All homosexual relationships are inferior

[Serious]

Actually, I wrote out the positive version because it’s shorter. The other one is similar. Using negative formulation anyway: I will not do to others what I do not want them to do to me still doesn’t reference what they want at all.

Indeed, cannot know that, since you are not privy to their thoughts. You just use your best judgment, and come to the conclustion that if you do not want something done to you, then it is very likely that they don’t want that “stuff” to be done to them.

What the rule prohibits depends on who is applying it to themselves. To use your example, a person who for some twisted reason wanted to be raped would not be prohibited from raping by the golden rule.

Undoubtedly. But ethical concepts are supposed to express what sane people do (and ought to do), not what a crazy, twisted person is likely to do. Ethical principles are not derived from the actions of people in an insane asylum. If you say that even the negative rule does not offer a surefire guideline for good behaviour - because an insane person could “misuse” it, then you are right, there is no absoute, certain, surefire method. But if your counter-example had to depend on the behavior of an insane person, then I am quite happy with the power of rule.

Indeed, I do not want to be hounded and I do not support hounding and continuously bothering a person. But lack of stalking a person and never giving them a moment’s peace is not the same as leaving them entirely alone.

Your astrologer, for example, could legitimately approach me to try to change my mind despite the fact that I am perfectly happy with where my mind is right now. But he could not, for example, break into my house at 3am, wake me up, and start telling me that I need to follow the signs of some stupid planet or other. Again, the fact that I think astrology is ridiculous just doesn’t come into play, and neither does the fact that I think there is absolutely zero chance that I will come to accept astrology.

No argument from me, since that is exactly what I advocated all along, and expressed it several times. You are welcome to express your views, up until the other party says: “thanks for your views, but please do not bother any more”. That is the point when your attempt to evangelize should stop.

 

[Serious]

Well, you see, belief is knowledge, in truth. I do not, in actuality, know for a fact much of anything. I simply believe I have not been lied to about everything. Therefore (to me at least) belief and knowledge are interchangeable terms, and I apologize for the confusion that may cause.

It is clear now, though I disagree. I am aware of the old definition of “knowledge is justified true belief”, and when that definition was concocted, it was not too bad. But since that time we developed information theory and quite a few other disciplines. The correct definition would be: “knowledge is correct information about something”, which is either the result of some deductive, axiomatic system, or can be objectively verified in the inductive system of reality.

I believe strongly in free will, and that I don’t have the right to infringe upon this, which I believe is the point you are trying to make. But I do not believe advocating my beliefs is violating theirs, but expressing mine. I think we could argue for years over what is “true” or not, but the point is that I think that truth should be used like food, given to the hungry, and allowing them to eat it or not. You are correct in saying that it should never be force-fed, or used to choke another. I hope that cleared my viewpoint up a bit more for you.

There was no real need to claify, since you expressed youself very clearly. As before, I accept your sincere view and the kind and loving way you expressed it (even though I disagree with what you consider “true”). But that is hardly relevant. As long as we can respect each other, a disagreement like this is a minor matter. Good luck in your vocation, whatever you choose it to be.

 

[mwok]

What about the chemicals that are passed between males and females that complete the sexual act? Wouldn’t it seem that a relationship in which the complimentary chemicals were released and received would be superior to a relationship in which both partners are releasing the same chemical but not receiving any?

 

[maria_teresa]

As a woman with SSA who also embraces Church teaching, I have found a GREAT deal of support,&encouragement.

Raa, meaning no disrespect, and also being a Catholic woman with SSA, I have never found any support or encouragement from the Catholic Church, or in any Catholic group. In fact, I’ve experienced just the opposite. So much has this been my experience, that quite frankly, the institutional Church is the last place I would look to for any consolation … at least, in its human aspect; especially, the clergy.

The Church would prefer that homosexuals remain in the closet … that would make their life so much easier. Unfortunately, that’s not about to happen.

Peace,
maria

 

[Iron_Donkey]

Undoubtedly. But ethical concepts are supposed to express what sane people do (and ought to do), not what a crazy, twisted person is likely to do. Ethical principles are not derived from the actions of people in an insane asylum. If you say that even the negative rule does not offer a surefire guideline for good behaviour - because an insane person could “misuse” it, then you are right, there is no absoute, certain, surefire method. But if your counter-example had to depend on the behavior of an insane person, then I am quite happy with the power of rule.

It doesn’t have to, since since even sane people can differ on what they want done to themselves. That example was used because it was easy to spot the problem. This does raise an interesting question: if the rule is considered good if it works for sane people, then how do you decide if someone is sane? My first impulse would be, with good rule defined in this way, circular. I suppose you could define sanity as relating to general averages of how people are, which is fine, but then the basis for deciding if a rule we use for morality is good or not is, more or less, society as a whole, which I don’t find particularly satisfying (mainly since it gives no way judge society as a whole). But continuing this further would probably be off topic.

No argument from me, since that is exactly what I advocated all along, and expressed it several times. You are welcome to express your views, up until the other party says: “thanks for your views, but please do not bother any more”. That is the point when your attempt to evangelize should stop.

It seems then that we disagree on two things then: how much annoyance is too much, and (possibly) whether or not the Golden Rule must, for a non-crazy person, prevent a person from trying to change someone else’s mind after a certain point.

However, since I do think that a general person should avoid excessive annoyance (even if I don’t think the way to do this is to drop a topic completely forever, but rather to dial down - possibly to zero, for a time at least - the direct argumentative approach), but just don’t think that this necessarily follows from the Golden Rule for an arbitrary non-crazy, it seems likely that the difference in what we think should be done, without referencing reasons, is primarily a matter of degree. And since our world views are (presumably, from what I’ve guessed from your replies) so different, I think this is probably an acceptable and, unless one of us makes a drastic change in beliefs in the future, insurmountable level of disagreement.

 

[Serious]

It doesn’t have to, since since even sane people can differ on what they want done to themselves.

In many things they do. But I never met anyone who wanted to be molested.

I suppose you could define sanity as relating to general averages of how people are, which is fine, but then the basis for deciding if a rule we use for morality is good or not is, more or less, society as a whole, which I don’t find particularly satisfying (mainly since it gives no way judge society as a whole). But continuing this further would probably be off topic.

And yet, that is exactly my position. Morality is simply the collection of written and unwritten rules of socially acceptable behavior. Nothing more, nothing less.

It seems then that we disagree on two things then: how much annoyance is too much, and (possibly) whether or not the Golden Rule must, for a non-crazy person, prevent a person from trying to change someone else’s mind after a certain point.

Simple. Once the person says: “leave me alone”, you reached the point of stopping.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

…
Morality is simply the collection of written and unwritten rules of socially acceptable behavior. Nothing more, nothing less.
…

That is clearly, simply, not the definition of morality. There are parts in the West where euthanasia for the old and sick, an immorality equivalent to murder, is socially acceptable. Even legally permissible!
,

 

[Serious]

That is clearly, simply, not the definition of morality. There are parts in the West where euthanasia for the old and sick, an immorality equivalent to murder, is socially acceptable. Even legally permissible!

And that means, that in those societies it is considered moral and acceptable. In some ancient societies it was common practise to kill and eat your enemies. It was common practise to leave the old and sick behind when the tribe had to move. In some societies today there is no nudity taboo. In those societies it is fine to go around naked, it is acceptable to have sex in public, which are social no-no-s in other societies.

All that means that morality is not fixed, it changes from society to society and it also changes within each society as time moves. You cannot impose your standards on other societies.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

Morality is simply the collection of written and unwritten rules of socially acceptable behavior. Nothing more, nothing less.

Disagree. Strongly. As you can probably guess, my view is that morality flows from God and is independent of society (though any given individual’s culpability for a mistake may vary somewhat depending on societal pressure and norms etc.).

This is why I kind of figured we were at an impasse, at least as far as the topic here goes. If you’re correct, then so long as society isn’t going to string me up for it, my sexual activities don’t really matter. If I’m correct, then any such activities that go against what sex really is are bad.

If you’re correct, then while I may as well try to convince others that my (socially acceptable, more or less) opinions are superior to their (socially acceptable, more or less) opinions, but in the end they are little more than preferences so it doesn’t really matter. In this view, there is a fairly low tolerance for the “collateral damage” of ticking people off, because I would essentially be ticking people off for no reason but to spread my own preferences.

If I’m correct, then each act in contravention of morality is an offense against truth and a terrible thing, and so I have a much stronger responsibility to do what I can (without doing anything that would itself be such a contravention, of course) to keep such offenses from occurring, especially by trying to convince people to that the offenses are in fact offenses and so that they should not do them. This view has a somewhat higher tolerance for the collateral damage of annoying people, though it is, of course, not unlimited and the methods which are permissible are constrained by the same morality that I’m trying to convince others are true.

And so we’re stuck, since I doubt either one of us is going to change his opinion about Absolute Truth on a thread about the morality of homosexual acts that has detoured into an argument over the morality of talking about the morality of homosexual acts.

 

[TarkanAttila]

To anyone who seriously believes morality is just a collection of rules, may I strongly advocate for Pope John Paul II’s “Theology of the Body”, and distillations thereof like Christopher West’s “Theology of the Body for Beginners”. It’s really an excellent book and reveals why we have the "do"s and "do not"s. It’s been an eyeopener for me, and many others. And you might enjoy the read, Serious.

The reason we have rules of any kind is to protect and to glorify something or someone for some reason. Take sex for example.

Now, JPII, upon reflecting on the Scriptures and upon human sexuality, teaches this:

That the conjugal act in its purest form reflects the love shared between God the Father and God the Son. It is also a reflection - more accurately an icon - of the love Christ shares with His Church. How can this be? Only when a man and a woman have sex freely, for the sake of creating new life, and for the sake of loving each other and bringing themselves closer to each other and each other closer to God. This is the kind of love God the Father has for God the Son - not a sexual love, but a love which is creative, unitive, freely offered, and wholly given.

This is why celibacy and marriage are both acceptable lifestyles while gay marriage, masturbating, and forced celibacy or forced marriage are not. Because the reality is that these are not completely loving relationships. A celibate priest freely offers his sexuality to God in exchange for the full love of God in Heaven here and now. Marriage is only an icon, a mirror, an image of that love between us and God.

That said, a loving, freely and totally given marriage is such a powerful icon of God and His love that anything less than that is an insult to Him and to us. Anything other than marriage or celibacy for the kingdom is simply not enough to satisfy our souls - for it brings the focus to man and not to God, who gave man marriage and in the end will give him marriage not only to another human, but a perfect marriage to Himself.

Also, by trusting God’s providence in the realms of love and intimacy, you avoid a life of singing this song.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

Disagree. Strongly. As you can probably guess, my view is that morality flows from God and is independent of society (though any given individual’s culpability for a mistake may vary somewhat depending on societal pressure and norms etc.).

To clarify, in light of one of your earlier posts, I am not saying that which actions are acceptable may not vary from society to society, only that the rules don’t. For example, I would claim that behaving in a way likely to tempt people to lust is always bad, but that wearing some of the non-covering tribal outfits may not qualify as such behavior within tribal society, but would within standard western society.

 

[Serious]

Disagree. Strongly. As you can probably guess, my view is that morality flows from God and is independent of society (though any given individual’s culpability for a mistake may vary somewhat depending on societal pressure and norms etc.).

This is why I kind of figured we were at an impasse, at least as far as the topic here goes. If you’re correct, then so long as society isn’t going to string me up for it, my sexual activities don’t really matter. If I’m correct, then any such activities that go against what sex really is are bad.

If you’re correct, then while I may as well try to convince others that my (socially acceptable, more or less) opinions are superior to their (socially acceptable, more or less) opinions, but in the end they are little more than preferences so it doesn’t really matter. In this view, there is a fairly low tolerance for the “collateral damage” of ticking people off, because I would essentially be ticking people off for no reason but to spread my own preferences.

If I’m correct, then each act in contravention of morality is an offense against truth and a terrible thing, and so I have a much stronger responsibility to do what I can (without doing anything that would itself be such a contravention, of course) to keep such offenses from occurring, especially by trying to convince people to that the offenses are in fact offenses and so that they should not do them. This view has a somewhat higher tolerance for the collateral damage of annoying people, though it is, of course, not unlimited and the methods which are permissible are constrained by the same morality that I’m trying to convince others are true.

And so we’re stuck, since I doubt either one of us is going to change his opinion about Absolute Truth on a thread about the morality of homosexual acts that has detoured into an argument over the morality of talking about the morality of homosexual acts.

Very well said, so we can agree to disagree, without any hostile feelings. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

 

[stephe1987]

I think people who are on this thread should download the podcast on Same Sex Attraction from the Catholic Answers Live show that aired earlier this month.

The podcast is really informative, and the questions are answered by someone who works with people with unwanted same sex attraction.

The podcast also represents the latest research and information on same sex attraction. The mainstream media is about 15 years out of date on that topic.

 

[RobbyS]

That’s a stereotype.

Depends on how they understand marriage.

These days it keeps picking up steam in infecting heterosexuals (especially blacks for unkown reasons).

I know people who were used as weapons against another parent.

Saying “not even all are homophobic” heavily implies most are.

Actually there is currently a return to orthodoxy amongst youth

How they understand marriage is they misunderstand it. They are hardly unique. Much of the world thinks of marriage as merely an affectional/sexual relationship, when it is supposed to be the basis of a family in the traditional sense. Like it or not, the whole complex of family law presupposes that reproduction will be the central element of a family. But where the ideology of ZPG has taken hold, with the fear that more children serve as a fatal drain on fatal resource, the convention moral stance comes to be that having children is a selfish act. And if this be the case, then homosexualty is not big deal. The practical problem being that birth control on a universal scale --and there is no more reliable form of birth control than sex between two men or between two women–has consequences that are as evil as famine. Any species to survive must produce ENOUGH off-spring. But how many is enough, and who is to be allowed to have them? And what happens if too few women want the bother of being pregnant?

 

[TarkanAttila]

I think people who are on this thread should download the podcast on Same Sex Attraction from the Catholic Answers Live show that aired earlier this month.

The podcast is really informative, and the questions are answered by someone who works with people with unwanted same sex attraction.

The podcast also represents the latest research and information on same sex attraction. The mainstream media is about 15 years out of date on that topic.

This one?

 

[RobbyS]

Ryan White got AIDS from a blood transfusion! He was a hemophiliac! That’s not his fault! How dare you

AIDS affects heterosexuals just as much as gays and drug users. Not very “loving” or “Christian” of you to stereotype people like that.

WHO --hardly a Christian organization–tells us that AIDS has several main “causes.” : male homosexual relationships, polygamous sexual relationships, and intravenous drug use… As for Ryan White, Elton John and his ilk did do the right think in convincing people that White was not at fault. The same can be said about the wives of black African males who come from a society with a long history of polygamy. At the same time, however, they tried to scare people into supporting AIDS research by claiming that it was about to go viral in the non-homsexual population. Not in North America.

 

[mitex]

WHO --hardly a Christian organization–tells us that AIDS has several main “causes.” : male homosexual relationships, polygamous sexual relationships, and intravenous drug use… As for Ryan White, Elton John and his ilk did do the right think in convincing people that White was not at fault. The same can be said about the wives of black African males who come from a society with a long history of polygamy. At the same time, however, they tried to scare people into supporting AIDS research by claiming that it was about to go viral in the non-homsexual population. Not in North America.

What the heck is wrong with AIDS research?!?

 

[RobbyS]

AIDS research is fine. It was just that they wanted a medical cure for a STD that had snuck up on them. Every other kind had a “silver bullet”to cure it, but AIDS was frightening. There was none. They feared that if it was perceived as simply a gay disease, then not enough money would be forthcoming. In any case, more money has been raised for AIDS research than for curing malaria, which in Africa is something even worse.