B
Bookcat
Guest
Waiting.
- Status
B
Bookcat
Guest
Why are you seeking to argue this?
Your argument is* no*t about anything that is be taught by the Magisterium.
The Church is discussing the MORAL realities involved with persons - NOT teaching about some empircal science question…or even some statistics question - that is your mistake you think the Church is doing that…the Magisterium is not.
What is the Magisterium teaching?
The MORAL TRUTH that is to be lived by any who experience such attractions.
It is the moral section of the Catechism…about how to live faithfully as a Christian.
he Church is not Teaching about questions or matters of the empirical sciences here.
The Church is teaching about - what? Moral life.
About the 6th Commandment. About LIFE IN CHRIST (title of the whole section).
The Catechism is covering all the possibilities.
If person D does not experience any other attraction that to their same gender - what are they do do? Follow what the Church Teaches. It applies to them.
If person A experiences some attraction to their own gender and some attraction to the opposite gender - what are they to do? Follow what the Church Teaches. It applies to them.
Or to put it differently - either person “says” they do not or do…it does not matter here.
A key word there in the CCC is “experience”.
No one can say “hey it does not apply to me cause I only experience SSA” or “I experience both…” The teachings regarding such apply to all those who experience such.
One cannot debate with a person about what he personally “experiences”.
The point of the discussion in the Catechism is the morality and the call to virtue. That applies to them all (and to us all too) no matter what a person may say they experience.
P
Penitent_Son
Guest
Can you provide a moral reason for denying that they do exist? One that isn’t self-serving?
Subterfuge may work with others, not me. I asked why it was important TO YOU that the “homosexual person” not exist.
You haven’t answered why it is important to you. This isn’t an answer, it’s a nicety constructed in the hope that no one pushes you further.
I haven’t seen you offer any concern for the men who make up the Magisterium, you haven’t expressed worry that anything else in the Catechism is or could be wrong. What you have done is start the same thread four times. Every post you have ever made (as of last night when I looked) is in a thread about gay or transgender issues, all 291 (again, as of last night) of them. You have questioned the truthfulness of your Bishop. You have questioned the integrity of the Magisterium by suggesting they are under the influence of a “stream of corruption” and the “gay lobby”.
Again, I wonder, I ask, why is it important to you. And then I see this.
How do you know what others are or aren’t capable of feeling?
I’ll tell you what I believe, I believe you’ve constructed a labyrinth of lies. Someone offers up something you can’t accept or deal with, you’ve got your reply all ready.
So much easier to deny someone else’s truth than deal with your own.
I’m curious, do you have proof to back up this claim?
T
Thorolfr
Guest
Somehow the message must not have gotten through to all the gay teens who try to commit suicide every year or to the many families that abuse their gay children and often kick them out of the house and leave them homeless.
O
o_mlly
Guest
And your point is?
T
Thorolfr
Guest
My point is that what you said is ridiculous. Psychologists do not claim an “exceptional status” for gay people. Nor has anyone said that being gay is “normative” (defined by Merriam-Webster as “based on what is considered to be the usual or correct way of doing something”) for most people since only a small percentage of the population is gay. No one has ever suggested that most of the population which is straight should become gay because that is the “usual or correct way” of being. As for people celebrating certain things about themselves, Americans celebrate being American on the 4th of July, Irish people celebrate being Irish on St. Patrick’s Day, Lutherans celebrate being Lutheran on Reformation Sunday, etc.
J
jjr9
Guest
These are Pope Francis’s words not mine I do believe he is correct.
“In the Curia there are holy people,” Francis said. “But there is also a stream of corruption.
The ‘gay lobby’ is mentioned, and it is true, it is there. We need to see what we can do.”
( ref: mediaite.com/tv/pope-francis-caught-citing-gay-lobby-during-off-record-meeting-stream-of-corruption-leaves-vatican-vulnerable/ )
I am still waiting to see what will be done.
God bless
O
o_mlly
Guest
The exception modern psychology claims from scholastic psychology is that homosexual acts have a status different than other unnatural sexual acts, i.e., masturbation and bestiality.
Broaden your reading beyond the dictionary and you’ll find that psychologists do claim homosexual acts are normal.
From the archives of American Psychological Association:
“Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality.”
web.archive.org/web/20130808032050/http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx
Correct. Neither have I. Straw man alert.
I suppose if you live in Iceland then you may have missed the parades celebrating homosexual acts. Or are you trying to make a different point?As for people celebrating certain things about themselves, Americans celebrate being American on the 4th of July, Irish people celebrate being Irish on St. Patrick’s Day, Lutherans celebrate being Lutheran on Reformation Sunday, etc.
wsj.com/articles/gay-pride-parades-around-the-world-photos-1435434505
T
Thorolfr
Guest
Unlike the Catholic Church, most psychologists and most doctors also consider masturbation to be perfectly healthy and normal. According to WebMD:
webmd.com/sex-relationships/guide/masturbation-guide
Homosexuality probably is “normal” for some people if by “normal” is meant “occurring naturally” (one of the definitions of “normal” in Merriam-Webster). Some people just turn out to be homosexual for reasons not yet completely understood. The word “normal” does not signify quite the same thing as “normative” which you used earlier which Merriam-Webster defines as being “considered to be the usual or correct way of doing something.” Being homosexual is not really “usual” for most people.
Gay pride parades aren’t really about celebrating any “acts” since someone can be gay and celebrate that without ever having engaged in any acts.
R
Rau
Guest
That you say “probably” suggests some doubt? Thor - it is very difficult to assert normalcy for the acts in question. The behaviour and structure of the male anatomy, the unique contents (gametes) of the seminal fluid emited, are all rather strongly suggestive of what is “normal” in sexual acts. The only sense in which I can see “normality” in those acts is that they may well accord with the desires of the actors. But objectively normal? That is a stretch.
The gay parades I’ve seen on TV are “exhibitionist” in the extreme. What is your understanding of what is being celebrated, and why is it done in that exhibitionist form?
R
Regular_Atheist
Guest
I think the idea of “homosexuality” and the modern conception of sexuality in its totality is a social construct. Certainly no similar conception existed before the 18th century - Edward II had sex with men, but he wasn’t gay or homosexual. He had sex with men not because he was simply attracted to their bodies or as part of a romantic relationship, but instead as part of some kind of masculine warrior relationship. The Spartans likewise practiced man-on-man sex in the same way, and Ancient Greek pederasty also was not homosexuality as we understand it. For us, homosexuality is understood in a similar way to our heterosexual relations, only between members of the same sex. A man is homosexual if he is attracted to other men and wants to form romantic relations with them. Edward II or a Spartan would struggle to understand our conception of homosexuality, and would most likely oppose it.
A homosexual person did not exist throughout much of history and in most societies, but they do now.
A homosexual person did not exist throughout much of history and in most societies, but they do now.
R
Rau
Guest
Of course the word “homosexual” was only coined in the 19th century, so that language at least won’t be found in most of history.
Noting that, even in modern times, persons experiencing homosexual attractions kept fairly quiet on the subject, and noting the severe punishments many societies over much of history prescribed for various kinds of homosexual behaviour - which ensured said persons kept their situation quiet - I’m wondering how you can make that statement with such certainty?
T
Thorolfr
Guest
Since no one knows the cause of homosexuality, I can’t speak about how or why it occurs with any more certainty than what I did. I also don’t think that it’s wise to reduce humans and all their behaviors and activities to a matter of simple anatomy. Humans are much more complicated than that.
R
Rau
Guest
That’s a Strawman response.
I reduced no one in such a fashion. I believe you, seek to do the reverse of that strawman argument - to close your eyes to the evidence our bodies offer.
T
Thorolfr
Guest
Normal: conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern (Merriam-Webster)
Someone has to define what the standard or regular pattern is. For example, having green eyes is not very normal since only about 2% of the world’s human population has green eyes. Having brown eyes is much more “normal”.
R
Rau
Guest
My point was that the nature and function of our bodies provides persuasive evidence of the normal mode (as to partner) of our sexual expression. Every other possibility is not abnormal on account of its relative rarity, but rather on account of its departure from what the body evidently provides for.
Blindness is decidedly not normal, but not because it is uncommon.
R
Regular_Atheist
Guest
Yes, and I think that’s largely because the phenomenon that it describes only came into existence roughly around the same time. Homosexual acts may have been practiced long before that term came into being, but not in the same way or with the same social conception that we have today. Even those practicing them would not have considered themselves in the same way that we consider homosexuals today.
I think there is enough historical evidence for how homosexuality was perceived in the past to see that our own conception of it is a fairly recent phenomenon. The times that sexual acts between members of the same sex were performed in a culturally acceptable way are clearly distinct from homosexuality today, and even when it was practiced in a taboo form it was clearly viewed differently. It wasn’t as if people in the middles ages were condemning our conception of a homosexual relationship. Considering different conceptions of the family and sexuality throughout history, I don’t think any person experiencing same-sex attraction in certain time periods in the past would have perceived themselves as a modern day homosexual does.
R
Rau
Guest
Your arguments are not all that persuasive to a lot of people.
I’m sure you’re right about that.
- Status