Debating with the GSA

  • Thread starter Thread starter Veritaseeker
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
V

Veritaseeker

Guest
Hello everyone! I’m new to this forum but have been using it as a resource for quite awhile. I decided to join in hopes you all can help me refute a few arguments about Homosexuality.

At my high school, there is a club called the GSA. (Gay Straight Alliance). It is essentially a club where Gay people and Straight people unite to fight “homophobia”, especially in the forms of bullying, ignorance, etc. They have been involved in various protests, such as the “Day of Silence”, where people do not talk for a whole day to condemn bullying of Gays, and “homophobia”. Last I heard, they were planning to go see a gay episcopal priest speak at some college.

Due to my reputation among friends to be very religious and conservative, and enjoying debate, one of my friends (The president of the club actually) invited me to come in and debate. She said they usually didn’t have much to talk about because they all agree, so some conflict would make things more interesting. I see it as a chance to spread the truth, or at least have a deeper understanding of the issue. However, they are all so close-minded, any change of opinion seems completely impossible. In addition, the president is a non-practicing catholic, and the club is also full of other Christians.

Of course some usual arguments have come up such as:
“Some animals are Homosexual, so that means it’s natural”
“They were born that way, so God must approve.”

However, one argument came up that I could not exactly find an answer to. It is that because the bible condemns many trivial things such as men having long hair, that is now considered acceptable, how can Paul’s teachings on homosexuality be considered credible? As I understand it, the hair thing was cultural for the time, but how can we separate the two? (cultural and moral)
 
on a trivial level, because morality is not derived from culture.

You came to the right place to get help in your apologetics work. God Bless.

If you haven’t heard it before… if they pull the animal example… some animals also cannibalize their young… should we do that too? Also, no matter what animals do, only female and male animals can reproduce together.
 
Keep in mind that the Catholic Catecism teaches that we should defend Gays from things like bullying. They are no less Children of God because they sin. None of us are without sin. Defending them from bullying and hate speech is our Christian duty.

Perhaps you should tell them you would like to join them in their efforts against hate speech and bullying and ask (politely) if they mind if you pray for their conversion as well.

You do not have to accept the sin to love and defend the sinner.

God bless
 
Thanks for your quick responses guys! I’ve actually already researched the Animals argument. (and found the answer on this forum I might add). I’m trying to get as much information as I can before the next meeting, so I’m making a list of answers to their arguments.

And I realize that we should defend gays from bullying, and that hate speech of any kind is wrong. That is one major thing we all agree on.

I do pray for their conversions, but do you think it’s necessary to ask them?

I know that morality is not derived from culture, but they view arbitrary things like “men should not have long hair”, as just as valid as Homosexuality. So basically, “If christians think it’s OK to have long hair now, even though the bible is against it, why can’t christians be OK with Homosexuality?”
 
On long hair (first question): archive.catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9202qq.asp

In the end (and I’m sure someone else will be able to chime in with more detail) but it all boils down to the fact that scripture must be taken in the context of the culture of time (this can effect whether a passage should be taken literally, for example), supporting scripture, and the history of the Church. Also, many of the practices mentioned in the old testament were abolished with the New Covenant.
 
Veritaseeker said:
I do pray for their conversions, but do you think it’s necessary to ask them?
Click to expand...
If they don’t want you to, do it anyway just don’t tell them. Asking them shows that you really care about them… perhaps.
 
Good for you to take on this challenge! I don’t have the background to help you with your discussion about homosexuality. However, I think it would be good for you to discuss the use of the word “homophobia” and that we as Catholics , as well as probably many others, are not homophobic - in fear of homosexuals.- just because we disagree with homosexual acts. We certainly are against bullying, etc. But we do not dislike homosexuals-only that we disagree with homosexual sex.
Good luck and let us know how it goes.
Praying for you!:gopray2:
 
The “animals do it” argument is, as I think someone said above, best defeated by pointing out that animals also practice forced matings and kill the offspring of previous dominant males.

You can also point out that all the actual research shows that male-dominated polygamy is the natural condition of every other great ape (“hominid”), except bonobos. So unless they think society is best run on the basis of silverbacks beating the living hell out of each other for possession of a harem of females and a territory to forage in, maybe they don’t want to make that argument.

PS. Incidentally, speaking of humans from an animal-behavior standpoint, apparently the way humans learn has more in common with dogs than it does with other primates—pointing at things, and using punishment as well as, or even rather than, reward, work with both dogs and human beings, but chimps don’t understand pointing and punishing them just makes them angry. Which is interesting, since most of the canids (except domestic dogs, because it made it hard to breed them) are monogamous. You could make a case that, because our ancestors were pack-hunters rather than foragers (as evidenced by lots of things, including how we learn), human evolution is actually in the direction of monogamous alpha-pairs, like with wolves, rather than silverback-and-harem. That hurts my example, above, but it makes an interesting case that any alternative to “male and female and their offspring” would be developments in a direction contrary to the trend of human evolution.

Blind them with science.
 
Hi, Hastrman,

What an interesting set of examples! :)👍

In reality,Veritaseeker, the animal example is quite limiting and leads to truly outrageous conclusions if you just follow the logic beyond the first sentence. Here are some ideas that would cause problems in any human society:

Bees and ants have ‘well ordered societies’ but free will does not seem to be part of the process
Most dogs and cats allow the runt of a litter to starve - a form of ‘infanticide’
Shark fetus will attack each other in their mother’s womb
Male lions will kill the juvenile off-spring of a dead lion so the female will restart her cycle.

Now the issue of the ‘long hair is in the Bible’ is really not much different. Look at what is going on and the consequences of a particular action. Not all things are of the same moral equalevent. Ultimately, we have to look at what is going on. Chances are… there were some long-haired males in Sodom - but, this is not what brought on God’s wrath.

Finally, Lynnareyno’s comment deserves special attention - we ARE NOT AFRAID of homosexuals - which is literally what ‘homophobic’ means. We are also do not have other fearful conditions such as ‘adulterophobic’ or ‘fornacatophobic’ or what have you… 😃 These are all sins which identify that people are misusing their sexual gifts. Homosexuals have proven over the years that theirs is not a ‘life-style’ that is conducive to long term health. :eek: Their misplaced desire to have objectively disordered activities viewed as ‘OK’ shows they have lost sight of important realities. While men and women are equal in the Eyes of God, He gave them different roles - and, ‘hard-wired’ them accordingly.

Continue to post of CAF! 🙂

God bless
Hastrman said:
The “animals do it” argument is, as I think someone said above, best defeated by pointing out that animals also practice forced matings and kill the offspring of previous dominant males.

You can also point out that all the actual research shows that male-dominated polygamy is the natural condition of every other great ape (“hominid”), except bonobos. So unless they think society is best run on the basis of silverbacks beating the living hell out of each other for possession of a harem of females and a territory to forage in, maybe they don’t want to make that argument.

PS. Incidentally, speaking of humans from an animal-behavior standpoint, apparently the way humans learn has more in common with dogs than it does with other primates—pointing at things, and using punishment as well as, or even rather than, reward, work with both dogs and human beings, but chimps don’t understand pointing and punishing them just makes them angry. Which is interesting, since most of the canids (except domestic dogs, because it made it hard to breed them) are monogamous. You could make a case that, because our ancestors were pack-hunters rather than foragers (as evidenced by lots of things, including how we learn), human evolution is actually in the direction of monogamous alpha-pairs, like with wolves, rather than silverback-and-harem. That hurts my example, above, but it makes an interesting case that any alternative to “male and female and their offspring” would be developments in a direction contrary to the trend of human evolution.

Blind them with science.
Click to expand...
 
The only time I ever see them use the “It happens in nature” is when someone says its unnatural
 
Hi, JChapel,

Thanks for the link. 🙂

God bless
JChapel said:
On long hair (first question): archive.catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9202qq.asp

In the end (and I’m sure someone else will be able to chime in with more detail) but it all boils down to the fact that scripture must be taken in the context of the culture of time (this can effect whether a passage should be taken literally, for example), supporting scripture, and the history of the Church. Also, many of the practices mentioned in the old testament were abolished with the New Covenant.
Click to expand...
 
If they have specifically sought you out because they’re looking for a fight as they have nothing better going on, then you are facing an uphill battle trying to change their mind solely with your rhetorical prowess. Think about whether any good can really come from this.

First, pray. Pray about whether it is truly beneficial for you to take them up on this offer. And if you feel it is, pray that the Spirit guides the whole interchange. Pray frequently. Pray now!

Next, if I were you and decided to do this, I would surprise them by starting off with where you – as a devout Catholic – and the GSA agree. It’s very disarming. 🙂
  • Talk about how bullying in all its forms is reprehensible. It has become an epidemic in our schools and it needs to be addressed and stopped.
  • Talk about how each of us has been created in the image and likeness of God and thus possess an inalienable human dignity.
  • Affirm that the Catholic Church teaches that those with same-sex attraction “…must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided” (CCC 2358)
Only after establishing all this as the starting point would I go on to speak of how homosexual activity is immoral.

The American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family, and Property (TFP) has written a pretty valuable resource (and put it online for free!) called [Defending a Higher Law (http://www.tfp.org/images/books/Defending_A_Higher_Law.pdf). The book takes a look at many of the common arguments in favor of same-sex marriage (and consequently same-sex activity) and explains why they have no logical foundation. I would recommend reading through it to get a sense of some of the things they might say and how to respond to it.

The Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith wrote a document [Considerations regarding proposals to give legal recognition to unions between homosexual persons (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html) (June 3, 2003). Section III specifically consists of arguments from reason against the legal recognition of same sex unions. I would read through that and be familiar with those arguments. If I used them in a debate in this context, I probably wouldn’t mention that the arguments came from the Church. People often assume that if the Church wrote it, it must be based on faith, not reason.

As far as some of the common arguments, here are some simple responses:
  • "Some animals do it, so it must be okay." Some animals also eat their young. Would that be acceptable for humans to do? If not, then the argument is false.
  • "People are ‘born gay’ so it must be okay." Even if we grant that the premise is true (which has yet to be definitively proven), not every tendency a person is born with is acceptable to act upon. Some people say that pedophiles are “born that way” and cannot be changed. Is it okay for them to abuse children. Some people are born with a tendency towards alcoholism. Is it okay for them to go binge drinking every day? Some people are born with a tendency to be quick-tempered. Is it okay for them to snap and yell at every person that rubs them the wrong way? If not, then the argument is false.
  • "The Bible is full of lots of rules we don’t follow anymore, so it must be okay." The Bible says it is wrong to murder; is that okay now? If not, then the argument is false. If you want to make this argument, I would recommend studying up on biblical exegesis so that you can craft a compelling argument to lump the laws on sexual morality with the customary laws that no longer apply. Good luck with that. Let me know how it goes.
God bless!
 
Thanks for your responses guys! I have yet to read the articles (I’m attempting to now actually), but a few more issues have come up.

Last week I was not planning on going to the GSA, due to another after school activity I was committed to. However, those plans fell through, and I decided – against my better judgement – that since I’m at the school anyway, and have some of my notes, I might as well go to the GSA. I believe it was a mistake, because I had not looked at the notes I had taken for potential arguments since a week ago, and they had asked to see the official church teaching on the matter, so I had planned to bring my Youcat, but did not have it that day.

To make a song story short, I was not prepared for the debate, was already tired from the school day, and was not thinking clearly. So I had quite a bit of trouble debating, and may have come across as being all out of answers (proving them right).

Anyways, the issues that came up were:
  1. All things considered sins hurt people in some way (stealing, murder, envy, greed, wrath, etc.) And because having relations with the same sex does not ‘hurt’ anybody, it must not be a sin.
    I brought up the issue of aids, but they said it is also quite high in heterosexuals, and in particular ethnic groups (they said African American.)
  2. This is one that I was confused with from the start. Whether or not Gay “marriage” should be legal. My initial response was that as long as they’re not called marriage, and do not redefine marriage, then though I would be morally against it, it is not the government’s responsibility to regulate. The church does also take into consideration free will, so does that make it OK to support Gay unions?
 
Hi, Veritaseeker,

I think the take-home lessone here is that you did fine in the sense that you learned some valuable lessons. And, be advised: this is not the only time this topic will come up in your life-time.

Maybe the biggest one is not to engage in debate if you are tied, unprepared or both. Just like the famous Clint Eastwood quip, “You’ve gotta’ know your limitations!”

Bear in mind that this group is networked to larger homosexual groups and they are adept at laying out an argument that they feel confident will withstand rebuttal efforts. The problem is that they are advocating perversion and the implementation of their program simply spells the doom of every recognized society that has gone over the cliff following their own lusts. While they think they are holding some cards (it doesn’t hurt anyone, no one gets sick, AIDS is everywhere, we’re in love, etc) it can never be a winning hand. It will not only win a debate, it will win the Judgment of God.

Unless this is a very formal debat activity: impartial moderator, timed sessions and the like, having NONE of the answers can be difficult… 😃 Having some is fine - as long as you can back up everything you say. Sometimes people have been know to invent ‘facts’ to fit their argument (and this happens in many areas of real life - like the medical group that declared that abortions have no effect on the mental health of women - and they had these (flawed) studies to back up the agenda they were pushing. It was exposed for the fraud it was.)

Not every ‘hurt’ can be immediately seen. In fact Oscar Wilde (of all people…) wrote an excellent novel “The Picture of Dorian Gray” here are the Sparknotes… but, be sure to read the novel - it really is quite good… sparknotes.com/lit/doriangray/ From what goes on in your school, there are undoubtedly students who are abusing drugs - alcohol binges are classic - and people just seem to bounce back week after week with apparently no ill effects. But, intuitively, you know this can’t be right … and sure enough, the body’s amazing ability to repair injuries simply wears out and fails - and then this life style rapidly catches up with these folks. Alcohol is classic because it has been around for so long - Plato had some drunken students! But, when someone gets involved with a drug like ‘crystak meth’ (Methamphetamine - here is a link: justice.gov/dea/concern/meth.html) Basically, whatever alcohol can destroy in about 3 - 5 years, meth can destroy in 2 weeks! While there are ‘old Alkies’ there are no ‘old Druggies’! So, do not go by their superficial argument about not getting hurt - it just isn’t so - and, what is worse, they know it.:eek:

So, called ‘gay-marriage’ is simply a contradictin in terms - but what is worse, it is a distorted parody of what real life is all about. There is nothing nobel about sodomy, and its downward spiral to pedophelia. Even the Ancient Greeks were familiar with the constant seeking for younger boys (Pederasty). Their basic culture was destroyed by this desire (either direct or indirect) to replace the family unit with lusting after others. Every effort made by activists judges and cowardly politicians who have addressed homosexual issues has been a body blow to the famiily. With almost 1 out of 2 marriages ending in divorce and over 40% of the children born out of wedlock - we have a society in deep trouble. Now this is a ‘hurt’ but it will take generations to fully realize the rot these fools are spreading in the name of ‘social justice’.

May I suggest you get a set of 3" x 5" index cards and a little box to keep them in. When you find something useful to support your argument - write it down along with the reference (you do not want to be accused of making things up). Briefly write down the item on one side of hte card and then write a question about it on the other side. Then, trim off the top 1/4" corner. When you put the card back in the box it now looks different and when you get a batch you can see real changes. Then go over the contents of your index cards every week. The ones you know put in one way and the ones you don’t put int he other way - in a few weeks you will quickly see just the ones you are having trouble with - but, more to the point, you will be preparing yourself for defending the teachings of the Catholic Church as it condems sodomy and those who actively promote the destruction of youth.

God bless
Veritaseeker said:
Thanks for your responses guys! I have yet to read the articles (I’m attempting to now actually), but a few more issues have come up.

Last week I was not planning on going to the GSA, due to another after school activity I was committed to. However, those plans fell through, and I decided – against my better judgement – that since I’m at the school anyway, and have some of my notes,

Anyways, the issues that came up were:
  1. All things considered sins hurt people in some way (stealing, murder, envy, greed, wrath, etc.) And because having relations with the same sex does not ‘hurt’ anybody, it must not be a sin.
    I brought up the issue of aids, but they said it is also quite high in heterosexuals, and in particular ethnic groups (they said African American.)
  2. This is one that I was confused with from the start. Whether or not Gay “marriage” should be legal. My initial response was that as long as they’re not called marriage, and do not redefine marriage, then though I would be morally against it, it is not the government’s responsibility to regulate. The church does also take into consideration free will, so does that make it OK to support Gay unions?
Click to expand...
 
So, called ‘gay-marriage’ is simply a contradictin in terms - but what is worse, it is a distorted parody of what real life is all about. There is nothing nobel about sodomy, and its downward spiral to pedophelia. Even the Ancient Greeks were familiar with the constant seeking for younger boys (Pederasty). Their basic culture was destroyed by this desire (either direct or indirect) to replace the family unit with lusting after others. Every effort made by activists judges and cowardly politicians who have addressed homosexual issues has been a body blow to the famiily. With almost 1 out of 2 marriages ending in divorce and over 40% of the children born out of wedlock - we have a society in deep trouble. Now this is a ‘hurt’ but it will take generations to fully realize the rot these fools are spreading in the name of ‘social justice’.

I would love to see your eperical scientific evidence on this premise. :eek:
 
kozlosap said:
So, called ‘gay-marriage’ is simply a contradictin in terms - but what is worse, it is a distorted parody of what real life is all about. There is nothing nobel about sodomy, and its downward spiral to pedophelia. Even the Ancient Greeks were familiar with the constant seeking for younger boys (Pederasty). Their basic culture was destroyed by this desire (either direct or indirect) to replace the family unit with lusting after others. Every effort made by activists judges and cowardly politicians who have addressed homosexual issues has been a body blow to the famiily. With almost 1 out of 2 marriages ending in divorce and over 40% of the children born out of wedlock - we have a society in deep trouble. Now this is a ‘hurt’ but it will take generations to fully realize the rot these fools are spreading in the name of ‘social justice’.

I would love to see your eperical scientific evidence on this premise. :eek:
Click to expand...
That being gay leads to pedophelia I mean. I guess all of the pedophiles that raped little girls were just gay in disguise.
 
Hi, Kozlosap,

Glad to help. 👍 Check this out: theinterim.com/2002/sept/02study.html

But, the real issue still dates back to the ancient Greeks and their focus on pederasty.

I think there are studies that dispute any connection at all between homosexuality and pedophilia - and, that is why I am providing a historic reference that it really is not a sudden devleop but has a long and established association.

Now, let me invite you to respond in a helpful manner to Veritaseeker’s post… 🙂

God bless.
kozlosap said:
That being gay leads to pedophelia I mean. I guess all of the pedophiles that raped little girls were just gay in disguise.
Click to expand...
 
Veritaseeker said:
Anyways, the issues that came up were:
  1. All things considered sins hurt people in some way (stealing, murder, envy, greed, wrath, etc.) And because having relations with the same sex does not ‘hurt’ anybody, it must not be a sin.
    I brought up the issue of aids, but they said it is also quite high in heterosexuals, and in particular ethnic groups (they said African American.)
  2. This is one that I was confused with from the start. Whether or not Gay “marriage” should be legal. My initial response was that as long as they’re not called marriage, and do not redefine marriage, then though I would be morally against it, it is not the government’s responsibility to regulate. The church does also take into consideration free will, so does that make it OK to support Gay unions?
Click to expand...
Sorry it didn’t work out for you as well as you’d hoped. :o

In regards to #1, all sin, no matter how private, has a negative impact on the human family. There are personal and corporate consequences simply because we are all connected as one human family. Just because we cannot readily identify that sinful act X directly and immediately causes negative consequence Y doesn’t mean the connection is not there. No man is an island. What effects one part effects the whole.

Frankly, I never go the route of pointing out things like AIDS or STDs. First, I have never seen that argument used convincingly. And second, that’s ultimately not the reason why the act is sinful. If it was, then all they would have to do is say that a gay couple who practices monogamy and/or safe sex would then be morally just fine. And you would have no answer except to back pedal and say what you should have said in the first place: that’s not the reason why the act is sinful.

Many people say that, when something is a private act, no one is getting hurt, so it’s not a sin. But that’s simply not true. These sins change a person for the worse. And when that happens, that effects everyone that person comes into contact with. Perhaps this example may not work with them, but look at a sin like masturbation and pornography. When a man becomes enslaved to this vice, it changes the way he looks at women. Every woman starts to become a mere object to be used rather than a person to be loved. It has an extremely corrosive effect on marriage as he starts to expect his wife to be an instrument for his personal gratification.

Perhaps a better example for this crowd might be to take the environmentalist angle. If I use a styrofoam plate or throw out an aluminum can instead of recycling or leave the water running while I brush my teeth in the privacy of my own home, who does it harm? Yet environmentalists are quick to shine the light on this interconnectedness of the human family in these circumstances. If it happens once, maybe it’s not a big deal to them (or maybe it is 🤷), but when it becomes a lifestyle that gets perpetuated, then there is a discernible cummulative impact. If there wasn’t, then the whole Green movement would have no traction whatsoever.

In regards to #2, do not fall for the line that “civil unions” are okay so long as they don’t call it “marriage”. This is the foot-in-the-door compromise that homosexual activists are actively seeking because it serves their agenda just the same. Again, I would point you to the CDF’s document Considerations regarding proposals to give legal recognition to unions between homosexual persons. Notice, the Vatican does not say that it’s okay to have legally recognized “unions” so long as they don’t call it marriage. Quite the opposite. The whole civil unions thing is just a semantic bait-and-switch. The Church recognizes this. But many well-meaning Christians seem to have fallen for it as they think it is okay to support “civil unions” so long as it’s not called “marriage”.

Activists like to emotionally charge the debate with such language as “illegal”, “discrimination”, “violation of equal rights”, “bigotry”, etc. The simple fact is, we are all equal under the law. Every single person has the right to marry someone of the opposite gender. There is no discrimination. Everyone (and this also applies equally) does not have the right to marry someone of the same gender, a parent, a sibling, a child, more than one person, their favorite pet, an imaginary friend, etc. Again, there is no discrimination.
 
Veritaseeker said:
Hello everyone! I’m new to this forum but have been using it as a resource for quite awhile. I decided to join in hopes you all can help me refute a few arguments about Homosexuality.

At my high school, there is a club called the GSA. (Gay Straight Alliance). It is essentially a club where Gay people and Straight people unite to fight “homophobia”, especially in the forms of bullying, ignorance, etc. They have been involved in various protests, such as the “Day of Silence”, where people do not talk for a whole day to condemn bullying of Gays, and “homophobia”. Last I heard, they were planning to go see a gay episcopal priest speak at some college.

Due to my reputation among friends to be very religious and conservative, and enjoying debate, one of my friends (The president of the club actually) invited me to come in and debate. She said they usually didn’t have much to talk about because they all agree, so some conflict would make things more interesting. I see it as a chance to spread the truth, or at least have a deeper understanding of the issue. However, they are all so close-minded, any change of opinion seems completely impossible. In addition, the president is a non-practicing catholic, and the club is also full of other Christians.

Of course some usual arguments have come up such as:
“Some animals are Homosexual, so that means it’s natural”
“They were born that way, so God must approve.”

However, one argument came up that I could not exactly find an answer to. It is that because the bible condemns many trivial things such as men having long hair, that is now considered acceptable, how can Paul’s teachings on homosexuality be considered credible? As I understand it, the hair thing was cultural for the time, but how can we separate the two? (cultural and moral)
Click to expand...
my friend the things I’ve placed in bold from your post cause me to urge caution. Is your friend(and the others) truly interested in a debate or in a little extracurricular blood sport? once upon a time I actually belonged to one of these groups and exploring other ideas and possibilities was not on the top 20 list of what we were about.

If this GSA is experiencing a need for conflict, I also wonder if the one person who really needs and is ready to hear what you have to say will be able to in such an environment.
We are called to proclaim the Gospel boldly,but prudence is always wise for both the messanger and the recipient. At the very least I encourage you to make sure this is in fact a formal debate with all appropriate boundaries and guidelines.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top