Evangelicals with gay children challenging church

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

The word “Sodomy” does not equal “homosexuality”. The concept of Sodomy has a specific meaning in Catholic theology and heterosexuals can also practice sodomy and be sodomites.

Since heterosexuals practice anal sex…does that make it a healthy, wholesome form of physical recreation? In other words do two wrongs make it right?

 

[Thorolfr]

Not true Thoroflr!. You live in the Real world and try too make it more welcoming to all. Papa Francis would not approve of telling others that they shouldn’t be honest about the way they feel. The only person scandalized at all, is probably me, and it’s over the uneducated and ignorant remark made by WilT.

Talking about being in the “Real world”, it seems to me that much of Catholic thought on various matters such as homosexuality is still stuck in the 13th century in the “natural law” theology of Thomas Aquinas which has no relationship to what really exists in nature or the real world. It reminds me of some things said by Francis Bacon (1561-1626) in his Advancement of Learning, a work, which the historian Peter Ackroyd has said, “helped to create the climate of scientific rationalism that characterized the entire seventeenth century.” His works established the “Baconian method,” otherwise called the “scientific method.” In the early pages of the Advancement of Learning, Bacon denounced the fact that many men “study words and not matter.” Studying words and not matter was the foundation of the scholastic theology of the Middle Ages. Bacon observed that:

This kind of degenerate learning did chiefly reign amongst the schoolmen, who having sharp and strong wits, and abundance of leisure, and small variety of reading, but their wits being shut up in the cells of a few authors (chiefly Aristotle their dictator) as their persons were shut up in the cells of monasteries and colleges, and knowing little history, either of nature or of time, did out of no great quantity of matter, and infinite agitation of wit, spin out unto us those laborious webs of learning which are extant in their books…cobwebs of learning admirable for the fineness of thread and work, but of no substance or profit.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Talking about being in the “Real world”, it seems to me that much of Catholic thought on various matters such as homosexuality is still stuck in the 13th century in the “natural law” theology of Thomas Aquinas which has no relationship to what really exists in nature or the real world. It reminds me of some things said by Francis Bacon (1561-1626) in his Advancement of Learning, a work, which the historian Peter Ackroyd has said, “helped to create the climate of scientific rationalism that characterized the entire seventeenth century.” His works established the “Baconian method,” otherwise called the “scientific method.” In the early pages of the Advancement of Learning, Bacon denounced the fact that many men “study words and not matter.” Studying words and not matter was the foundation of the scholastic theology of the Middle Ages. Bacon observed that:

How could studying the science of how human beings DO behave help us determine how human beings SHOULD behave?

Bacon’s criticism of scholastic science has merit. But if he was trying to criticize scholastic ethics, the scientific method isn’t built for that.

 

[clem456]

Talking about being in the “Real world”, it seems to me that much of Catholic thought on various matters such as homosexuality is still stuck in the 13th century in the “natural law” theology of Thomas Aquinas which has no relationship to what really exists in nature or the real world. It reminds me of some things said by Francis Bacon (1561-1626) in his Advancement of Learning, a work, which the historian Peter Ackroyd has said, “helped to create the climate of scientific rationalism that characterized the entire seventeenth century.” His works established the “Baconian method,” otherwise called the “scientific method.” In the early pages of the Advancement of Learning, Bacon denounced the fact that many men “study words and not matter.” Studying words and not matter was the foundation of the scholastic theology of the Middle Ages. Bacon observed that:

Please don’t misrepresent Catholic thought.

You can dance as much as you want, you still cannot refute the necessity of the union of a man and woman that brings you into existence. That’s a unique relationship for every human being that exists. Without it we don’t exist.

Which by the way is not an invention of the Catholic Church or Thomas Aquinas. It’s common sense observation of reality.
Do you accept common sense perception of reality? If someone told you the sun revolves around the earth, would you have an issue with that assertion based on common sense observation of nature?

Likewise, to knowingly claim a homosexual union is the same thing as a marriage is a deception. You can expect some feedback for publicly promoting a lie.
No Catholic thought required.

 

[Rau]

Talking about being in the “Real world”, it seems to me that much of Catholic thought on various matters such as homosexuality is still stuck in the 13th century in the “natural law” theology of Thomas Aquinas which has no relationship to what really exists in nature or the real world.

You do understand that “natural” law is not about nature as David Attenborough uses the word “nature”? You do understand there is not and is not intended to be any connection between the two?

 

[Thorolfr]

You do understand that “natural” law is not about nature as David Attenborough uses the word “nature”? You do understand there is not and is not intended to be any connection between the two?

The nature that exists in the Real world is what God created and that includes homosexuality in some of His creatures. The “natural law” of Thomas Aquinas is his own creation, one of those “cobwebs of learning admirable for the fineness of thread and work, but of no substance or profit,” not God’s creation.

 

[clem456]

The nature that exists in the Real world is what God created and that includes homosexuality in some of His creatures.

And so because some creatures use different sexual practices, human marriage and homosexuality are the same thing?
If that is your assertion, it is wrong, based on common sense observation of nature. No theology required.

If that is not your point, what is it? You have yet to make sense of your equivocation of the two. You have claimed other creatures do it. You have claimed heterosexual creatures do it.
And so? What is your point, as these things regard the uniqueness of the marriage of a man and a woman?
Is the marriage of a man and woman unique in human existence, or is it not?

The “natural law” of Thomas Aquinas is his own creation, one of those “cobwebs of learning admirable for the fineness of thread and work, but of no substance or profit,” not God’s creation.

Thomas Aquinas created nothing that did not already exist.

 

[Rau]

The nature that exists in the Real world is what God created and that includes homosexuality in some of His creatures. The “natural law” of Thomas Aquinas is his own creation, one of those “cobwebs of learning admirable for the fineness of thread and work, but of no substance or profit,” not God’s creation.

God did not ordain every aberration we see in the behavior of man - we have free will. Is fornication ok because it occurs, or can we use the cobwebs of learning to know it is wrong? See Prodigal’s post above.

The cause of homosexuality, an inclination in contradiction with the body, is unknown. That lower animals may exhibit homosexual behavior tells us nothing about what acts man should pursue. Morality is meaningful for only man. Or is morality itself another product of cobwebs?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

The nature that exists in the Real world is what God created and that includes homosexuality in some of His creatures. The “natural law” of Thomas Aquinas is his own creation, one of those “cobwebs of learning admirable for the fineness of thread and work, but of no substance or profit,” not God’s creation.

I hesitate to mention some of the other things common in nature. Are these things morally licit too?

How can SCIENCE tell us about morality? You haven’t answered that question. (By the way, you can always take back something you’ve said, and we won’t be obnoxious about it. I find the need to take back things I say all the time.)

 

[clem456]

I really don’t see how any fruitful discussion on this issue can ever occur without admission of the nature of human existence.

1. human beings exist in the flesh
2. the union of a man and woman plays a unique role in that existence

Without this common ground there is no honest discussion. And that is to the detriment of all of society, including those who the lie is intended to help. Going on blaming Catholicism for realities we don’t like is pointless and counterproductive for everyone.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I really don’t see how any fruitful discussion on this issue can ever occur without admission of the nature of human existence.

1. human beings exist in the flesh
2. the union of a man and woman plays a unique role in that existence

Without this common ground there is no honest discussion. And that is to the detriment of all of society, including those who the lie is intended to help. Going on blaming Catholicism for realities we don’t like is pointless and counterproductive for everyone.

Most gay marriage advocates actually agree with #1 and #2. They might think, however, that #2 is a manifestation of the universe being cruel to gay people. Christians don’t have that “out”, though, since God created the universe (and thus, God made #2 true).

 

[clem456]

Most gay marriage advocates actually agree with #1 and #2. They might think, however, that #2 is a manifestation of the universe being cruel to gay people. Christians don’t have that “out”, though, since God created the universe (and thus, God made #2 true).

They may understand it and privately admit it, but as common ground in a discussion, the uniqueness of male-female marriage is a non starter. What we hear repeatedly is, the pointing out of this obvious reality is cruel etc…It’s an invention of Catholicism, it’s outdated theology etc… The uniqueness of marriage is not outdated theology, it simply is true.

People struggling to be treated justly in society do not further the cause with dishonest discussion.

 

[Thorolfr]

Most gay marriage advocates actually agree with #1 and #2. They might think, however, that #2 [the union of a man and woman plays a unique role in that existence] is a manifestation of the universe being cruel to gay people. Christians don’t have that “out”, though, since God created the universe (and thus, God made #2 true).

Just because the union of a male and female plays a unique role, that does not mean than all males and females are supposed to form such a union. In a bee hive, God did not make it so that every female bee is a queen bee and gets to reproduce even though being a queen bee is certainly a unique role. Nor is every bee in the hive supposed to gather nectar and pollen. Gay people have certain gifts and talents and straight people have other gifts and talents and they both can contribute to human society but in different ways. In the real world, everything is not binary: male/female, masculine/feminine, gay/straight. Some people are Intersex some are bisexual. Without social pressure (and there is pressure to fit into a binary system), my belief is that more people would actually turn out to be bisexual and would fall somewhere on a sexual spectrum between a Kinsey 1 and a Kinsey 6. God’s creation is much more complex than some people seem to think and why He created it that way is not always apparent or known to me or to you. But that does not mean that there is not a good reason, just that we don’t know yet what that might be.

 

[Rau]

They may understand it and privately admit it, but as common ground in a discussion, the uniqueness of male-female marriage is a non starter. What we hear repeatedly is, the pointing out of this obvious reality is cruel etc…It’s an invention of Catholicism, it’s outdated theology etc… The uniqueness of marriage is not outdated theology, it simply is true.

People struggling to be treated justly in society do not further the cause with dishonest discussion.

You used the term “union” in your first post and “marriage” in your second. No one denies that a man+woman Union is unique in its capacity to produce new life. The denial is that “marriage” is limited to “man+woman” and that the uniqueness of the corresponding Union bears on that. Of course, if marriage is not understood to be limited in this way, then marriage can become a near arbitrary thing, whatever the masses would like it to be.

 

[Rau]

Just because the union of a male and female plays a unique role, that does not mean than all males and females are supposed to form such a union. In a bee hive, God did not make it so that every female bee is a queen bee and gets to reproduce even though being a queen bee is certainly a unique role. Nor is every bee in the hive supposed to gather nectar and pollen. Gay people have certain gifts and talents and straight people have other gifts and talents and they both can contribute to human society but in different ways. In the real world, everything is not binary: male/female, masculine/feminine, gay/straight. Some people are Intersex some are bisexual. Without social pressure (and there is pressure to fit into a binary system), my belief is that more people would actually turn out to be bisexual and would fall somewhere on a sexual spectrum between a Kinsey 1 and a Kinsey 6. God’s creation is much more complex than some people seem to think and why He created it that way is not always apparent or known to me or to you. But that does not mean that there is not a good reason, just that we don’t know yet what that might be.

And this bears on acceptable human behaviour…how?

 

[CarmelJerome]

False equivalence between pairs is evident in identifying ‘gay/straight’ as somehow similar to ‘masculine/feminine’ or ‘male/female’. In the majority of SSA couplings, the pair are seldom part of a polarity - the feminine usually stay with the feminine be they male or female, the masculine with the masculine because the essence of the attraction is self-love; whereas within unions, polarity is as essential to the creation of something different from the pair alone, husband-wife.
There is no such ‘one flesh’ among two people with the same genitalia who establish a mere assertion that their will & desire trumps a natural union. The inability of such couplings can never generate life in any manner through their own coupling but are obliged to rent or borrow the genetic material from outside the couple reveals that there is no true bond within the cream world taking place - it’s all artifice, delusion and fraud.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Just because the union of a male and female plays a unique role, that does not mean than all males and females are supposed to form such a union. In a bee hive, God did not make it so that every female bee is a queen bee and gets to reproduce even though being a queen bee is certainly a unique role. Nor is every bee in the hive supposed to gather nectar and pollen. Gay people have certain gifts and talents and straight people have other gifts and talents and they both can contribute to human society but in different ways.

I agree with all of this.

In the real world, everything is not binary: male/female, masculine/feminine, gay/straight. Some people are Intersex some are bisexual.

Do you agree that being intersex is a defect, roughly in the same way that being blind or being obsessive-compulsive is a defect?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

In the majority of SSA couplings, the pair are seldom part of a polarity - the feminine usually stay with the feminine be they male or female

Evidence? :ehh:

This doesn’t seem to be the norm in the gay male experience, from what I’ve seen. A great many burly masculine gay men desire skinny effeminate twinks. Just sayin.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Yes, but I didn’t say it would be *appropriate *in mass. I said it wouldn’t be any indication of my (or my friend’s) sexuality. Do you agree or disagree with that?
From what you said earlier, you seem to think that it would be an indication of sexuality, and thus (I assume) that it would be scandal.

I disagree.

Because homosexuality is out in the open today, the first impression anyone has when observing two people of the same sex being physical with each other is a definite indication of their sexuality. (Homosexual)

To some people that would be scandalous. To others it would be quite acceptable…

“Mommy, why are those two men holding hands?”

“They must be gay,sweetheart”

“Oh, OK, that’s cool.”

From a personal perspective, I would not find it scandalous at all. I am from San Francisco, where we stand behind our gays.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I’d hate to think what was going on in your mind if you saw me hugging my grandson.

Depends on how old he is and what kind of hugging is going on and whether or not you both are wearing your Grandpa/Grandson t- shirts.