Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | Home RSS
 
 
 

Making mockery of natural law

June 5, 2013

To the editor: Well, it looks like lots of hard work, perseverance, and money to buy the media and lobby the politicians has finally paid off for homosexual activist....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(35)

Zorromcgee

Jun-05-13 2:18 PM

Just wondering how same sex marriage makes a mockery of natural law when over 1500 species of animals exhibit same sex behavior?

11 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Ulm1212

Jun-05-13 3:56 PM

Phil, "Morally straight and clean in thought word and deed." Can you explain this to me more clearly? What does morally straight and clean look like in the bedroom of a catholic man? Does this allow room for oral sex, open mouth kissing, fondling? What is appropriate for a person who follows the "natural law" of sexuality. I assure you that these questions are not facetious. I truly can't imagine what types of things are condoned in the bedroom by a man who speaks so confidently of the deviance in the sex lives of others. I have read the bible, I am not looking for quotes. I am looking for what you think is appropriate in the bedroom of the community members sitting next to you in church. What is appropriate behavior between your buddy and his wife? Is everything "Natural" in the eyes of your god because they are married or do their actions have to be only that of procreation?

14 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JReader

Jun-05-13 4:47 PM

Is bigotry also part of your natural laws ? Is there a genetic test for bigotry ? Just wondering....

11 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

oteron

Jun-05-13 11:24 PM

Blah, blah. Before you proselytize to others, remove the log from your own eye. Follow your lord and mind your own business. We all have so many flaws and things to improve in our own life..stay out of the lives of others.

8 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

LJGibbs

Jun-06-13 8:18 AM

How ironic that someone who lives by man-made laws from a man-made book in a man-made church, while probably giving lots of his man-made money to it, is scolding others for mocking natural law. Quite sad too.

9 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Ring2003

Jun-06-13 9:06 AM

I'm curious as to where the Journal draws the line on printing hate against a group of people?

6 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MichaelT

Jun-06-13 11:09 AM

Ring2003: What are you suggesting? Are you suggesting that newspapers should no longer print any opinion that calls homosexuality immoral? Would that also apply to what can be said on tv? I wonder if you would elaborate a bit on what kind of speech you would limit and how. I'm interested.

7 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

tinfoil

Jun-06-13 11:42 AM

Ring2003 I see where MichaelT is coming from... how much censorship should we put into peoples opinions... that's just what an opinion is for.

However, I also see where Ring 2003 is coming from... Should the Journal allow others to use their media source as a platform for peoples' hate, bigotry, prejudice views?

Maybe write a letter to the editor about it. ;)

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Ring2003

Jun-06-13 1:43 PM

I'm not saying the Journal should censor- take a breath, Michael. It is just curious to me that certain words (even benign ones) are not allowed on their website but someone can make hateful statements against an entire group of people and everything is printed. The line is drawn in some instances but not others. Just wondering what the criteria is.

6 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MichaelT

Jun-06-13 3:06 PM

Ring2003: Which statements in this letter were "hateful"? Please be specific. Is there a way that Mr. Drietz could have expressed his opinion on this issue that you would not have considered hateful? How would you suggest that he should have worded it?

7 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Twizzy

Jun-07-13 10:23 AM

Not sure if that letter could have conflicted with itself anymore than it does . . .

4 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JReader

Jun-07-13 1:47 PM

Michael,

I agree I didn't find this letter hateful in it's intent. Willfully ignorant in it's approach to support a very narrowly consrtued Christian based worldview, it is certainly all that, but not hateful.

What I find perplexing is the refernce to "natural law" and how it is somehow being violated. When I think of natural law I think of the strong preying on the weak so in that regard I think we are a better society for at least in some instances breaking "natural law".

5 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MichaelT

Jun-07-13 3:26 PM

JR: The natural law to which Mr. Dietz refers is the fact that male and female sexual organs are obviously designed to complement one another in sexual activity. Sexual activity between male and male or female and female set aside nature's design. In this way sexual activity between members of the same sex does violence to the law of nature.

3 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Zorromcgee

Jun-07-13 3:52 PM

MT-there are over 1500 species of animals that exhibit same sex behaviour-which natural law are they breaking? 2 examples are the mallard and american bison-so should they be arrested for violating natural laws?

4 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MichaelT

Jun-07-13 4:14 PM

ZM: I don't intend to get into debating this with you. You are completely convinced that homosexual behavior is perfectly natural, and I am completely convinced that it is unnatural. Your "facts" are provided by a pro-homosexual site, and you accept them uncritically because you want them to be true. I won't even try to suggest that there may be other explanations for the phenomena to which you refer. Your faith in the prophets of the homosexual gospel is too strong.

4 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Zorromcgee

Jun-07-13 4:39 PM

MT-no my faith in science was too strong-And "pro-homosexual site" Like National Geographic? or wikipedia? Or UC Riverside? or Yale Scientific? Time Magazine? NBC news? So tell me if god created animals that participate in gay behavior are they sinning?

5 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Zorromcgee

Jun-07-13 6:31 PM

MT-I can certainly understand your refusal to debate facts that disagree with your world view. Those pesky scientists just keep poking holes in your theories. So are the sites that say the earth is billions of years old pro-gay too?

4 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MichaelT

Jun-07-13 6:53 PM

When science is politicized, it is no longer the objective pursuit of truth. It becomes a weapon used to compel acceptance of a pre-determined political objective.

5 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Zorromcgee

Jun-07-13 7:14 PM

So tell me-when religion is politicized, is it no longer the objective pursuit of truth. But it becomes a weapon used to compel acceptance of a pre-determined political objective. And please MT tell me which of the sources I listed were politicized. Your arguments are becoming vague and weak-those pesky facts just keep getting in the way!

5 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MichaelT

Jun-07-13 7:55 PM

ZM: It is true that animals sometimes simulate the act of breeding with members of their own sex. I'm sure many of us have seen one male dog attempt to do this to another.

This happens because the hormone-driven urge to reproduce is so strong that it is activated by the presence of another of their species, and it doesn't matter whether it's male or female.

When they do this, however, their action is not in harmony with the design of their sexual organs. Same-sex sexual activity is out of step with nature, whether done by animals or by humans.

By the way, if you have ever seen a dog attempt to do this to another dog, you will know that dog #2 does not welcome or cooperate with dog #1's ideas.

5 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

EaglesFan

Jun-07-13 8:27 PM

How many of you picked up your applications yet?

Since Humans, Dolphins and Bonobos are the only known species that have sex for pleasure, you cannot bring other species who have sexual involvement with same sex partners. I believe that it is purely out of instinct to reproduce that they will stick it anywhere, including a chair leg.

Should we allow marriage to chair legs next?

6 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

EaglesFan

Jun-07-13 8:30 PM

I see a lot of "hate filled" comments about Christians. That should be censored before any other comments made. I suggest we censor neither.

6 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Zorromcgee

Jun-07-13 9:49 PM

MT- so how is that violence against the laws of nature? if it is done in nature how can it be against natures laws? And you did not mention black swans, dolphins or american bison-are those animals just homone driven? Which by the way so are you. And where is your proof of pro-homosexual science sites? And are you saying that the many scientists from the 1700's to today that determined the earths age,all conspired with each other to politicize science and embarrass the church?

4 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MichaelT

Jun-08-13 12:00 AM

ZM: You claim that you have "science" on your side. I can claim that, too. How about a few quotes:

Despite the "homosexual" appearances of some animal behavior, this behavior does not stem from a "homosexual" instinct that is part of animal nature. Dr. Antonio Pardo, Professor of Bioethics at the University of Navarre, Spain, explains:

"Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals.... For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such. Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual. Such behavior cannot be equated with an animal homosexuality. All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction."

4 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MichaelT

Jun-08-13 12:02 AM

Or how about this one:

Biologist Bruce Bagemihl, whose book Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity was cited by the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association in their amici curiae brief in Lawrence v. Texas and is touted as proof that homosexuality is natural among animals, is careful to include a caveat:

"Any account of homosexuality and transgender animals is also necessarily an account of human interpretations of these phenomena....We are in the dark about the internal experience of the animal participants: as a result, the biases and limitations of the human observer--in both the gathering and interpretation of data--come to the forefront in this situation.....With people we can often speak directly to individuals (or read written accounts)....With animals in contrast, we can often directly observe their sexual (and allied) behaviors, but can only infer or interpret their meanings and motivations."

4 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 35 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web