Homosexuality and Tolerance

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I was mocking the people claiming that the higher HIV/AIDS rate amongst gays was proof that gay sex is sinful (it is sinful, but sins don’t necessarily have bad consequences as a direct result or even in the mortal world).

I see…

I would join you in mocking those “claiming that the higher HIV/AIDS rate amongst gays was proof that gay sex is sinful”

The proof that gay sex is sinful lies within the teaching of the Holy Roman Catholic Church.

 

[davidv]

So, your omnipotent God has no control over what appears in nature?

Where was this stated?

If He is omnipotent then He can ensure that whatever appears in nature is fully in accordance with His will.

Part of His will is the we are free to act in accord with His will or not.

We observe homosexuality in nature, among both humans and other species.

Logical fallacy. Rejected.

Is your God omnipotent or not?

Yes.

Does He wish for homosexuality to exist in humans?

I don’t believe so.

Does He wish for homosexuality to exist in other species?

I don’t think so.

You were using the argument from the method of human reproduction found in nature in your post above (#83). Was that also an example of the “naturalistic fallacy”? You argued from the appearance of X in nature to the conclusion that X must be God’s will. I also argued from the appearance of X in nature to the conclusion that X must be God’s will. Your X was sexual reproduction, my X was different sexualities. What is the logical difference?

rossum

It seems as this an equivocation that equates the natural law with “that which occurs in nature” and make a strawman of the Church teaching.

 

[fastenatingguy]

Yes, God can set aside the laws of nature. They are laws which he created. He could also create a rock so heavy that he can’t lift it.… if that is what he wanted.

Channeling a little George Carlin?

 

[Catolico65]

The fact that some are attracted to the same sex is not in doubt. The reason, or cause is not known, though I note you have formed a view that it arises pre-birth.

Being “gay” is not disordered (so your conscience is on the money on this point). The same sex sexual attraction is disordered, in fact it is “objectively” so. It is an attraction which is at odds with the individual’s very body. It is a distressing situation for many to face.

The Church calls those who face this trial to remain chaste by living the single life well.

With all due respect please lets get the facts straight.

1. “Being gay” is a misnomer that implies innateness, it is not.
2. Homosexuality is disordered and as such so are homosexual temptations and desires.
3. There is no credible scientific evidence that proves homosexuality happens before birth.

 

[Faithdancer]

I don’t hate homosexuals but I do hate that the homosexual acts that I find unnatural are shoved in my face and I’m told that I have to accept those acts as natural because THE MAJORITY of citizens around the world have determined that they are just as natural as what God created. I hate that people think that sleeping around is natural, too. I hate to have that shoved in my face because THE MAJORITY says it’s natural. I hate that our young kids (and adults) abuse alcohol and drugs and turn into people we don’t know anymore because THE MAJORITY of the world says it’s natural, everybody does it. And on and on. I’m only one little person in this world and the truth calls me in a different direction. So, I love all the people God created and I pray and pray and pray…

 

[Catolico65]

I was mocking the people claiming that the higher HIV/AIDS rate amongst gays was proof that gay sex is sinful (it is sinful, but sins don’t necessarily have bad consequences as a direct result or even in the mortal world).

It appears you reject the Catholic belief there are worldly and eternal consequences of sins. While it is true Jesus has paid the price we have to recognize and repent of our sins in order to not bear the consequences. Unfortunately, many that suffer from deep seated SSA reject the notion that their condition is not normal, hence their problem.

 

[rossum]

Assuming the naturalistic fallacy is not a fallacy, after all.

I was using your own argument, as I made clear by using almost exactly the same words as you were using. If my argument fails, then your argument also fails. If your argument succeeds then my argument also succeeds. Make your mind up and we can proceed.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Since a male and female CAN generate a child through coitus it necessarily follows that homosexuality is necessarily worse than heterosexuality.

False. An infertile man and a woman CANNOT generate a child through coitus, and therefore such coitus falls into the same classification as homosexual coitus. Similarly for a man and an infertile woman, for example past her menopause.

The Catholic Church allows non-fertile coitus in some cases, but not in others. Hence your argument about fertility fails because it does not cover all cases.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Where was this stated?

I made no statement, I asked a question.

Part of His will is the we are free to act in accord with His will or not.

Do other non-human species have free will? Homosexuality has been observed in some animal species.

Logical fallacy. Rejected.

It was an observation, not a logical syllogism. See Sommer and Vasey (2006) Homosexual behaviour in animals: an evolutionary perspective.

It seems as this an equivocation that equates the natural law with “that which occurs in nature” and make a strawman of the Church teaching.

Both Peter Plato and myself used the same logical form. We both argued from the appearance of X in nature to the conclusion that X must be God’s will. We had different values of X, but the logical form of our arguments was the same. If one fails then both fail. If one succeeds then both succeed.

rossum

 

[Amandil]

Yes, God can set aside the laws of nature. They are laws which he created. He could also create a rock so heavy that he can’t lift it… if that is what he wanted.

Uh, no, not really. It’s not because God is limited but because such a thing wouldn’t achieve anything. It violates the law of non-contradiction.

God creating a stone that He can’t lift makes about as much religious sense as Jesus walking through a wall and not walking through that same wall at the exact same time.

God doesn’t do meaningless things.

Secondly, God doesn’t “violate” the laws of nature by enacting miracles. By this your presupposing that something that can only be explained as “miraculous” must have somehow violated something God intended to be.

It simply doesn’t make sense.

As Catholics, we know from the Bible that God gave children to a couple who were well past the normal age of fertility. He did so because that is what he wanted. Similarly, he could also produce a child from a male-male union…if he wanted to do so.

No. the miraculous action of God to make Abraham and Sarah fertile was not a violation of their nature, thus their begetting of Isaac, while miraculous, was not a violation of their nature.

God would never produce a child from a homosexual union, not only because it is a violation of their nature, but also because any such miracles have always had a religious significance directing people to the truth of God and/or the Church.

Homosexual acts are necessarily disordered, so they can never produce a child, nor would God intervene to do so.

 

[Amandil]

False. An infertile man and a woman CANNOT generate a child through coitus, and therefore such coitus falls into the same classification as homosexual coitus. Similarly for a man and an infertile woman, for example past her menopause.

The Catholic Church allows non-fertile coitus in some cases, but not in others. Hence your argument about fertility fails because it does not cover all cases.

rossum

That’s called a strawman.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

It appears you reject the Catholic belief there are worldly and eternal consequences of sins. While it is true Jesus has paid the price we have to recognize and repent of our sins in order to not bear the consequences. Unfortunately, many that suffer from deep seated SSA reject the notion that their condition is not normal, hence their problem.

Please point out in the Catechism, an encyclical or a writing by a Doctor of the Church that there are always consequences in the material world to sin. Note, in case I wasn’t clear, I am not rejecting the temporal punishment of sin.

 

[buffalo]

Love is not tolerance

BISHOP FULTON J. SHEEN****Christian love bears evil, but it does not tolerate it.

http://www.catholiceducation.org/images/authos/Sheen8.JPG  *Christian love bears evil, but  it does not tolerate it. *

It does penance for the sins of others, but it is not broadminded about sin.
*The cry for tolerance never induces it to quench its hatred of the evil philosophies that have entered into contest with the Truth. *
It forgives the sinner, and it hates the sin; it is unmerciful to the error in his mind.
*The sinner it will always take back into the bosom of the Mystical Body;
but his lie will never be taken into the treasury of His Wisdom. *
*Real love involves real hatred:
whoever has lost the power of moral indignation and the urge to drive the buyers and sellers from the temples
has also lost a living, fervent love of Truth. *
*Charity, then, is not a mild philosophy of “live and let live”;
it is not a species of sloppy sentiment. *
Charity is the infusion of the Spirit of God,
which makes us love the beautiful and hate the morally ugly.

 

[marymary1975]

I keep having this recurring thought that there is some massive social engineering project in the works and these ‘social issues’ are merely precursor experiments to see how quickly ridiculous ideas can be foisted into the ‘group think’ of society. At some point, I suspect in the near future, when the masses have been sufficiently massaged, there will be a final move towards indoctrination at some very basic - perhaps ideological or political - level that will redefine the social order on a global scale.

In the past, I have tried to resist this idea as nonsensical, but the longer I live the more cogent it becomes because it seems to fit closely with the way the social order is being orchestrated. Individuals are much more susceptible these days, it seems, to ‘going with the flow’ than ever before. Public opinion seems much too ready to swallow holus bolus whatever is the current slop du jour as if every new idea is the best EVER conceived. The rise of social media and the coercive influence of the crowd has given rise to a bizarre number of faddish tendencies that invade deeper and deeper into the core of what it means to be human. Perhaps these fads have always been an aspect of human existence, but they seem to be more contrived and manipulated by power mongers than ever before.

A key principle undergirding manipulation is that ‘tolerance’ is a virtue. The more tolerant an individual is to the wild, eccentric or innovative the more s/he demonstrates readiness to be influenced. This appears a deceptively innocuous trait since open-mindedness has some value if one is ‘minded’ to begin with, but absent a thought-competent base from which to function, tolerance begins to take on attributes that make it indistinguishable from lunacy. :twocents:

 

[Rau]

With all due respect please lets get the facts straight.

1. “Being gay” is a misnomer that implies innateness, it is not.
2. Homosexuality is disordered and as such so are homosexual temptations and desires.
3. There is no credible scientific evidence that proves homosexuality happens before birth.

Stick to the facts yourself.

1. A person may describe themselves as gay, and mean no more than they find themselves attracted only to the same sex. They do not know why. They may be mortified at this situation and strive to remain chaste. Others may follow a path of embracing homosexual relations (a path of sin). None of these people are disordered - that is a fact.
2. Homosexual attractions, temptations and acts are disordered.
3. I didn’t say there was - another poster expressed that view. Take it up with him.

 

[blaskoman]

That is very sad information about LGBT community being prone to alcoholism, poor nutrition and suicide.
Rather than see this information as reasons why that life style is problematic and to be avoided, perhaps we should see it this way.
Perhaps the reason why these issues are in their community is we (Christianity) are inflicting pain upon them (LGBT).
Perhaps their suicide rate is so high because we’ve been telling them since they were young their inclinations are “wrong.” And if they act on their inclinations they are BAD people. The punishment for their actions is to kick them out of our households and our communities. We leave them with the choice to live alone and hated by God, or live with their family and parish but in silent self loathing. It is already a herculean task to be a teenager; it must be a nightmare to be a teenager who is homosexual. And we wonder why they are killing themselves. Maybe we are driving them to it.
LGBT community likely have poor nutrition because they sooth their self loathing by eating things that are not healthy. And likewise they might be soothing their self loathing with alcoholism.

Your rationale is wrong. Just take Holland for example where homosexuality is accepted for the most part. There are is a high incidence of crime, depression and suicide in their gay community. It’s bascically the homosexual lifestyle causing these symptoms of violence and despair.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Bodhi303;11800006:

That is very sad information about LGBT community being prone to alcoholism, poor nutrition and suicide.
Rather than see this information as reasons why that life style is problematic and to be avoided, perhaps we should see it this way.
Perhaps the reason why these issues are in their community is we (Christianity) are inflicting pain upon them (LGBT).
Perhaps their suicide rate is so high because we’ve been telling them since they were young their inclinations are “wrong.” And if they act on their inclinations they are BAD people. The punishment for their actions is to kick them out of our households and our communities. We leave them with the choice to live alone and hated by God, or live with their family and parish but in silent self loathing. It is already a herculean task to be a teenager; it must be a nightmare to be a teenager who is homosexual. And we wonder why they are killing themselves. Maybe we are driving them to it.

LGBT community likely have poor nutrition because they sooth their self loathing by eating things that are not healthy. And likewise they might be soothing their self loathing with alcoholism.

Your rationale is wrong. Just take Holland for example where homosexuality is accepted for the most part. There are is a high incidence of crime, depression and suicide in their gay community. It’s bascically the homosexual lifestyle causing these symptoms of violence and despair.

SMGS127 would be far better to comment on this, but from what I’ve seen in lesbians the alcoholism seems to rather often start while still trapped in the closet and after out it often starts as a coping mechanism, a maladaptive coping mechanism, but a coping mechanism nonetheless.

While the Netherlands in general is quite tolerant there are still some parts that are extremely bigoted and children are still cruel in school.

 

[rossum]

That’s called a strawman.

No it is not. The Catholic Church allows infertile people to have coitus, provided they are married. Consummation is required for marriage but fertility is not. An unconsummated marriage can be annulled very easily. An infertile marriage cannot.

It is not a strawman because I am correctly describing the practice of the Catholic Church. If I am incorrect, then please quote me the entry from the Catechism where husbands and wives are forbidden sexual relations if one or the other is infertile.

rossum

 

[Rau]

No it is not. The Catholic Church allows infertile people to have coitus, provided they are married. Consummation is required for marriage but fertility is not. An unconsummated marriage can be annulled very easily. An infertile marriage cannot.

It is not a strawman because I am correctly describing the practice of the Catholic Church. If I am incorrect, then please quote me the entry from the Catechism where husbands and wives are forbidden sexual relations if one or the other is infertile.

rossum

What relevant conclusions do you draw from these observations about Catholic Canon law?

 

[rossum]

What relevant conclusions do you draw from these observations about Catholic Canon law?

I draw no conclusions about canon law. I draw conclusions about some of the arguments presented here: “Same sex couples are infertile so what they do is wrong.” That argument fails because there are opposite sex couples who are infertile and what they do is not wrong. Hence the infertility part of the argument presented is irrelevant.

Infertile sexual relations may be allowed or disallowed. Fertile sexual relations may be allowed or disallowed. You cannot tell if sexual relations are allowed or disallowed from fertility, or the lack of it.

The argument needs to be made based on other factors. Fertility or infertility is irrelevant.

rossum