Gay Marriage: The Death Knell of Christiany

[Rau]

So now we’re comparing homosexuals to fetishists?

No, I’m not doing that. You spoke about people using sexual organs in all kinds of way.

 

[Rau]

OK. I take it you are a bloke. If your thing gets hard what is your body saying? Attraction requires both mind and body. Your argument fails.

Are you seriously suggesting attractions are a choice? I don’t think so. They neither are a choice, nor do they demand a choice.

 

[niceatheist]

niceatheist:

But you’re not really rebutting it at all.

Perhaps I’m not really on this forum at all.

Perhaps not. But so far mainly what I’ve seen your arguments doing is trying to declare that despite the fact that at least 10% of the population, perhaps even more, experience SSA, that that large fraction still doesn’t represent normal behavior (which is one reason comparing homosexuals with inanimate object fetishists is absurd), or hovering around what is clearly a religious view of “normal”.

For me, I honestly do not spend my days and nights worrying about whether people have non-heterosexual or non-vaginal sex. It doesn’t affect my life. Gay marriage may affect my life in that one day someone near to me may have one, but my views on same sex marriage haven’t changed in nearly twenty years, so that view isn’t because of the person that is near to me.

I respect your right to a religious objection to it. It’s not going to make a difference at the end of the day, as more and more jurisdictions in the West recognize such unions, but I appreciate that for many here it is something foreign and wrong. But the thing about living in a free society is that, in general, we allow people to be, well, free, and we don’t take some significant portion of the population and punish, or even hold them up for scrutiny, because of our religious beliefs. We’ve hopefully moved beyond that.

And by the way, before you declare homosexuality unnatural, homosexual acts are not uncommon among bonobo chimps, as well as other species.

 

[JustLamb]

He’s a troll. Don’t waste your time…

 

[theCardinalbird]

Attractions are definitely not a choice. Why would I choose to be attracted to men who I won’t be able to be intimate (sexually) with, and won’t be able to have children with. Homosexuality has done nothing but make my life harder.

It feels like a disordered Desire. I’d rather be straight

 

[JustLamb]

Attractions are definitely not a choice. Why would I choose to be attracted to men who I won’t be able to be intimate (sexually) with, and won’t be able to have children with. Homosexuality has done nothing but make my life harder.

It feels like a disordered Desire. I’d rather be swe traight

With you there brother. For once we agree. I longed to have children but it was never meant to be. They say it is harder on men to be childless than women…

Coming home to an empty house with only the dogs for company… But hey, that’s what the Church wants, as well as so many here, and who are we to disagree?

Do you think they have ever put themselves in our shoes? If suddenly heterosexual tendencies were immoral, how would they feel? No. Of course they haven’t. “Love thy neighbour as thyself” is the law. For me that means ‘put the shoe on the other foot’. But they don’t or won’t.

Being non-straight I think gives us a purer spirituality and a perspective they don’t have. Take strength in that Joe. I do.

 

[josh987654321]

The jurisdictions that are banning this quackery are banning it for minors.

So this is quackery but not ‘transitioning’ which is being expanded to minors?

If ‘conversion therapy’ is ‘quackery’ (might be, I don’t know enough about it) then even more so these lunatics saying that a man can become a woman and vice versa and attempting to ‘transition’ them (I know something about that and it is not only quackery but pure madness).

Thank you for reading.

 

[josh987654321]

So now we’re comparing homosexuals to fetishists?

Only logical if one can’t control who or what they are attracted to. Born that way? If a same sex attraction is something one is born with (possibly) then any other kind of disordered sexual desire must logically also be seen in the same way.

Thank you for reading.

 

[exnihilo]

And seeing as I have someone very close to me that has such an attraction, I find the notion that any would want to demonize this person or make them out to be mentally ill insulting and bigoted.

How is it demonizing to say someone has a mental illness? Is it demonizing to say people who are anxious have anxiety. I don’t think so.

There are enough people who appear to have attraction to members of their own gender that I posit that it is normal.

How do we determine what is normal or abnormal? Certainly it can’t be simply because lots of people do it? Normal can be used like that but in the sense we’d be using it here that doesn’t work. Here we are talking about ordered or disordered. And biology alone can tell us what sex acts are disordered.

 

[JustLamb]

How do we determine what is normal or abnormal?

Was Jesus ‘normal’?

 

[josh987654321]

People use sexual organs in all kinds of ways that make reproduction difficult. Are you now going to declare those people as abnormal as well?

C’mon, sodomy is not where it’s supposed to go, anyone with an ounce of common sense can see that. People can deny reality all they want but eventually it catches up with them.

Thank you for reading

 

[theCardinalbird]

With you there brother. For once we agree. I longed to have children but it was never meant to be. They say it is harder on men to be childless than women…

Coming home to an empty house with only the dogs for company… But hey, that’s what the Church wants, as well as so many here, and who are we to disagree?

Do you think they have ever put themselves in our shoes? If suddenly heterosexual tendencies were immoral, how would they feel? No. Of course they haven’t. “Love thy neighbour as thyself” is the law. For me that means ‘put the shoe on the other foot’. But they don’t or won’t.

Being non-straight I think gives us a purer spirituality and a perspective they don’t have. Take strength in that Joe. I do.

I have to disagree with you regarding the Church and other people wanting us to come home to empty houses with only dogs for company. The Church never wants us to be lonely. The Church Would want us to be happy, healthy, and in God’s good graces. Friendship is key in dealing with this.
Life is not supposed to be easy for a Catholic. That’s given.

Not many understand this struggle of ours. The Church is trying to find a way to minister to people with SSA. It’s unfortunate to have SSA, that is for sure. But I would rather Struggle with this than leave God.

 

[josh987654321]

The key words are Pseudoscientific and Psychology.

The problem is that even heterosexuals engage in sodomy. Then add on top of that all the other different fetishes and perversions. I don’t think they were totally born such ways, I think there are possibly many different factors that play a part.

It’s one thing for people to condemn quackery in conversion therapy (and rightly so) but they have gone a step further to say there is nothing disordered about something like sodomy, which flies in the face of basic human anatomy.

So most of these people are not condemning conversion therapy because they think it doesn’t work and is harmful, it’s because they think there is no reason to even be converted if it’s possible. ‘Transitioning’ someone from male to female is not only folly and impossible, but is also very harmful, yet they are pushing this sort of stuff even for minors.

God Bless You

Thank you for reading

 

[Rau]

He’s a troll. Don’t waste your time…

I’m not sure if you’re referring to niceathest or to me? I can assure you I am not a troll - after several years and nearly 12,000 posts and no sanctions at all. But I see you are recently suspended and having posted less than 130 times.

 

[pnewton]

Conversion therapy is the pseudoscientific practice of trying to change an individual’s sexual orientation using psychological or spiritual interventions. There is virtually no reliable evidence that sexuality can be controlled or changed

Let me point to the fallacy that the wikipedia writer uses. This concept of “no reliable evidence” is but half the story. While there is no reliable evidence that sexuality can be changed (reliability is subjective, btw), there is also no reliable evidence it cannot. Now, we have people claiming to be “gender fluid,” which indicates to me that this is not a decided issue.

So, if there is a possibility to have one’s desires more properly ordered, why is this a bad thing, except as it impacts the goals of the gay culture?

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Fr. Mychal Judge, please pray for us all.

 

[SuperLuigi]

I’ve seen Rau posting on here for a long time and while we don’t agree on everything, he/she is not a troll.

 

[niceatheist]

niceatheist:

And seeing as I have someone very close to me that has such an attraction, I find the notion that any would want to demonize this person or make them out to be mentally ill insulting and bigoted.

How is it demonizing to say someone has a mental illness? Is it demonizing to say people who are anxious have anxiety. I don’t think so.

Well, off the top, I’d first say that the gay or bi people that I know don’t exhibit the signs of mental illness. They hold down jobs, some raise families, they own houses, cars, pay mortgages, go on vacations, you know, normal things. Generally with any kind of profound or even moderate mental illness, achieving a normal life is extremely difficult. So I’d say off the top that calling someone who is gay “mentally ill” is pretty darned inaccurate.

There are enough people who appear to have attraction to members of their own gender that I posit that it is normal.

How do we determine what is normal or abnormal? Certainly it can’t be simply because lots of people do it? Normal can be used like that but in the sense we’d be using it here that doesn’t work. Here we are talking about ordered or disordered. And biology alone can tell us what sex acts are disordered.

You could try a statistical analysis. If some significant portion (say 10-15%) of the population have same sex attraction, that’s a pretty darned high number, it means 1 in 10 to 1 in 15 people you encounter are gay or bisexual. If that’s abnormal, then people with AB- blood are outright deviant.

What you’re trying to do is shunt a religious view of homosexuality into what amounts to a discussion of whether homosexuality is abnormal from a behavioral point of view. Obviously I can’t contest your religious beliefs, but I can call out any attempt to equate them to any kind of scientific understanding of human behavior. In reality humans, like other apes, have a pretty wide array of sexual behaviors, some of which may be deviant (like fetishism over inanimate objects) and others (like SSA, oral sex, masturbation, etc.) which are so common that you simply cannot call them abnormal from a statistical point of view.

 

[exnihilo]

Well, off the top, I’d first say that the gay or bi people that I know don’t exhibit the signs of mental illness. They hold down jobs, some raise families, they own houses, cars, pay mortgages, go on vacations, you know, normal things. Generally with any kind of profound or even moderate mental illness, achieving a normal life is extremely difficult. So I’d say off the top that calling someone who is gay “mentally ill” is pretty darned inaccurate.

So the only mental ill are people in mental hospitals or the homeless? So depression, anxiety, and schizophrenia aren’t mental illnesses, unless you don’t hold a job?

You could try a statistical analysis. If some significant portion (say 10-15%) of the population have same sex attraction, that’s a pretty darned high number, it means 1 in 10 to 1 in 15 people you encounter are gay or bisexual. If that’s abnormal, then people with AB- blood are outright deviant.

Again, you are using normal in terms of common. I have colorblindeness. Lots of men do. That doesn’t make it normal.

What you’re trying to do is shunt a religious view of homosexuality into what amounts to a discussion of whether homosexuality is abnormal from a behavioral point of view. Obviously I can’t contest your religious beliefs, but I can call out any attempt to equate them to any kind of scientific understanding of human behavior. In reality humans, like other apes, have a pretty wide array of sexual behaviors, some of which may be deviant (like fetishism over inanimate objects) and others (like SSA, oral sex, masturbation, etc.) which are so common that you simply cannot call them abnormal from a statistical point of view.

Actually, my view isn’t based on religion at all. It is based on natural law. My religion happens to agree with natural law and my view. But I don’t base my argument on my religion.

Your definition of normal and good seems to be some arbitrary percent of people engaging in a behavior. Of course that would be a terrible way to measure right and wrong. If so then something like cheating on taxes should be legal since probably a significant percent of people aren’t completely honest on taxes.

 

[niceatheist]

niceatheist:

Well, off the top, I’d first say that the gay or bi people that I know don’t exhibit the signs of mental illness. They hold down jobs, some raise families, they own houses, cars, pay mortgages, go on vacations, you know, normal things. Generally with any kind of profound or even moderate mental illness, achieving a normal life is extremely difficult. So I’d say off the top that calling someone who is gay “mentally ill” is pretty darned inaccurate.

So the only mental ill are people in mental hospitals or the homeless? So depression, anxiety, and schizophrenia aren’t mental illnesses, unless you don’t hold a job?

No, mentally ill is mentally ill. Being gay is not a mental illness.

You could try a statistical analysis. If some significant portion (say 10-15%) of the population have same sex attraction, that’s a pretty darned high number, it means 1 in 10 to 1 in 15 people you encounter are gay or bisexual. If that’s abnormal, then people with AB- blood are outright deviant.

Again, you are using normal in terms of common. I have colorblindeness. Lots of men do. That doesn’t make it normal.

Yes I am, because that’s the only empirical definition I could imagine. If you have 1 in 10 or more people with SSA, it’s clearly a common sexual feature in many people.

What you’re trying to do is shunt a religious view of homosexuality into what amounts to a discussion of whether homosexuality is abnormal from a behavioral point of view. Obviously I can’t contest your religious beliefs, but I can call out any attempt to equate them to any kind of scientific understanding of human behavior. In reality humans, like other apes, have a pretty wide array of sexual behaviors, some of which may be deviant (like fetishism over inanimate objects) and others (like SSA, oral sex, masturbation, etc.) which are so common that you simply cannot call them abnormal from a statistical point of view.

Actually, my view isn’t based on religion at all. It is based on natural law. My religion happens to agree with natural law and my view. But I don’t base my argument on my religion.

Natural law is just a way for theologians to try to assert their religious views have some a-religious merit. Natural law doesn’t exist.

Your definition of normal and good seems to be some arbitrary percent of people engaging in a behavior. Of course that would be a terrible way to measure right and wrong. If so then something like cheating on taxes should be legal since probably a significant percent of people aren’t completely honest on taxes.

If it was even 1% of the population I’d say it might be viewed as abnormal. But it is much higher than that. And are you asserting that homosexuals should be imprisoned?