M
mattyc4
Guest
You in the plural sense-- as in people.
Everyone can have innate feelings for someone–Doesn’t make it evil or wrong.
Catholic League: There's a Homosexual Crisis in the Priesthood, Never was a
- Status
Everyone can have innate feelings for someone–Doesn’t make it evil or wrong.
K
KathleenElsie
Guest
Kinsey was flawed. They tended to have a conclusion and skewed there data to support it.
K
Kevin_C
Guest
Gays scapegoats! Please! Over 8500 incidents of homosexual predators abusing boys. This has bankrupted many parishes and cost billions!!! This is exactly the reason why homosexuals are not welcome in the priesthood. Your suggestion that many gays had good intentions is not swaying me either. The Catholic Church is clear on this issue as the pope stated recently. We are paying a big price for the lack of screening during the 60’s, 70’s and beyond.
Kevin C
Kevin C
T
TIME
Guest
God’s Natural Law is for a man and women, that leads to the progress of His children. On the other hand homosexuality it is a disorder and a dead-end street for a society or civilization.
Their is no way an SSA person can instinctively lead the flock in full teachings
Their is no way an SSA person can instinctively lead the flock in full teachings
R
Riley259
Guest
Many studies would dispute your assertions that SSA is not a psychological disorder and there have been many testimonies (some on this forum) to suggest that for some there is a cure. You’re certainly right about the last part…for those where change is not possible, chastity is the only morally proper thing to do.
G
goofyjim
Guest
It is a fringe group with an agenda of their own that still sees SSA by itself a psychological disorder. They do absolutely nothing to actually accept insurance and instead expect you to pay their exorbitant fees for something that really doesn’t stand any chance of working. I’m comfortable with chastity alone. There is no call to waste money I don’t have.
C
cmudd
Guest
Matt,
Insofar as suicide and the homosexual act are inherently entropic, my assertion that they are equitable is a valid stance. My contention is not necessarily an original one, however. You can find this type of philosophical model going back hundreds of years.
You arguments are well-formed and it is refreshing to see the quality of debate that you offer… no wonder as to how you got into Princeton.
I have one request of you, though. It can be very enticing to make ad homonym attacks on another’s arguments as a way to strike a tone or to set off your stance from another’s. However, you must qualify your accusations that I am being both irresponsible and arrogant.
You have done well to outline your position (although you seem to put a lot of trust in the APA without recognizing FULLY the openly political motivations of many of their decisions). By calling my assertions irresponsible and arrogant, you are employing the time-honored tactic of many a debater; you are name-calling.
Irresponsible and arrogant are far different things than wrong or misguided. You have been thorough in your rebuttal to my stances as being wrong or misguided, but can you be more specific as to how they are irresponsible and arrogant? Or are those words just a way to quiet me.
Much of the problem with left-wing rhetoric these days, is that it has as its war cries “Open Mindedness” and “Freedom of Speech,” while not really wanting the other side to be heard. To be clear, these mantras are falsehoods. By calling my arguments irresponsible and arrogant, what you might really be saying is that my points are too foolish to be uttered and that if I want to be considered in the mainstream of thought, I must think and discern properly… as you do.
My arguments are far from irresponsible or arrogant. They are well thought out and held by many throughout history. I am not scared to bring them up (which was a problem for most of my college professors). I am not intimidated by name-calling.
Are you unwilling or too intimidated to address my major contention; that homosexuality is inherently disordered (I can’t believe that)? Can you address my contention that homosexuality, like suicide, is an inherently entropic activity? Can you address the fact that men with SSA are statistically more-likely to prey on boys and young men and my contention that it is, at best, unwise and, at worst, sinful to allow them into the seminaries? You can say all you want that homosexual inclination is not a choice and that they are born that way, they have rights to self-expression, they are good-people, etc… I have no real problem with that because I know a few men with SSA who seem to be very good people and who may have been born that way. The questions don’t really change, though. Just because one is born one way, does not make your behavior or your inclinations correct or “well-ordered.”
Most of my professors in college would try to shut me up by ridiculing me in public and reducing my grades. I once asked openly and with a great deal of charity a legitimate question about the increase of homosexual behavior in the West. My professor and a few students openly told me that I needed to BE CAREFUL about what kind of questions I asked!
Now, who here is afraid of open, honest, and frank discussion? The man who calls one argument irresponsible and arrogant or the man who rewards a great rebuttal with continued discussion?
PS. Your belief that there is no such thing as objective truth could be a difficulty in any meaningful debate. It is something of a first principle… something, also, that you might not believe in.
G
goofyjim
Guest
I really am quite sickened by the continuing insistance that SSA men are more likely to prey on boys. We have control over our sexual appetites just like heterosexual people do. You are striking irrational fear of anyone who announces that they just simply have SSA. I know a few that got married, retained SSA and are not preying on any children. We must change our misperceptions about those with SSA. If they are living chastely they are not a threat to anyone.
K
Kevin_C
Guest
Pure nonsense.
E
estesbob
Guest
Well that was a profound post
M
mattyc4
Guest
Cmudd,
Perhaps my choice of words were a little strong. Let me explain why I used them. Regardless of a child’s sexual orientation, I think suicide is an extremely serious matter that requires a good deal of attention. I feel it is irrresponsible to belittle the troubles that homosexual children and teens go through. Perhaps you do not believe the statistics, but everything I have read has led me to believe that homosexuals have a greater risk of depression and suicide. I feel, as a responsible and caring individual, that I must do everything I can to help. Teens who already have problems accepting their sexuality do not need to be told that their “problem” is as serious as suicide. Arguments that have been made for centuries are dandy, but just because of longevity does not make it a valid stance. However, I do apologize for calling you arrogant and irresponsible–It was uncalled for–It is just an extremely serious matter.
I am, of course, open to a civil discussion on the matter. Also, calling your stance arrogant and irrresponsible does not imply you are an arrogant and irresponsible individual.
I respect your opinion, but I hardly think I was resorting to mud-slinging.
I will now address your primary concern and assertion that “homosexuality is inherently disordered”.
To clear up one point, of course homosexual men are much more likely to abuse male teens and children than their heterosexual counterparts. Likewise, heterosexual men are much more likely to abuse female teens and children than their homosexual counterparts.
I do NOT think homosexuality is a sin, nor is it inherently disordered or entropic.
Homosexuality has been around an extremely long time. Society cannot have been in decay for thousands of years. Homosexuality, at the very latest, has been around since the Greeks. It cannot therefore be an “inherently entropic activity”, which, by definition, would mean: “Inevitable and steady deterioration of a system or society”(American Heritage dictionary) How can something that has been around for thousands of years steadily deteriorate our society, which has likely become a much better place since the Greeks. How can homosexuality be entropic?
I appreciate frank discussion on any matter. I believe in free speech, as long as it does not directly lead to violence or harm. Are you making the claim that gay priests cannot be close to God? I am sure that gays are just as close to God as heterosexuals. Just because an extremely small majority of priests abused their power does not mean that gays should be barred from the church. This argument is an extremely dangerous one to make.
Do I think Homosexuality is a sin–Absolutely not. Why? It is my personal interpretation of the Bible. I am not sure if this is a relevant discussion, but if you would like, I will go into it in detail if you so please.
May I inquire what question you asked in class?
Matt
PS Your last paragraph was unneccesary–Strikingly similar to what you, rightly so, called me out on–name calling.
I look forward to a continued discussion.
Perhaps my choice of words were a little strong. Let me explain why I used them. Regardless of a child’s sexual orientation, I think suicide is an extremely serious matter that requires a good deal of attention. I feel it is irrresponsible to belittle the troubles that homosexual children and teens go through. Perhaps you do not believe the statistics, but everything I have read has led me to believe that homosexuals have a greater risk of depression and suicide. I feel, as a responsible and caring individual, that I must do everything I can to help. Teens who already have problems accepting their sexuality do not need to be told that their “problem” is as serious as suicide. Arguments that have been made for centuries are dandy, but just because of longevity does not make it a valid stance. However, I do apologize for calling you arrogant and irresponsible–It was uncalled for–It is just an extremely serious matter.
I am, of course, open to a civil discussion on the matter. Also, calling your stance arrogant and irrresponsible does not imply you are an arrogant and irresponsible individual.
I respect your opinion, but I hardly think I was resorting to mud-slinging.
I will now address your primary concern and assertion that “homosexuality is inherently disordered”.
To clear up one point, of course homosexual men are much more likely to abuse male teens and children than their heterosexual counterparts. Likewise, heterosexual men are much more likely to abuse female teens and children than their homosexual counterparts.
I do NOT think homosexuality is a sin, nor is it inherently disordered or entropic.
Homosexuality has been around an extremely long time. Society cannot have been in decay for thousands of years. Homosexuality, at the very latest, has been around since the Greeks. It cannot therefore be an “inherently entropic activity”, which, by definition, would mean: “Inevitable and steady deterioration of a system or society”(American Heritage dictionary) How can something that has been around for thousands of years steadily deteriorate our society, which has likely become a much better place since the Greeks. How can homosexuality be entropic?
I appreciate frank discussion on any matter. I believe in free speech, as long as it does not directly lead to violence or harm. Are you making the claim that gay priests cannot be close to God? I am sure that gays are just as close to God as heterosexuals. Just because an extremely small majority of priests abused their power does not mean that gays should be barred from the church. This argument is an extremely dangerous one to make.
Do I think Homosexuality is a sin–Absolutely not. Why? It is my personal interpretation of the Bible. I am not sure if this is a relevant discussion, but if you would like, I will go into it in detail if you so please.
May I inquire what question you asked in class?
Matt
PS Your last paragraph was unneccesary–Strikingly similar to what you, rightly so, called me out on–name calling.
I look forward to a continued discussion.
K
Kevin_C
Guest
Estesbob,
You know what they say about brevity.
You know what they say about brevity.
E
estesbob
Guest
Yup
K
Kevin_C
Guest
Matt,
What is dangerous is retrofitting the Bible to fit your personal beliefs. The opposite of relativism is Catholicism.
What is dangerous is retrofitting the Bible to fit your personal beliefs. The opposite of relativism is Catholicism.
E
estesbob
Guest
M
mattyc4
Guest
I base that on the Bible and “love thy neighbor”.
Your argument that tries to refute my own about homosexuality being entropic by nature is unappealing and irrelevant. Broad sweeping statements without any sort of justification are the basis for weak arguments that have no moral standing.
Furthermore, do not even dare to use the justification that a few bad gay men did something, so we must bar all gay men from being a priest. Your argument about history can so easily be turned against you. The injustices of the past are no justification for establishing present day inequalities. Surely you are not suggesting that every gay priest is a child molestor–or that every openly gay man is a child molester?
Who said I was intrpreting it for everyone? I said it was my own personal belief. Do not dare to presume that I have the audacity to impose my beliefs on others and think that I am holier than thou. It does not mean I am right–It also does not mean that I am wrong. I believe a person is essentially a good person if they have good moral qualities-what Jesus would call a good man. I think that a perfect God would realize that an innate charcteristic of a human–whom he created-- is not a justification for calling their behavior a sin. Is a man who is black less of a human–is he innately sinful for something he cannot control? I should hope not. I realize you will disagree with me here, but I want to hear why you think homosexuality is a sin, besides the fact that you were told it was.
Your last two comments are completely unneccesary.
Please debate in a civilized and frank matter.
Thanks
Matt
Your argument that tries to refute my own about homosexuality being entropic by nature is unappealing and irrelevant. Broad sweeping statements without any sort of justification are the basis for weak arguments that have no moral standing.
Furthermore, do not even dare to use the justification that a few bad gay men did something, so we must bar all gay men from being a priest. Your argument about history can so easily be turned against you. The injustices of the past are no justification for establishing present day inequalities. Surely you are not suggesting that every gay priest is a child molestor–or that every openly gay man is a child molester?
Who said I was intrpreting it for everyone? I said it was my own personal belief. Do not dare to presume that I have the audacity to impose my beliefs on others and think that I am holier than thou. It does not mean I am right–It also does not mean that I am wrong. I believe a person is essentially a good person if they have good moral qualities-what Jesus would call a good man. I think that a perfect God would realize that an innate charcteristic of a human–whom he created-- is not a justification for calling their behavior a sin. Is a man who is black less of a human–is he innately sinful for something he cannot control? I should hope not. I realize you will disagree with me here, but I want to hear why you think homosexuality is a sin, besides the fact that you were told it was.
Your last two comments are completely unneccesary.
Please debate in a civilized and frank matter.
Thanks
Matt
N
NoxSineStellae
Guest
Thank you for acknowledging that it is a big deal. I have been heartbroken by the number of posts on these forums insinuating (or outright declaring) that victims are making it up, only in it for the money, the “everyone else is molesting” fingerpointing, and so on.
I also find it very VERY hard to believe that if a 9-11 (I was being generous with the 12-16, but on review of this thread am seeing that apparently 9 year olds are no longer children) boy (man?) was raped by some sleazeball in the neighborhood, there would not be an outraged cry of “pedophile! child molestor!” by the same people who are so quick to point out that when a priest does it, it’s not a crime against a child, because puberty may have started.
Honestly, it seems a ludicrous, callous, appalling line of reasoning that comes off as an excuse. Since Catholics are so clear that harming a child is worse than harming an adult (with abortion being the absolute worst sin), if you make the child no longer a child…well, that gets Father off the hook a little bit.
I was sexually abused by a family friend at the age of 3 (possibly before, though I do not have memories before 3) - he was a fine, upstanding, married man - most would claim heterosexual, I claim pedophile. BTW, he claimed I seduced him and wanted it.
Now, there is a world of difference between a 3 year old and a 9 year old. How many 9-11 year olds still believe in Santa? Have to go to bed at 8:30? Watch cartoons on Saturday morning, trick or treat, go to ELEMENTARY SCHOOL? They’re children for all intents and purposes, except one - when people want to whitewash the sins of the priests who went after them precisely because they were children.
G
goofyjim
Guest
Yes it is pure nonsense that SSA men are oversexed fiends just lurking at every corner for a boy to go by. Bu that is what is insinuated in this thread and others. It has to stop or I will simply wash my hands clean of these forums. It lacks compassion and charity.
K
KathleenElsie
Guest
Read post 137 of this thread and see what he was reffering to in Jims post. Kevin was disputing this by goofyjim.
I agree with Jim that his SSA and bing chaste is not a sin. I disagree with him in that someone with SSA should not be in the priesthood or for that matter a nun or sister.
I totally disagree with Matt that acting on the SSA (homosexual relation) is not a sin and is a normal for him so acceptable. We can’t rewrite the rules to suit ourselves. Adam, Eve and the snake tried that and see where it led us.
- Status