Saw the show and it isn’t bad. Need to watch it more. Won’t judge until I really get a feel for it. I wouldn’t find Russia as a great country to point it. Also there is absolutely nothing wrong with being gay/lesbian. Children are not being harmed by being exposed to a normal lifestyle.
True, there’s nothing wrong with having same-sex attraction, but the lifestyle is not normal. As a Catholic, you should know that actions resulting from those dispositions are disordered and sinful, and any attempt to “nomalize” them should not be supported, such as exposing young people to them from the media at an early age. You can say whatever you want about it, but as for me and countless others I won’t support anything that tries to tell people that those things are normal and ok.
That is too bad. I don’t know how they are “disordered”. It is normal that is for sure.
The attraction and the sexual actions resulting from it are disordered. Surely you’ve read this line in the catechism before:
I never read the catechism. Even in school we never read it nor was it taught. I still find it so odd that a normal response is so looked down on. Here at my workplace we received a book, for the children’s section, that talks about two male penguins that raised a chick together. They are, for all intents and purposes, a homosexual couple. They do everything together and wanted to raise a chick. One of the zoo keepers noticed a spare egg that was not being taken care of and gave it to them. They hatched it and raised the little one. it is actually quite heartwarming.
Wait, so you went to Catholic school but was never taught about the Catechism? That doesn’t seem right to me. I’ve only been to public school yet I know and have read it. I suggest you do the same. Also, you received a “children’s book” at your workplace? Why? In the animal kingdom, if there is a shortage of parents, it is possible for two male/female animals to take care of a baby. But not everything in nature is something that we would do. Some animals eat their young and kill their mates during mating. Is that something we would do? No. It has been proven that children raised by their biological parents tend to do well in life compared to those that don’t. Many children raised with two men/women later grow up wishing they had a mother/father and some have gender identity disorder. Children deserve to be raised by a mother and father, like how Jesus grew up with Mary and Joseph. That is the ideal. Of course it doesn’t always happen, but that’s the type of family one should strive to have.
Don’t be too surprised a catholic school wouldn’t bring up the CCC. Mine never did. Sometimes as a Catholic the worst words you can hear is “I went to catholic school”.
No it isn’t.
Male hamsters eat thier young. Is this normal human behavior?
I disagree. Sex is for pleasure as well as making babies. Nothing really special about it. I posted elsewhere that at the library I work at we got a book in that talks about two male penguins whom hatched and raised a chick. Oh and we are animals after all.
One thing I would recommend for you to have a better grasp on sexuality and theology is after you read the relevant the parts of the CCC you give theology of the body a good perusing. Since you work at a library this should it be hard. Though it is available online at the Vatican website. You might find it helpful to understand some of these issues through the wisdom of God’s holy church that he guides. It is important to note that through the church we have a vast understanding of sexuality and sexual purpose. She is infinitely more educated about this than you or I could ever be, and unbiasedly so.I disagree. Sex is for pleasure as well as making babies. Nothing really special about it. I posted elsewhere that at the library I work at we got a book in that talks about two male penguins whom hatched and raised a chick. Oh and we are animals after all.
I am going to use a bit from atheists. How is it that men committed to being virgins or at least never having sex can make any rulings that concern a sexual nature? It is like asking the local dairy council advice on running the nuclear power plant.
]No it is more that people whom want to say things like being gay/lesbian is a sin are the same who refuse to have sex. Doesn’t quite make sense.
Firstly, it is not as if all Christians who argue for the Biblical perspective on homosexuality are celibate catholic Priests.
Secondly, even in the catholic church, I think it would be correct for me to state that not all theologians and scriptural scholars are required to be celibate – and to my understanding, prominent theologians are also involved in the counsels that make these decisions (and other members of the laity both professionals and non, are occasionally consulted). [Note: Not sure about this, correct me if I’m wrong.
Thirdly, to my understanding, Catholic priests daily hear the confessions of dozens of people, often related to every type of sexual sin imaginable and often counsel them and gives them advice. Given the choice between a Catholic Priest and an average ordinary man, I’d say that the priest probably knows a heck of a lot more about sexual sins and their consequences. (Similarly, if a man who constantly reads books and articles about cars and works on repairing cars, I would trust him to fix my car over the average driver – even if he had not driven a day in his life.)
Fourthly, your statement appears to be logically incoherent (and possibly a fallacy). You are essentially stating:
If a person has no personal experience with X.
Then a person has no right (or ability) to judge the moral validity of X.
This does not follow for reasons that should be obvious (ie. Let X=murder, rape, theft, etc.).
And as I pointed out laboriously, this argument fails – it doesn’t even get off the ground! You essentially restated the position I was refuting without even considering what I said!
While I appreciated the argument you put forth, I think that FF’s point is very fair. To call it logically invalid strikes me as logically invalid.
I disagree. Had Kate said – "They can’t sympathize as well "-- she might have a point. However, she was attempting to connect an (alleged and uncertain) lack of sympathy to an attack against the logical grounding of that group to make a moral judgement, which IS invalid logically. Essentially, she was saying – you can’t fully understand this group therefore, you can’t make a conclusion/I don’t have to listen to you. As an example, would you accept any of the following?
I do. Clearly, I did not interpret your thoughts correctly.
I understand why you think it illogical.