Can a Homosexual become a Heterosexual?

[Dakota_Roberts]

You are still excusing your intolerance. I see that you cannot admit it is hypocritical.
We are required to treat all people that way, right?

Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to iniquity. To tolerate iniquity is to undermine society and thus is evil.

Sometimes true compassion involves denying people what they want because what they want is detrimental to them. Sometimes one must save people from themselves.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to iniquity. To tolerate iniquity is to undermine society and thus is evil.

Sometimes true compassion involves denying people what they want because what they want is detrimental to them. Sometimes one must save people from themselves.

Like I said, everyone has excuses for their intolerance. I am only awaiting an admission of the hypocrisy already demonstrated and the syllogism. Is one forthcoming?

 

[speakttruth]

You are still excusing your intolerance. I see that you cannot admit it is hypocritical.
We are required to treat all people that way, right?

It is not hypocritical. All of those other things are not being screamed from the rooftops saying it’s ok like Same Sex. We never had to explain why a man and a women ares the only relationship, because it’s been like that for over 2000 years. We have to approach these poor people that are being lied to by the activists and politicians, because they have pushed it on everyone and made immoral laws making it like it is normal. They are pushing it on little children.

So he is not being hypocritical, because we wouldn’t know these other things unless they started being proud of these perversions, then we would have to help them see that it is wrong, or as some are illegal and they would need to go to jail. We all should be intolerant of sin, not the person, if we are following our faith we may have to tell them, but in a Christ like manner. He wasn’t always mealy mouse when he spoke of sin, if you read the scriptures. Fortunately we haven’t had to deal with that yet. I am sure they don’t go up to people and tell their sin and say hi, I am an incestuous person. No, we only hear hi, I am gay and proud of it. So this is what we are dealing with now.

He’s right get a Catechism
You can always ask one of the apologetics. You don’t seem to understand his point. They may be able to help you with your concerns. I suggest you read David Morrison’s book on Beyond Gay and how he found the Catholic Church. He is an ex-gay activist. He explains things well for many people who are in agreement with SS.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

It is not hypocritical. All of those other things are not being screamed from the rooftops saying it’s ok like Same Sex. We never had to explain why a man and a women ares the only relationship, because it’s been like that for over 2000 years. We have to approach these poor people that are being lied to by the activists and politicians, because they have pushed it on everyone and made immoral laws making it like it is normal. They are pushing it on little children.

So he is not being hypocritical, because we wouldn’t know these other things unless they started being proud of these perversions, then we would have to help them see that it is wrong, or as some are illegal and they would need to go to jail. We all should be intolerant of sin, not the person, if we are following our faith we may have to tell them, but in a Christ like manner. He wasn’t always mealy mouse when he spoke of sin, if you read the scriptures. Fortunately we haven’t had to deal with that yet. I am sure they don’t go up to people and tell their sin and say hi, I am an incestuous person. No, we only hear hi, I am gay and proud of it. So this is what we are dealing with now.

He’s right get a Catechism
You can always ask one of the apologetics. You don’t seem to understand his point. They may be able to help you with your concerns. I suggest you read David Morrison’s book on Beyond Gay and how he found the Catholic Church. He is an ex-gay activist. He explains things well for many people who are in agreement with SS.

Thank you for stepping in. You are correct to say that marriage is only between a man and a woman, but there are other kinds of relationships (obviously nonsexual). Heck in England there was a vow called sworn brotherhood which was a type of spiritual union between two men founded upon an intense intimate love, they were even joined so to speak in church. It also had social weight, but it was definitely not marriage.

By ex-gay activist do you mean he is an ex-gay proponent or that was is a former gay activist?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

It is not hypocritical…

I demonstrated it in a very clear and convincing manner. The rest of your post just repeats the already debunked claims. Thank you for you concern.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

I demonstrated it in a very clear and convincing manner. The rest of your post just repeats the already debunked claims. Thank you for you concern.

Well if you debunked it congratulations on proving the Church wrong, clearly since the Church is wrong you should stop being a Catholic. OTOH there are those of us who listen and trust the Church in her teachings.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Well if you debunked it congratulations on proving the Church wrong, clearly since the Church is wrong you should stop being a Catholic. OTOH there are those of us who listen and trust the Church in her teachings.

Please show me where the Church claims that there is more to being gay than sex? Where did the Church claim that people of other orientations shouldn’t be treated with the same compassion and respect as everyone else? …Yeah, didn’t think so.

 

[speakttruth]

Please show me where the Church claims that there is more to being gay than sex? Where did the Church claim that people of other orientations shouldn’t be treated with the same compassion and respect as everyone else? …Yeah, didn’t think so.

If you read ST. Paul writings about moral disorders we are supposed to expel them and not to associate with immoral people. Corinthians 1 chapter 5 and chapter 6. We are supposed to be Christ like and like I said they had no words for what you are talking about. We wouldn’t need to discuss this in society if this SSM hadn’t been pushed in our faces. Now we have to help people that have been lied to because we have evil politicians and gay activists. You obviously are just here to argue with the Catholic teachings and we are not going to change for you, so maybe this isn’t a good site for you. I suggest again for you to go to the courage site or read the book beyond gay, by David Morrison, these things may help you with your problem. To your question Dakota, he was a gay activist promoting homosexuality. He still has SSA, and has had some attraction to women, but he lives a chaste life.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

If you read ST. Paul writings about moral disorders we are supposed to expel them and not to associate with immoral people. Corinthians 1 chapter 5 and chapter 6. We are supposed to be Christ like and like I said they had no words for what you are talking about. We wouldn’t need to discuss this in society if this SSM hadn’t been pushed in our faces. Now we have to help people that have been lied to because we have evil politicians and gay activists.

What part of the claims debunked have anything to do with this? The claims were that there is some quality to being gay apart from sex, and the other was about the hypocrisy of being tolerant of one alternative lifestyles but not others. I am not sure how you believe this statement applies to that.

You obviously are just here to argue with the Catholic teachings and we are not going to change for you,

Since we aren’t discussing any Church teachings that is obviously a false claim.

so maybe this isn’t a good site for you.

We welcome people of diverse viewpoints here, it saddens me to see such intolerance.

I suggest again for you to go to the courage site or read the book beyond gay, by David Morrison, these things may help you with your problem.

The truth or falsity of the claims made are not of a nature that opinion can solve it. One is a logic problem the other is an issue of tolerance. If you think something from those sources changes the outcome of the claims, then feel free to post it.

 

[chrysostim83]

If I may step in here, there are a couple things that need to be said.

First, I don’t think Dakota believes the gay lifestyle is a good thing, so the claim about hypocrisy is a red herring. Everybody who’s talking about this (warpspeed, Dakota, and speaktruth) is agreed that gay sex is intrinsically evil.

Secondly, there does appear to be more to “being homosexual” or “being gay” (call it what you will) than a mere desire for or propensity to engage in certain kinds of sex with partners of the same sex. The cheap way to see this is to consider that there is such a thing as gaydar–but I guess that won’t help if your gaydar is so weak it doesn’t go off unless you actually catch two people of the same sex in bed.

The less cheap way of seeing it is to consider the different kinds of love. There is a clear difference between the sort of love a man has for his fiancee and sort of love he might have for a friend or a sister. The first kind of love must be able to exist without desires for sex, since it is wrong to want what is illicit and it would be wrong for the man to sleep with fiancee until the two are actually married. Thus, we may imagine that the sort of love a man feels for a woman and which leads him to marry her can exist without a desire for sex. Extrapolating from this, we can imagine again that a person might feel this for someone of the same sex–and if I read him right, Dakota is saying that a propensity to feel that (or something closer to it than other forms of love) is what makes someone gay, regardless of whatever desires such a person might or might not have for sex.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

First, I don’t think Dakota believes the gay lifestyle is a good thing, so the claim about hypocrisy is a red herring. Everybody who’s talking about this (warpspeed, Dakota, and speaktruth) is agreed that gay sex is intrinsically evil.

The claim was about tolerance of other orientations not about the intrinsic nature of homosexuality.

Secondly, there does appear to be more to “being homosexual” or “being gay”

Then you can give an example of a quality that is not shared by the other orientations and/or is not sexual in nature?

The less cheap way of seeing it is to consider the different kinds of love.

Love is a quality shared by all people, that is not something more to being gay than sex, as was claimed.

Originally Posted by Dakota Roberts View Post
…There is so much more to being gay than just sex.

What would that be? So far you haven’t been able to name one difference between the two major orientations, other than sexuality. Apply some logic to this. If there is more to being gay than sex, then it must be some quality that is not sexual in nature or shared by non-gay people. Otherwise, the only thing left is sex. If being gay is really only about sex, and the manner of sex is a choice we have a syllogism like this…

P1. homosexual = sex (One is only a homosexual if they actually have homosexual relations)

P2. sex = choice (The manner of sexual relations is a choice)

Apply the Transitive Principle of Equality
If A = B, and B = C, then A = C

C1. homosexual=choice (homosexual relations are a choice)

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

If I may step in here, there are a couple things that need to be said.

First, I don’t think Dakota believes the gay lifestyle is a good thing, so the claim about hypocrisy is a red herring. Everybody who’s talking about this (warpspeed, Dakota, and speaktruth) is agreed that gay sex is intrinsically evil.

Secondly, there does appear to be more to “being homosexual” or “being gay” (call it what you will) than a mere desire for or propensity to engage in certain kinds of sex with partners of the same sex. The cheap way to see this is to consider that there is such a thing as gaydar–but I guess that won’t help if your gaydar is so weak it doesn’t go off unless you actually catch two people of the same sex in bed.

The less cheap way of seeing it is to consider the different kinds of love. There is a clear difference between the sort of love a man has for his fiancee and sort of love he might have for a friend or a sister. The first kind of love must be able to exist without desires for sex, since it is wrong to want what is illicit and it would be wrong for the man to sleep with fiancee until the two are actually married. Thus, we may imagine that the sort of love a man feels for a woman and which leads him to marry her can exist without a desire for sex. Extrapolating from this, we can imagine again that a person might feel this for someone of the same sex–and if I read him right, Dakota is saying that a propensity to feel that (or something closer to it than other forms of love) is what makes someone gay, regardless of whatever desires such a person might or might not have for sex.

The “gay lifestyle” is a bad thing. I’m not interested in sex at all and yet being gay is an intrinsic property of me.

Eros can be subdued, but the fiancé is going to feel desires for the fiancée. There are three kind of love, eros agape and philia. The man will feel eros to his fiancée, either philia or agape for the friend and either philia or agape for the sister.

The claim was about tolerance of other orientations not about the intrinsic nature of homosexuality.
Then you can give an example of a quality that is not shared by the other orientations and/or is not sexual in nature?
Love is a quality shared by all people, that is not something more to being gay than sex, as was claimed.

So we are supposed to prove a rhetorical tautology false :ehh:

 

[warpspeedpetey]

…I’m not interested in sex at all and yet being gay is an intrinsic property of me.

If you are not interested in sex, then how do you know you are gay? What is this quality that is not shared by the other orientations and is not sexual in nature that let’s you know what your orientation is?

So we are supposed to prove a rhetorical tautology false :ehh:

Which claim do you refer to?

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

If you are not interested in sex, then how do you know you are gay? What is this quality that is not shared by the other orientations and is not sexual in nature that let’s you know what your orientation is?
Which claim do you refer to?

It’s very hard to explain, I don’t know if I can. Some things must be experienced to be understood. Also my loathing of the LGBT community is stronger now than ever.

“Then you can give an example of a quality that is not shared by the other orientations and/or is not sexual in nature?” The problem is that love has several types and while they all experience love they experience different kinds of love.

PS The “gay lifestyle” is an abomination that should never have existed and is very much a modern construct. There was still same sex love in the Middle Ages, it just didn’t involve sex.

 

[chrysostim83]

Love is a quality shared by all people, that is not something more to being gay than sex, as was claimed.

Well, swans are swans even though some are black and some are white. But to go on to claim that black swans aren’t a distinguishing feature of Australia because all swans are fundamentally the same bird is just silly. In other words, I don’t see how the fact that everyone experiences love to some quality or degree is an objection to the claim that gay people can be distinguished by the type of love they tend to experience for other people of the same sex.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

It’s very hard to explain, I don’t know if I can. Some things must be experienced to be understood. Also my loathing of the LGBT community is stronger now than ever.

So you cannot name such a quality?

“Then you can give an example of a quality that is not shared by the other orientations and/or is not sexual in nature?” The problem is that love has several types and while they all experience love they experience different kinds of love.

All orientations experience love, there is no point in repeating assertions to me, I just repeat the refutation.
.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

…In other words, I don’t see how the fact that everyone experiences love to some quality or degree is an objection to the claim that gay people can be distinguished by the type of love they tend to experience for other people of the same sex.

All orientations experience love. The love is the same, it’s the object that differs. Are you claiming that homosexuals are capable of expereincing some emotion that the other orientations aren’t?

 

[chrysostim83]

The love is the same, it’s the object that differs.

Is there any reason for thinking that is true?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Is there any reason for thinking that is true?

Are you claiming that homosexuals are capable of expereincing some emotion that the other orientations aren’t?

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Are you claiming that homosexuals are capable of expereincing some emotion that the other orientations aren’t?

He was not. The exact same ingredients combined in different ways can yield different things. So too can different quantities of the same ingredients yield something else.

Also how exactly does one explain an ecstatic experience?