there is no evidence shows you have no regard for reason or truth.

Brian said “You perceive people like me to be violating the will (or “freedom”) of others, but this is not so.”.

When you oppose others marrying the one they love most you are most certainly violating their will and freedom.

Brian said “Hetero or homosexual, every person has the right to marry, but marriage is defined, and definitions, well, by definition, discriminate. For the same reason a heterosexual man cannot marry more than one woman, I cannot marry another man. The right to marriage is extended to both of us, but it has attached to it conditions which do discriminate what a marriage is and what a marriage isn’t. It is inadequate in law to meddle with this universal, and this is my true intention – to protect marriage, not to infringe on the will of others.”

You are not protecting marriage, you’re attacking it, trying to prevent marriages. No one is trying to deny heterosexuals the right to marry, there is nothing to protect heterosexual marriage from.

The right to marry means nothing if it does not include the right to marry the person of your choice. You as a man have the right to marry Alice, but I as a woman do not. That’s sex discrimination. Morality and justice demand that I have the same rights as you.

You’re saying that it would be fair to deny Republicans the right to vote for republican candidates because everyone would have the equal right to vote democrat – your logic is absurd.

Brian said “I agree with you that the State simply should not be involved. The State, when it gets involved in matters it shouldn’t, creates needless divisions among its people.”.

You’re attempting to create the ultimate division between people, you’re attempting to forcibly divorce loving gay couples, that is most certainly a needless division.

I do not know either of those two men. In any case, unless I missed something, the post was not limited to those two men.

Jayhuck,

Yes, I have respect for the beliefs of others. Man has an innate sense of the eternal, and man’s attempts at apprehending it are beautifully expressed through the world’s religions. This is why, unlike shrill atheists, I have respect for the beliefs of others, even if they contradict mine. Incidentally, this respect is also articulated in the Catechism. However, I also have a respect for the Truth, which we can discern through reason because the Truth is rational. So while others may have different beliefs on sexuality, we can objectively reason that same-sex attraction is disordered since it is an “offense” to the telos of man.

Now, modern popular thinking often finds the above to be unintelligible. In modern popular thinking, there is only the will of the individual, and there are only disputes when the will of one interferes with with the will of another. Notice, there is no regard for reason or Truth. You perceive people like me to be violating the will (or “freedom”) of others, but this is not so. Hetero or homosexual, every person has the right to marry, but marriage is defined, and definitions, well, by definition, discriminate. For the same reason a heterosexual man cannot marry more than one woman, I cannot marry another man. The right to marriage is extended to both of us, but it has attached to it conditions which do discriminate what a marriage is and what a marriage isn’t. It is inadequate in law to meddle with this universal, and this is my true intention – to protect marriage, not to infringe on the will of others. Marriage has been under consistent attack since the passing of laws permitting no-fault divorce. A recent study by Pew Research Center shows that 4 in 10 Americans think marriage is irrelevant and obsolete. Children are being born out of wedlock and into single-parent house-broken homes; adultery and divorce are devastating families; many are marrying very old or not at all; and the populations of countries all over the world are on the decline because couples are not having as many children as they used to.

I agree with you that the State simply should not be involved. The State, when it gets involved in matters it shouldn’t, creates needless divisions among its people.

Anyway, back to my original point. The blog post is juvenile, a caricature.

You said: “Marriage is an institution that pre-existed the State, it has no business whatsoever meddling with it anymore than it has any business in changing the sum 2 + 2 to equal 5.”

Sometimes I agree with you. I think the State should get out of the marriage business altogether! There should be no state sanctioned straight or gay marriage. But as long as the SECULAR, I emphasize that word, State is sanctioning straight marriage, than it must sanction same-sex marriage as well.

I should have added this to my post above:

The other point I was trying to make is, if you want people to respect your beliefs, you might want to try respecting the beliefs of others. Treat others as you would want to be treated :)

You said:

“Same-sex attraction is a disorder from the teleology of man, from his nature and from his end – but it is NOT itself a sin.”

I respect your right to your beliefs, but you do realize that not everyone believes as you do, correct? I mean despite the fact that there are people among your own faith who would disagree with you, there are millions, if not billions, of people of other faiths who may or may not agree as well.

All I”m saying is don’t write things like this as if they are a fact. They may be for you in your belief system, but that doesn’t mean they hold true for the rest of the world