Are Christians afraid to speaking against homosexual agenda?

[Realist]

How are Natural Law arguments against homosexual marriages a way of advocating eugenics?

In case you haven’t noticed, homosexual couples cannot have children…DUH!

Looks like a “Realist” needs a reality check!

I have to hand it to you, Syntax, you have some solid critical thinking skills. I was alluding to eugenics because the study of eugenics came about as a result of bigots trying to justify their bigotry with science. I am actually somewhat sympathetic to Christians who are opposed to homosexuality on the basis of religion alone. If you believe in The Bible and you believe the bible teaches that acting on homosexual desires is a sin, then it seems reasonable for you to oppose homosexuality. But when you reach beyond your faith into these silly arguments like “natural law” you start to sound like the racists who used eugenics to justify their prejudices.

 

[Syntax]

But when you reach beyond your faith into these silly arguments like “natural law” you start to sound like the racists who used eugenics to justify their prejudices.

ha ha! Have you ever heard of false analogies? The analogy sucks. So your own comparison is intellectually obtuse.

Again, how does the selective and controlled breeding of the masses under government control compare to society not sanctioning gay marriage, or not sanctioning polygamy, and not sanctioning incest between brother and sister?

Should you be allowed to marry your mom, your dad, brothers, sisters, aunts, and uncles?

What about having multiple wives or mutlitple husbands?

What about you and Koko the Chimpanzee wanting to marry eachother?

Would society’s refusing to sanction these unions be a form of discrimination, too–and comparable to Hitler-style eugenics?

You are still in desperate need of that reality check, Mr. Realist!

Question: according to what moral principle do you draw the line between when it is, and is not, morally permissible to marry whomever and whatever you want? Tell me.

This is exactly your own burden to bear since you just now cut out all appeals to “Natural Law” for being able to tell us when it is, and is not, morally permissible to marry someone or some thing. And notice, whatever moral principle you come up with cannot make reference to a moral code that “only Human Beings are allowed to marry” because then you would be appealing to the Natural Law itself by differentiating between species. So Good Luck!

 

[Realist]

ha ha! Have you ever heard of false analogies? The analogy sucks. So your own comparison is intellectually obtuse.

Again, how does the selective and controlled breeding of the masses under government control compare to society not sanctioning gay marriage, or not sanctioning polygamy, and not sanctioning incest between brother and sister?

Should you be allowed to marry your mom, your dad, brothers, sisters, aunts, and uncles?

What about having multiple wives or mutlitple husbands?

What about you and Koko the Chimpanzee wanting to marry eachother?

Would society’s refusing to sanction these unions be a form of discrimination, too–and comparable to Hitler-style eugenics?

You are still in desperate need of that reality check, Mr. Realist!

Question: according to what moral principle do you draw the line between when it is, and is not, morally permissible to marry whomever and whatever you want? Tell me. This is your burden to bear since you just now cut out all appeals to Natural Law for being able to tell us when it is, and is not, morally permissible to marry someone or some thing. And notice, whatever moral principle you come up with cannot make reference to a moral code that “only Human Beings are allowed to marry” because then you would be appealing to the Natural Law itself by differentiating between species. So Good Luck!

Oh Syntax, I love your smugness. You, too, are being intellectual obtuse. (Should I have bolded that for effect?) I would not compare homosexual couples to myself and Koko the Chimpanzee, though she’s awful cute and has a wonderful personality.

 

[Syntax]

Oh Syntax, I love your smugness. You, too, are being intellectual obtuse. (Should I have bolded that for effect?) I would not compare homosexual couples to myself and Koko the Chimpanzee, though she’s awful cute and has a wonderful personality.

Why is it different? I see you’re still deficient in coming up with an answer to my question. I’ll give you time.

 

[Realist]

Why is it different? I see you’re still deficient in coming up with an answer to my question. I’ll give you time.

And I see you’re deficient (is that even the right usage?) in acknowledging your intellectual obtuseness. I’ll give you time.

[smug emoticon]

 

[Syntax]

And I see you’re deficient (is that even the right usage?) in acknowledging your intellectual obtuseness. I’ll give you time.

[smug emoticon]

I see. Avoidance

I will ask again.

According to what moral principle do you draw the line between when it is, and is not, morally permissible to marry whomever and whatever you want?

 

[Realist]

I see. Avoidance

I will ask again.

“According to what moral principle do you draw the line between when it is, and is not, morally permissible to marry whomever and whatever you want?”

I see you’re practicing avoidance as well. But that’s okay. You’ve got your double standard to hide behind.

Anyway, as far as I’m concerned, people can marry whomever they want, as long as the other person/creature/tree is able to agree, without being forced, to the arrangement. Politically, I would say that my position is idealistic and perhaps untenable. But I would say that your position, and your comparison of gays marrying gays and me marrying a chimpanzee is intended to marginalize a group you don’t like. Have fun with your hate!

 

[Zatzat]

I see you’re practicing avoidance as well. But that’s okay. You’ve got your double standard to hide behind.

Anyway, as far as I’m concerned, people can marry whomever they want, as long as the other person/creature/tree is able to agree, without being forced, to the arrangement. Politically, I would say that my position is idealistic and perhaps untenable. But I would say that your position, and your comparison of gays marrying gays and me marrying a chimpanzee is intended to marginalize a group you don’t like. Have fun with your hate!

Well reasoned. I see that you won’t be bullied into silence. Good for you.

 

[Syntax]

I see you’re practicing avoidance as well. But that’s okay. You’ve got your double standard to hide behind.

What double standard? That I am avoiding admitting I am intellectually obtuse? Where’s your argument, and what’s your case?

Is this the best you can do for your homosexual brethren out there needing a good defense? You’re coming up drastically short, Mr. Realist. You can’t even stick to the topic of the OP.

Anyway, as far as I’m concerned, people can marry whomever they want, as long as the other person/creature/tree is able to agree, without being forced, to the arrangement.

Ok, so you have given me the principle of consent:

X is allowed to marry Y if and only if X and Y mutually consent to that arrangement.

You and Koko mutually agree to marry one another. Therefore, it is morally permissible to marry one another.

You and your sister mutually consent to marry one another. Therefore, it is morally permissible to marry one another.

You and ten wives mutually consent to marry one another. Therefore, it is morally permissible for you to marry one another.

Politically, I would say that my position is idealistic and perhaps untenable.

Yes it is. It is also disgusting because the principle allows people, if they so choose, to marry animals. If you want to say that marrying animals, marrying your sister, or marrying ten wives is wrong, then you need to change your view about what is, and is not, morally permissible. So do you change the principle, or do you stay with this principle?

But I would say that your position, and your comparison of gays marrying gays and me marrying a chimpanzee is intended to marginalize a group you don’t like.

Bringining up Koko the Chimpanzee is not intended to marginalize anybody. It is designed to put the burden on you for explaining to me why homosexuals should be allowed to marry, but you and Koko should not be allowed to marry. If you cannot come up with a principle that helps us make this distinction, then you are permitting that anyone can have sexual relations with and marry anything he or she wants so long as two parties, whether animal or human, consent to that arrangement.

Have fun with your hate!

This is a false ad hominem. You result to using it because you lack an intelligent response.

 

[Syntax]

Well reasoned. I see that you won’t be bullied into silence. Good for you.

There’s no argument there. There isn’t any reason.

Did the both of you flunk out of school?

 

[Realist]

Avoiding admitting that I am intellectually obtuse? Where’s your argument, and what’s your case?

I took the same amount of time to make a case for your intellectual obtuseness as you did when you accused me of the same thing.

Get a hobby.

This is a false ad hominem.

Ok, so you have given me the principle of consent:

X is allowed to marry Y if and only if X and Y mutually consent to that arrangement.

You and Koko mutually agree to marry one another. Therefore, it is morally permissible to marry one another.

You and your sister mutually consent to marry one another. Therefore, it is morally permissible to marry one another.

You and ten wives mutually consent to marry one another. Therefore, it is morally permissible for you to marry one another.

Yes it is. It is also disgusting because the principle allows people, if they so choose, to marry animals. If you want to say that marrying animals, marrying your sister, or marrying ten wives is wrong, then you need to change your view about what is, and is not, morally permissible. So do you change the principle, or do you stay with this principle?

Oh boy, you sure outfoxed me. I stick with my principle. I’m not sure how one would secure, say, a cow’s consent, but if consent could be verified, I wish the couple of a happy life.

Bringining up Koko the Chimpanzee is not intended to marginalize anybody.

Sure it’s not.

It is designed to put the burden on you for explaining to me why homosexuals should be allowed to marry, but you and Koko should not be allowed to marry. If you cannot come up with a principle that helps us make this distinction, then you are permitting that anyone can have sexual relations with and marry anything he or she wants so long as two parties, whether animal or human, consent to that arrangement.

Well, I’ve given you my principle, so I hope you’re satisfied.

This is a false ad hominem

Oh, the irony.

 

[Realist]

There’s no argument there. There isn’t any reason.

Did the both of you flunk out of school?

Yup, I flunked out of school. But it’s okay. Afterward, I met Koko. She’s helped me through a lot.

 

[Colgate]

I don’t really care about homosexuality. It simply isn’t an important Catholic agenda. Would rather spend my time promoting social justice, you know?

Jesus didn’t exactly say anything about it in the Bible either… there actually is a passage that suspiciously looks like He is trying to defend homosexuality. At any rate, He didn’t tell us to throw stones at bad people, and that’s what I will do.

Jesus probably disapproved of any form of sexual promiscuity. So if you are sexually really active but still put down homosexuals, you might list as a Pharisee on his book.

PS. And OH YES, I do believe in cowardice and survival. You can be like…

• a young earth, literal six-day creationist and head off arguing against seasoned scientists, hopelessly be out of your depth and critically embarrass your religion (and at the same time turning scientists who go to church away from their religion)
• or you can be like me, playing it along with modernity.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

So, is the Catholic school going to kick kids out of school if the school administration catches wind that the parents of one of their students, not only masturbate, but the parents advocate that masturbation is healthy and a normal act?

Or if the parents use birth control?

Or if the parents have sex for other than procreation?

Or if the parents don’t believe they need to attend weekly mass?

Or if the parents aren’t married, but living in common law?

Or if one of the parents got divorced, re-married in a Las Vegas Chapel, never had an annulment and continue to receive the Eucharist without ever going to confession?

Would the Catholic school kick a kid out under any of those circumstances, where the parents unrepetently continue to commit those sins???

Not a chance.

Hence, the extreme hypocrisy and odd preoccupation with homosexual sin of those schools.

The school in question severed the relationship with that “family” for two very good reasons. First of all, the confusion of the children who would be hearing at school that the lifestyle of their “parents” is sinful, and also because such an arrangement creates the possible perception that the Church condones something that it does not condone.

This is the same reason that pregnant teens are often expelled from Catholic schools – the reality is that the school cannot risk the creation of such a scandal.

With regards to the other examples you gave, it is possible that parents who commit those sins would not have their children sent away merely because of their sin; if however they were vociferously advocating their actions in defiance of the Church, they may well risk such an expulsion–and with good reason.

The fact is that, had the gay couple in question just kept their lives private (as most people do) they would not have created the situation that led to their child(ren) being expelled. They made a choice between the good of their children and their own pride, and the children suffered for it. The same would likely happen to a divorced-and-remarried parent who openly and brazenly decried the Church’s teaching on the sanctity of marriage, or a parent who openly advocated masturbation (yeesh – at a school???).

Peace,
Dante

 

[Colgate]

Oh yeah, the part about St Paul condemning homosexuals…

Isn’t it widely suspected that the original Greek version did NOT make such a specific reference to homosexuals? I heard it was just the New International Version.

Just my thoughts.

 

[Syntax]

This is a false ad hominem.

No it is not an *ad hominem *at all because I wasn’t intending my remark to take the place of a well-reasoned argument–unlike your own remark which did have that function–you accused me of “hating” homosexuals in order to provide defense for your belief that homosexual unions are morally permissible. So your argument is a logical fallacy.

Telling you to “get a hobby” was my way of implying you prefer to make a big deal about trivial issues instead of sticking to the topic at hand. In fact, accusing me of “obtuseness” was your **only **available response in answering my initial question in search for your own moral principles.–which you clearly don’t have with respect to the institution of marriage.

Oh boy, you sure outfoxed me.

I guess so. You put yourself in a box right from the start.

I stick with my principle.

You are forced to–because you don’t have a case.

I’m not sure how one would secure, say, a cow’s consent, but if consent could be verified, I wish the couple of a happy life. Well, I’ve given you my principle, so I hope you’re satisfied.

I guess everyone is free to hold morally reprehensible beliefs.

 

[preV2tradcath]

Jesus didn’t exactly say anything about it in the Bible either… there actually is a passage that suspiciously looks like He is trying to defend homosexuality. At any rate, He didn’t tell us to throw stones at bad people, and that’s what I will do.
.

And that passage would be? O.K. I admit you have aroused my curiosity.

 

[Realist]

No it is not an *ad hominem *at all because I wasn’t intending my remark to take the place of a well-reasoned argument–unlike your own remark which did have that function–you accused me of “hating” homosexuals in order to provide defense for your belief that homosexual unions are morally permissible. So your argument is a logical fallacy.

Telling you to “get a hobby” was my way of implying you prefer to make a big deal about trivial issues instead of sticking to the topic at hand. In fact, accusing me of “obtuseness” was your **only **available response in answering my initial question in search for your own moral principles.–which you clearly don’t have with respect to the institution of marriage.

Gotchya. So then when you implied I flunked out of school, that was ad hominem attack. I’m learning so much!

I guess so. You put yourself in a box right from the start.

You are forced to–because you don’t have a case.

I guess everyone is free to hold morally reprehensible beliefs.

Honestly, you’re using the appearance of reason and a deference to the church’s morality to justify the continued oppression of a segment of the population. That’s just what’s happening. You can deny that’s what you’re doing, but you’re being dishonest. You also talk about gay people like they live in this other-world, this non-hetero world where the rest of us straight people get to judge them and compare them and their lifestyles to bestiality and polygamy. You say I need a reality check. You need one, friend. Some of my closest compatriots are gay, and nearly all of them are in committed, loving relationships. They’re normal people. Swap one out for an emotionally identical member of the opposite sex, and no one would be the wiser. These are people we’re talking about. You might remember that when you slander them or judge them for the way they are or act like their relationships are somehow less worthy than heterosexual relationships.

Also, for the all the talk you do about logic and reason, you haven’t presented your case for why homosexual relationships are less worthy than heterosexual relationships. You seem to think you have an argument that doesn’t involve faith, and I can’t wait to hear it.

 

[Syntax]

Gotchya. So then when you implied I flunked out of school, that was ad hominem attack. I’m learning so much!

No, it’s not. It’s a serious question because you are having trouble putting together plausible and rationally acceptable arguments. So I am seriously curious what kind of education you have.

*Ad hominems *mask as arguments which are clearly fallacious. Here is some reference:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem_fallacy

Here is another reference about false analogies–your faulty comparison of eugenics with society not allowing the legalization of some marriages is an instance of this fallacy.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_analogy

 

[Syntax]

I see. Now we’ve come to the emotional appeals…:yawn:

Honestly, you’re using the appearance of reason and a deference to the church’s morality to justify the continued oppression of a segment of the population.That’s just what’s happening.

I have not put forward a thesis to defend. I have only criticized your own.

Besides, even if I did use reason to justify Church teachings, what’s wrong with that? That’s exactly what people do to defend their positions. So if you are incapable of offering a well-reasoned counter-argument, then there would be a good chance I was right.

You can deny that’s what you’re doing, but you’re being dishonest.

So using reason is dishonest?

You also talk about gay people like they live in this other-world, this non-hetero world where the rest of us straight people get to judge them and compare them and their lifestyles to bestiality and polygamy.

This is a strawman. *Not once *did I say “homosexuality is just like bestiality.”

I only asked you to tell me why homosexual marriages are permissible but bestial, polygamous, and incestuous marriages are not. And you still have failed this task. Your most recent position is that they are all morally permissible. But still, you have not told me why you think this. So the burden is still on you.

You say I need a reality check. You need one, friend. Some of my closest compatriots are gay, and nearly all of them are in committed, loving relationships.

What’s your point? I have 3 gay friends myself–one of which is my very close friend of 2 years. They all know what I believe. But we all still get along–we just don’t talk about our disagreements.

They’re normal people. Swap one out for an emotionally identical member of the opposite sex, and no one would be the wiser. These are people we’re talking about.

huh? So what?

You might remember that when you slander them or judge them for the way they are or act like their relationships are somehow less worthy than heterosexual relationships.

False. I have never slandered homosexuals. Prove it. I need an actual quote.

Also, for the all the talk you do about logic and reason, you haven’t presented your case for why homosexual relationships are less worthy than heterosexual relationships.

I am not obligated to present a case if I am not the one who made the claim. My default position in this thread is suspension of belief until I see good evidence otherwise.

So far, you have claimed homosexual, bestial, and incestual marriages are morally permissible. It’s your burden. Can you tell me why these marriages are morally permissible? Do you have answer at all, Realist? Or do you just like to ramble off your personal opinions to others expecting them to believe what you say is true without offering a good argument of your own? Come on, buddy! Saddle up, and tell me why you think bestial, incestuous, and polygamous marriages are morally permissible.

You seem to think you have an argument that doesn’t involve faith, and I can’t wait to hear it.

People have been appealing to the Natural Law argument all over the place in this thread. So you can read them for yourself if you want to know what Catholics think. I have no need to repeat it.