Debating homosexuality

[KephasAugustine]

Okay, then you’ve simply gone from needing to prove eternity to needing to prove that homosexuality is wrong. Without that, you’re still simply promoting suffering.

I fail to see how that proves it’s existence.

Indeed, I have giftwrapped the truth for you and you have ignored it. I made an arguement and you didn’t really provide a response to anything I said, you merly shifted around the details without really apparently reading the meat of what I said. I don’t think you really want to know the truth.

LOL… Sorry, I didn’t realize who you were. Okay, here goes.

The sole reason that sexual intercourse exists is to procreate. If there is no procreation, it is unnatural. Are there freaks of nature? Of course there are–there are animals that have sex with the same gender. These are abnormalities in nature, and they are abnormalities for humans. Homosexuality is not any more normal than pedophilia.

What is a “freak of nature?” A freak of nature is something in nature that displays an abnormality, a deformity, or something unnatural. These freaks of nature occur in all areas of the natural world–vegetable, animal, and mineral. In reality, they are few and far between.

The reason that homosexuality has, in recent years, become a “big deal” is because the media blew some public figures’ homosexuality way out of proportion, and when he was seen as a martyr for a cause, other people thought it would be cool. Homosexuality became a trend. I knew more people in my high school who said they were “gay” than people who said they were straight. Where are they now? They have boyfriends or girlfriends or are married to the opposite sex. It was and still is a trend. Shows like Will & Grace make this abnormality into a seeming normality, and the minority seems to be the majority. People speak up for the person that the media advocates. That’s just how things work.

Where have we seen this same trend? The Catholic priest sex scandal. Less than 1% of Catholic priests were implicated in these crimes, and even fewer were actually found guilty. Yet since the media decided it was worth making a big deal about it, every man in a collar gets heat for being a child molester. That’s just how things work.

What will the next trendy defect be? “Let people marry dogs!” No doubt…after all, that’s real emotional affection, not an instinctual attraction to the hand that feeds.

 

[KephasAugustine]

LOL… Sorry, I didn’t realize who you were. Okay, here goes.

The sole reason that sexual intercourse exists is to procreate. If there is no procreation, it is unnatural. Are there freaks of nature? Of course there are–there are animals that have sex with the same gender. These are abnormalities in nature, and they are abnormalities for humans. Homosexuality is not any more normal than pedophilia.

What is a “freak of nature?” A freak of nature is something in nature that displays an abnormality, a deformity, or something unnatural. These freaks of nature occur in all areas of the natural world–vegetable, animal, and mineral. In reality, they are few and far between.

The reason that homosexuality has, in recent years, become a “big deal” is because the media blew some public figures’ homosexuality way out of proportion, and when he was seen as a martyr for a cause, other people thought it would be cool. Homosexuality became a trend. I knew more people in my high school who said they were “gay” than people who said they were straight. Where are they now? They have boyfriends or girlfriends or are married to the opposite sex. It was and still is a trend. Shows like Will & Grace make this abnormality into a seeming normality, and the minority seems to be the majority. People speak up for the person that the media advocates. That’s just how things work.

Where have we seen this same trend? The Catholic priest sex scandal. Less than 1% of Catholic priests were implicated in these crimes, and even fewer were actually found guilty. Yet since the media decided it was worth making a big deal about it, every man in a collar gets heat for being a child molester. That’s just how things work.

What will the next trendy defect be? “Let people marry dogs!” No doubt…after all, that’s real emotional affection, not an instinctual attraction to the hand that feeds.

I should note before I’m slandered that here I don’t use “freaks of nature” as a derogatory. I simply mean “not the norm,” as homosexuality most certainly is not the norm.

 

[Robertsxxx]

Homosexuality is not any more normal than pedophilia. “

Nice comparison. As I remember the original poster was asking for advice in debating/discussing these issues with other people, & was degraded for using similar… analogies.

“What is a “freak of nature?” A freak of nature is something in nature that displays an abnormality, a deformity, or something unnatural. These freaks of nature occur in all areas of the natural world–vegetable, animal, and mineral. In reality, they are few and far between.”

Yet, just because it is a “freak of nature” or an anomaly, does not mean it is harming others. I still have not see any support for why homosexuality is bad, outside religious texts.

“because the media blew some public figures’ homosexuality way out of proportion,”

Yea… that wasn’t nice* of them to do, but seemed to be effective in encouraging others to come out.

Homosexuality became a trend.”

Right… real trendy to get a nice blue bruise to match those pants.
Though I partly agree, that there was & still a bit is this moronic bisexuality fad amongst teens.

I knew more people in my high school who said they were “gay” than people who said they were straight. Where are they now? They have boyfriends or girlfriends or are married to the opposite sex. It was and still is a trend. “

Just because some people in your school experimented with their sexuality, & later “went straight”, does not mean you can just ignore or dismiss the rest who are of a different sexual orientation.
I’m curious, with how many of those people who claimed they were gay do you keep close contact to-date to know who they are dating now?

“are married to the opposite sex”

Like wow! Sure they aren’t hitched, how would you do that when homo marriage is illegal in most states?

“Shows like Will & Grace “

How I hate that show

Where have we seen this same trend? The Catholic priest sex scandal. Less than 1% of Catholic priests were implicated in these crimes, and even fewer were actually found guilty. Yet since the media decided it was worth making a big deal about it, every man in a collar gets heat for being a child molester. That’s just how things work.”

So we should just, once again, ignore this??? Shush it all down as if nothing is going on or try to warn the public of possibilities of such perversion. Priests are in such a sensitivity power position that they could do some extreme harm, which some have, yet the gullible victims are afraid to come out for various reasons. It is worth making a scandal out of it, if it will encourage the abused to step up.

• Where are you getting that percentage from? A source would be nice.

“Let people marry dogs!” .

“Brilliant” ending. However, when your dog will be able to read & understand speech as well as give informed signed consent, I’ll be the first at your ceremony.

 

[KephasAugustine]

Robertsxxx:
You know what? You’re right. Without morality, everything goes. And without God, where do we get our morality? That is why Christians get slammed time after time after time for denouncing homosexual acts in the name of God.

But live in a world where I have to deny myself some sexual pleasure, or live in a world where anything goes? I’ll take self-control every time. My law comes from the Lord.

And now is when you laugh at me for not being able to prove my point without referencing religion. Fact is, I did. I ‘giftwrapped it’ nicely, and you refused to see because you didn’t want to see.

I’m so tired of how circular this argument gets.

 

[Mersenne]

The sole reason that sexual intercourse exists is to procreate.

Nope. Reality contradicts you here. So where is your evidence?

What is a “freak of nature?” A freak of nature is something in nature that displays an abnormality, a deformity, or something unnatural.

How are you defining natural? If you define it as something in nature then your “freak of nature” thing doesn’t make any sense, as anything in nature is natural. It’s probably important to note that the people who devote their lives to studying nature and culture: biologists, anthropologists, and the like, do not recognize this concept that you made up.

Where have we seen this same trend? The Catholic priest sex scandal. Less than 1% of Catholic priests were implicated in these crimes, and even fewer were actually found guilty. Yet since the media decided it was worth making a big deal about it, every man in a collar gets heat for being a child molester. That’s just how things work.

It’s not really the numbers that are the problem, it’s the FACT that the catholic church made decisions that prioritized their public image over the safety of children. And let’s not white wash what “safety of children means” The catholic church knowingly allowed hundreds of children to be raped in such painful ways that they passed out from the pain. Many of the girls can no longer have children. They did this because they wanted to avoid a PUBLIC IMAGE ISSUE. They continue to protect these child rapists. And they continue to revictimize these people by making them out to be the enemy.

And those numbers are almost certainly very low due to the churches covering up of the issue. How anyone can support an institution that continues to support child rape is beyond me.

 

[Mersenne]

I should note before I’m slandered that here I don’t use “freaks of nature” as a derogatory. I simply mean “not the norm,” as homosexuality most certainly is not the norm.

So then how does this support your case? Model airplane flying is not the norm, but I don’t think that justifies attacking model airplane flying.

 

[Robertsxxx]

But live in a world where I have to deny myself some sexual pleasure, or live in a world where anything goes?

Nobody is asking YOU to participate in homosexual activity. You have a certain set of laws & morals, which is fine. However, so do others.

“And now is when you laugh at me for not being able to prove my point without referencing religion. Fact is, I did. I ‘giftwrapped it’ nicely, and you refused to see because you didn’t want to see.”

& I explained a few times now why such “argument” won’t flow, unless you would live in a Catholic-Christian-**Only **Country. That is also why lemonsmth is being called a biggot & homophobe.

I’m so tired of how circular this argument gets.

You should know, you seem to be giving them.

I ask you an argument that would not come from your religion; yet you once again return to it. I’m assuming that was also the problem of the original poster, they were using religious arguments to back up whatever claims. If you lived in a world where the specific denomination of your specific religion would be the ONLY one, that would be fine & everyone would agree. However, you DO NOT. There are many other people who believe different things & we all live together. Unless we want to slice each others throats, we have to accomodate somehow on criterea/standards that would not be based on 1 religion, but be practical & applicable to reality; rather than metaphysics which can not be tested at all & each party has totally different, personal views on.

 

[KephasAugustine]

Originally Posted by KephasAugustine View Post
The sole reason that sexual intercourse exists is to procreate.
Nope. Reality contradicts you here. So where is your evidence?

You’re in a Catholic Forum. As the one stating dissent, please state your evidence to the contrary.

But I’ll go first: why does sex exist? Why do animals have sex? There has been research that found that the very small minority of species get any pleasure out of sex. Then why? Why does sex exist, if not for procreation?

It’s not really the numbers that are the problem, it’s the FACT that the catholic church made decisions that prioritized their public image over the safety of children. And let’s not white wash what “safety of children means” The catholic church knowingly allowed hundreds of children to be raped in such painful ways that they passed out from the pain. Many of the girls can no longer have children. They did this because they wanted to avoid a PUBLIC IMAGE ISSUE. They continue to protect these child rapists. And they continue to revictimize these people by making them out to be the enemy.

And those numbers are almost certainly very low due to the churches covering up of the issue. How anyone can support an institution that continues to support child rape is beyond me.

I’ll ignore your erroneous charges and answer what we know rather than what you’d like to accuse Catholics of.

The Church has not covered anything up. Individuals within the Church have, and the Church has apologized multiple times, speaking out vehemently against those involved in the actual molestation and in the covering up of the molestation. I do not support the people who were involved, I support, proclaim, and defend Holy Mother Church, who has spoken out time after time against those people.

It is unreasonable for anybody to expect the higher Church Officials to know what is happening in every single diocese in the entire world. Once the story broke, the pope and his bishops condemned the sinful acts and attempted to make reparations with those who were hurt. If people refused to forgive, the Church can’t be blamed for that.

To the OP:

Here are some helpful links that’ll give you some tips on debating the topic of homosexuality.

catholic.com/library/gay_marriage.asp
scripturecatholic.com/homosexuality.html
scripturecatholic.com/sexuality_qa.html#scripture-III
scripturecatholic.com/sexuality_qa.html#tradition-I

---

 

[Mersenne]

You’re in a Catholic Forum. As the one stating dissent, please state your evidence to the contrary.

That’s not how it works. Reality is the same whether it is being argued on a catholic forum or an atheist forum. You made an assertion that you need to support. Your case rests on the assumption that homosexuality is objectively wrong. Where is your proof?

But I’ll go first: why does sex exist? Why do animals have sex? There has been research that found that the very small minority of species get any pleasure out of sex.

Certainly almost all mammals, get pleasure out of sex. I think what you are referencing here is that some species have recreational sex to varying degrees, but that alone discounts your claim that sex is for reproduction 100% of the time. However, the worst part of your argument is that you are assuming an ought from an is. You are saying “because this is the way it is, this is the way it should be.” Which is illogical. Murder, rape, infanticide, castration of enemies, is all part of “what is” and common in nature. That does not make it behavior that humans should mimic. It’s even sillier to argue “a majority of animals don’t do this, therefore it is an ethical imperative to avoid it” A majority of animals in nature do not fly model airplanes. Does that make model airplanes morally evil?

The Church has not covered anything up.

Factually untrue. There is more then enough evidence to assume covering up was supported high up on the ladder, and has been since the dawn of the catholic church.

Individuals within the Church have,

Which the Catholic church is comprised of individuals…

and the Church has apologized multiple times, speaking out vehemently against those involved in the actual molestation and in the covering up of the molestation.

Yet they still treat these victims and their advocates as enemies.

I do not support the people who were involved, I support, proclaim, and defend Holy Mother Church, who has spoken out time after time against those people.

Yet to this day, the Holy Mother Church continues to put child molesters in positions where they can molest more children, and hide their past from those they live with. This is something that has been documented happening back to the 5th century, and there is ongoing even today. The first recent example that ignited this controversy in the 70s, after having gotten out of jail, the church moved him out of the country and in with a family and a community who didn’t know his past, in a position where he had access to children. This was a recent event. It was going on in the 70s, the 80s, the 90s, and right now, and all the way back to the 5th century, if you continue to treat it as a one time oopsy, you are intentionally blinding yourself to reality, and complicit in the rape of children.

It is unreasonable for anybody to expect the higher Church Officials to know what is happening in every single diocese in the entire world.

These issues were brought up time and time again over the last 2000 years, to the higher ups, they had conferences about it, and every time it was swept under the rug with a shrug.

Once the story broke, the pope and his bishops condemned the sinful acts and attempted to make reparations with those who were hurt.

Condemned them but then continued to protect them. Made reparations but spoke out against the victims and their advocates as enemies of the church.

 

[KephasAugustine]

I’m going to humbly bow out of this discussion, leaving it to someone more qualified to discuss this subject. Thank you both for your candor, I now have more to research and consider.

Yours in Truth