Can Homosexuality Be Proved Wrong From Natural Law

[ddarko]

I did not say that they were gay couples/families. I said that they were outside the norm of the traditional family, which was the basis of your criticism of gays–that they would induce us to have non-standard families. So that argument does not work, because there are plenty of holy non-standard families.

How can there be HOLY sinful families? Get this in to your head mr. Literature, there is only ONE definition of a HOLY family; a one between a man and a woman.

You did no such thing. You are claiming false victory here.

Please refer to your previous posts. You clearly said that some universally accepted ideas in the fields of marriage and social psychology to be FALSE claims. With all due respect, if you have a very short memory span, I don’t think forum discussions are really for you

Fearmongering merits no further reply. It is irrational and speculative. If I claim, “The end of the world is near” what can any do but say yes or no? There is no “argument” for it either way.

Except when “the end of the world is near” might actually be the TRUTH. If it was backed by evidence and research and expert authorities in the fields, then YOU would be the IRRATIONAL one to call it fear mongering.

What? Where?

I think this goes back to the short memory span problem you might suffer from. You clearly made claims such as “teenagers are more respectful”, “teenagers are more logical” etc.

What? What “field” are you referring to? Are you in a certain field? What do you do for work?

I am talking about any field of academia. If you step over the line and start calling established claims in a field FALSE when you have no education on the matter, then you get the reaction I gave you.

I am currently a student studying for my doctorate in applied sciences.

This is your definition of being emotional? On what intellectual grounds to you base your sense of superiority, when you cannot even define a word properly? Either you are just imprecise, or intentionally deceitful. When you call my arguments “emotional,” but then all you can say in support of this claim is that I disagree with you but don’t always elaborate on why I do, you demonstrate either that you don’t know what you are talking about or that you are deceitful. I tend to think in this case it is a combination of the two.

And that is said without emotion.

Well if you read my reply carefully, I stated that you can call your condition “an action where one refuses claims when there is all the evidence to back it up”. I would have thought reading was one of your stronger skills.

Arguments must always be refuted logically. If you are unable to refute an argument logically, and continue to claim that the argument is wrong, its called being emotionally biased. Or to put it bluntly, YOU ARE BEING IRRATIONAL.

I am really starting to think that colmcille1 was spot-on on with his/her claims about you

God Bless

 

[larkin31]

How can there be HOLY sinful families? Get this in to your head mr. Literature, there is only ONE definition of a HOLY family; a one between a man and a woman.

Stop baiting me, jack***. You are describing a “marriage” here, not a “family.” Was Jesus, by the way, the son of Joseph? Did Joseph and Mary ever have normal marital sex? Is that your example of a “holy traditional family”? Get off your high horse and be thoughtful.

Please refer to your previous posts. You clearly said that some universally accepted ideas in the fields of marriage and social psychology to be FALSE claims. With all due respect, if you have a very short memory span, I don’t think forum discussions are really for you

You make sweeping generalizations. As such, they are easily labeled false. We all know exceptions, and it takes only one to puncture an unthoughtful generalization.

Except when “the end of the world is near” might actually be the TRUTH. If it was backed by evidence and research and expert authorities in the fields, then YOU would be the IRRATIONAL one to call it fear mongering.

See. Here’s how you are wrong. Speculation is NEVER true until it BECOMES true. So, only IF AND WHEN you died tomorrow or within a week or so, could my speculation that “You are about to die” be true. And there is no other argument that could “prove” it true. All the rest, when it is a negative prediction, is just an effort to justify the FEAR that it will become true. It is about the FEAR. And, when no justification is given, then it is just FEAR MONGERING (using fear irrationally in and of itself to justify some other action).

I think this goes back to the short memory span problem you might suffer from. You clearly made claims such as “teenagers are more respectful”, “teenagers are more logical” etc.

I am talking about any field of academia. If you step over the line and start calling established claims in a field FALSE when you have no education on the matter, then you get the reaction I gave you.

I am currently a student studying for my doctorate in applied sciences.

Well if you read my reply carefully, I stated that you can call your condition “an action where one refuses claims when there is all the evidence to back it up”. I would have thought reading was one of your stronger skills.

Arguments must always be refuted logically. If you are unable to refute an argument logically, and continue to claim that the argument is wrong, its called being emotionally biased. Or to put it bluntly, YOU ARE BEING IRRATIONAL.

I am really starting to think that colmcille1 was spot-on on with his/her claims about you

God Bless

 

[larkin31]

How can there be HOLY sinful families? Get this in to your head mr. Literature, there is only ONE definition of a HOLY family; a one between a man and a woman.

Stop baiting me, jack***. You are describing a “marriage” here, not a “family.” Was Jesus, by the way, the son of Joseph? Did Joseph and Mary ever have normal marital sex? Is that your example of a “holy traditional family”? Get off your high horse and be thoughtful.

Please refer to your previous posts. You clearly said that some universally accepted ideas in the fields of marriage and social psychology to be FALSE claims. With all due respect, if you have a very short memory span, I don’t think forum discussions are really for you

You make sweeping generalizations. As such, they are easily labeled false. We all know exceptions, and it takes only one to puncture an unthoughtful generalization.

Except when “the end of the world is near” might actually be the TRUTH. If it was backed by evidence and research and expert authorities in the fields, then YOU would be the IRRATIONAL one to call it fear mongering.

See. Here’s how you are wrong. Speculation is NEVER true until it BECOMES true. So, only IF AND WHEN you died tomorrow or within a week or so, could my speculation that “You are about to die” be true. And there is no other argument that could “prove” it true. All the rest, when it is a negative prediction, is just an effort to justify the FEAR that it will become true. It is about the FEAR. And, when no justification is given, then it is just FEAR MONGERING (using fear irrationally in and of itself to justify some other action).

Well if you read my reply carefully, I stated that you can call your condition “an action where one refuses claims when there is all the evidence to back it up”. I would have thought reading was one of your stronger skills.

More smarminess from you. It merits no response.

Arguments must always be refuted logically. If you are unable to refute an argument logically, and continue to claim that the argument is wrong, its called being emotionally biased.

False. For the reasons I gave above. Repeating them to you would be “irrational” in the circumstances.

I am really starting to think that colmcille1 was spot-on on with his/her claims about you

You are certainly free to exit.

 

[Abu]

inocente
What I’ve been trying to do is to look at the arguments alone.

That certainly can be useful, but the status of the statements is vital. Without authority, statements and arguments on morals or faith lack that authority. It is not theologians or scholars who can finally pronounce doctrine, or who have the authority to disregard doctrine. Neither can they have the final word on the interpretation of Sacred Scripture – given to us by Christ’s Church.

That is precisely why the Christ, the Son of God, founded His Church with His authority, gave infallibility and primacy to one man, and left an apostolic college, so that we would not be left as orphans (Jn 14:18).

As the natural moral law, written on our hearts, is confirmed by His Church, the final proclamation of that morality is Hers alone.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

larkin

You still haven’t answered why homosexuals should have the right to marry when that same right is denied to those involved in incest.

 

[larkin31]

larkin

You still haven’t answered why homosexuals should have the right to marry when that same right is denied to those involved in incest.

Are you arguing for incest? I don’t. I already answered this. Quote my answer and respond to it. Then I can answer further if you have another question.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

larkin

Are you arguing for incest?

Of course not. What I’m asking you very directly here is this:

If you believe extending marriage rights to homosexuals is a form of broadening social justice (your words) … would you find your argument to apply equally to those committing incest who might also demand marriage rights?

Yes or no?

 

[larkin31]

Charlemagne:

I already answered this. Quote my answer and respond to it. Then I can answer further if you have another question.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

larkin

I already answered this. Quote my answer and respond to it. Then I can answer further if you have another question.

Yes or no? Why are you beating around the bush?

 

[larkin31]

larkin

I already answered this. Quote my answer and respond to it. Then I can answer further if you have another question.

Yes or no? Why are you beating around the bush?

because I want you to read and acknowledge the answer I already gave you. It was more than yes/no

see above

 

[Charlemagne_II]

larkin

because I want you to read and acknowledge the answer I already gave you. It was more than yes/no

Why do I sense you are beating a hasty retreat? Yes or no would suffice. But you want to equivocate … and the reason is pretty obvious.

 

[larkin31]

larkin

because I want you to read and acknowledge the answer I already gave you. It was more than yes/no

Why do I sense you are beating a hasty retreat? Yes or no would suffice. But you want to equivocate … and the reason is pretty obvious.

no equivocation here, sir

the answer is plain as day about a page or two back

 

[Charlemagne_II]

I will now ask the question to all viewers of this thread who defend the right to homosexual marriage:

If that institution is defended as a legal right by the courts, what reason will there be to deny the same legal right to people involved in close incestuous relationships: father-son, mother-daughter, mother-son,father-daughter, sister-brother?

Every perverse relationship will have as much right to declare itself valid as any other perverse relationship.

 

[Soulewolf]

How can you know anything about the Christ if you can’t look up His teaching in the references given? That’s why you don’t see your problem – you don’t know His teaching. His greatest followers were Peter and His Apostles and their successors whom He commissioned to teach you and everyone. Why rant against them?

When the Twelve are sent on mission, they are told by Christ “And whoever will not receive you nor hear your words…shake off the dust from your feet. Assuredly I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the Day of Judgment than for that city.” (Mt 10: 14-15). That’s the infinite value of the Truth and the enormity of throwing it away.

Question
What is the real sin of Sodom and Gomorrah? Why did the church stick to literary interpretation that is causing great suffering and divisions in family on issue of sexual orientation at the expense of historical interpretation?
**Answer by Fr. John Echert on May-04-2009 (EWTN): **
“The sin of these two cities was clearly homosexual activity and attempts to cast it otherwise are untenable. Not only is this perversion condemned in the Old Testament but more than once Saint Paul lists this sin among those which will exclude someone from Heaven. Sympathy for someone afflicted with this inclination must not extend to acceptance of the activity or fall short of urging someone in such a lifestyle to be freed from it.”

So, as a faithful follower of Christ, St Paul specifically defines the mutual degradation among the Romans as the practice of homosexuality and stresses its unnatural character: Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity. (Rom. 1:26-27). St Paul characterizes lesbian and homosexual activity as a heinous sin in Rom 1:26-32, “shameful”, from a “debased mind”, “error” as well as “against nature”. And some perversely persist in fantasising that no guilt is involved – “men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness.” (Rom 1:18). “Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor boy prostitutes, nor practicing homosexuals, nor thieves, nor swindlers, nor drunkards, nor slanderers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.’ (1Cor 6: 9-10).

We all need to face reality.

interesting. Would you say this idea can be found to be truth through Love? (a personal relationship with Jesus Christ?) Personally, through my own spiritual studies, i have found that Love transcends divine messages filtered through the minds of mortals (which if you learn about channeling, is always the biggest problem).

I would understand if Christianity stated that this list of “sins” were not sins but more like barriers or distractions from Truth with no tie to morality (which is my own personal belief. i dont much believe in duality [good and evil etc]). The difference between ordered sex and disordered sex being commitment, and even through a commited relationship there is an understanding that the “addiction” to another persons energies can block the rest of your consciousness from cosmic energies thus impeding a deeper relationship with Divinity (i use the term “energies” very loosely).

 

[larkin31]

I will now ask the question to all viewers of this thread who defend the right to homosexual marriage:

If that institution is defended as a legal right by the courts, what reason will there be to deny the same legal right to people involved in close incestuous relationships: father-son, mother-daughter, mother-son,father-daughter, sister-brother?

Every perverse relationship will have as much right to declare itself valid as any other perverse relationship.

We are having a much better conversation about this on another thread (I hardly look at their titles). Search my name and you will find it. Join in if you like, but don’t ask me to repeat anything I have already written. I won’t bother. As you know. It turns out some Catholics and I agree, when we get past the silliness of bruised sensibilities.

 

[Soulewolf]

I will now ask the question to all viewers of this thread who defend the right to homosexual marriage:

If that institution is defended as a legal right by the courts, what reason will there be to deny the same legal right to people involved in close incestuous relationships: father-son, mother-daughter, mother-son,father-daughter, sister-brother?

Every perverse relationship will have as much right to declare itself valid as any other perverse relationship.

legally i dont think the government should have any say in this whatsoever. Religiously you can say whatever you want. its your beliefs. The instant marriage became a legal issue, was the instant that the control of the word and its definitions went from religious sects to that of the people.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Soulewolf
*
legally i dont think the government should have any say in this whatsoever. Religiously you can say whatever you want. its your beliefs. The instant marriage became a legal issue, was the instant that the control of the word and its definitions went from religious sects to that of the people. *

So if the the people are opposed to homosexual marriages, you are o.k. with that.

But like larkin, you have managed to talk around the issue.

Do you believe that every other perversion should also be legalized by the Constitution, including incestuous marriages of every type, just because the perverts demand to be on an equal footing with those who are not perverts?

Yes or no?

And if the people say no, you are o.k. with that, I presume.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

larkin

*It turns out some Catholics and I agree, when we get past the silliness of bruised sensibilities. *

As it happens, there are plenty of fake Catholics at this web site. I won’t mention any names.

 

[larkin31]

larkin

*It turns out some Catholics and I agree, when we get past the silliness of bruised sensibilities. *

As it happens, there are plenty of fake Catholics at this web site. I won’t mention any names.

You’re not a very charitable person in your judgments

and I see that you have not even bothered to enter that discussion, either

your lack of charity of spirit might be problematic

 

[Soulewolf]

Soulewolf
*
legally i dont think the government should have any say in this whatsoever. Religiously you can say whatever you want. its your beliefs. The instant marriage became a legal issue, was the instant that the control of the word and its definitions went from religious sects to that of the people*.

So if the the people are opposed to homosexual marriages, you are o.k. with that.

But like larkin, you have managed to talk around the issue.

Do you believe that every other perversion should also be legalized by the Constitution, including incestuous marriages of every type, just because the perverts demand to be on an equal footing with those who are not perverts?

Yes or no?

And if the people say no, you are o.k. with that, I presume.

i thought my answer was pretty clear on this in my post. We live in a democracy. if the people say it should be, it should be. So yes. yes i would say it should be legalized if that is the kind of society that the people want to live in.

and yes if ultimately people say homosexuals should not marry, then legally they should not marry, and they should be free to pursue whatever form of commitment they desire outside of the legal system.