C
Crescentinus
Guest
Exactly!Better yet, what standard of morality dictates some Catholics to adopt a pro-gay mindset?
Your question had just destroyed homosexism in a one-hit knockout!
Exactly!Better yet, what standard of morality dictates some Catholics to adopt a pro-gay mindset?
… and what, pray tell, is a homosexualist? Someone who studies homosexuality? I haven’t heard that word before. It is not in the dictionary.Ask this:
What standard of morality dictates you to be a homosexualist?
A Victorian word for a Homosexual.… and what, pray tell, is a homosexualist? Someone who studies homosexuality? I haven’t heard that word before. It is not in the dictionary.
Homosexualist and homosexual mean exactly the same thing, the latter is not only the substantially more commonly used one, but also shorter. There is never greater clarity, to use the former, only equal clarity at best, so why use it.A Victorian word for a Homosexual.
If everyone were celibate…Kant’s little formula might apply. “If everybody did it…?” If everybody were homosexual, there would be no future generations.
More to the point, what arguments are there “for” homosexuality? I would insist on defining homosexuality, as no homosexual activist group with but one rare, mild exception, has denounced the mission of NAMBLA, the North American Man-Boy Love Association. “Eight is too late.” Does homosexuality encompass any sexual proclivity? Oy! Something is rotten in Denmark…
One simple question assuming you are Catholic or Christian. Why would God create humanity and lay down the law in opposition to our natural insticts?@OP: There is no secular argument against homosexuality. None that stands any water anyway. Here’s an article you should read:
cltampa.com/dailyloaf/archives/2009/11/02/sexually-antagonistic-selection-the-evolution-of-male-homosexuality#.T-3a7ZH4WSo
(Basically (male) homosexuality is a byproduct of female hyperfertility like sicle cell anaemia is a byproduct of better protection against malaria. While some individuals may “suffer”, overall there is a benefit. With sicle cell more survive than without, with homosexuality there is more offspring to the family even with some members not procreating. The non-procreating members also can function as babysitters. Kind of like bees and ants where only the queen procreates.)
snort
telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/5550488/Homosexual-behaviour-widespread-in-animals-according-to-new-study.html
- Nobody claimed that homosexuality is normal aka the norm. Obviously heterosexuality is the norm. Homosexuality however, like heterosexuality, is natural.
- Homosexuality in animals is rare, therefore homosexuality in animals doesn’t exist. Yeah, right.
- It would be nice to see some evidence to his claims (i.e.the difference between humans and animals), unfortunately, not suprisingly though, there is none.
Homosexual anal sex is no more or less risky than heterosexual anal sex. Also, according to this logic you should be fine with female homosexuals then.
That is such a load of …
Procreation argument? Really?Should we outlaw the mating of infertiles too? Ah yes, their numbers are so insignificant that it we shouldn’t bother. Funny how that doesn’t go for homosexuals who are a mere 10% of the population.
One also can’t separate voluntary infertiles (aka those who use contraception) from fertiles? One can if we know which doctor prescribed contraception to whom. One could also simply outlaw any contraceptives, like Romania in the past.
]
Homophobia is an irrational fear of homosexuality. Catholics have a rational concern, and /or at least should.I’m guessing it’s an attempt to get around the word homophobia or homophobic, since homophobia is a stupid word.
The OP question was a “homosexual counter argument”. It has been clearly answered with the inability of homosxual self preservation. In our current age they can endure, but isolated and truly practicing what they espouse and fight for, they could not.Homosexualist and homosexual mean exactly the same thing, the latter is not only the substantially more commonly used one, but also shorter. There is never greater clarity, to use the former, only equal clarity at best, so why use it.
If everyone were celibate…
A homosexualist is someone who promotes the homosexual lifestyle as either equal to or superior to heterosexuality. And yes, it’s a word.… and what, pray tell, is a homosexualist? Someone who studies homosexuality? I haven’t heard that word before. It is not in the dictionary.
Objection! The words “homosexual” and 'homosexualist" are two different terms. If anything, there are heterosexuals who are homosexualist.Homosexualist and homosexual mean exactly the same thing, the latter is not only the substantially more commonly used one, but also shorter. There is never greater clarity, to use the former, only equal clarity at best, so why use it.
What terrific ironic humor.I recently got into a friendly debate with someone about homosexuality and he beat me to a pulp.
That is also my understanding from the previous definitions I read in the Urban Dictionary. It seems however that homosexualism is also used to mean homosexuality, a homosexualist to mean a homosexual.Objection! The words “homosexual” and 'homosexualist" are two different terms. If anything, there are heterosexuals who are homosexualist.
If everyone became celibate and continent the human race would be gone in a similar time frame…I like the Good for the Goose, Good for the Gander argument.
Imagine if I had magic powers.
So you say homosexuality is good. OK, let’s put that to the test. If it is good for the goose, it is good for the gander. Imagine if I snapped my fingers and turned everyone into a homosexual. No straights. No bisexuals. Only homosexuals.
What would be the result?
The human race would be extinct in 100 years.
Obviously homosexuality is wrong because it fails that test.
If everybody went into religious life that demands celibacy, becoming preists, monks, nuns, etc. the human race would also be extinct within one generation. By your own logic, you just deemed the Church immoral.I like the Good for the Goose, Good for the Gander argument.
Imagine if I had magic powers.
So you say homosexuality is good. OK, let’s put that to the test. If it is good for the goose, it is good for the gander. Imagine if I snapped my fingers and turned everyone into a homosexual. No straights. No bisexuals. Only homosexuals.
What would be the result?
The human race would be extinct in 100 years.
Obviously homosexuality is wrong because it fails that test.
Fornication is not as bad as homosexuality because fornication is not against the natural law. Although I do call for the ban of divorce, and shacking up. Also the banning of pornography and strip clubs, immoral bars.To me, the one fairly undeniable big clear and widespread consequence of Gay Liberation has been the epidemic/pandemic of sexually transmitted diseases. Not just HIV. Other ones too, such as Hepatitis C. Research has proven that gay men, especially in the their younger years (say 18-35), have dozens or hundreds of other men each year, often with partners whose name they never even learn, and most of this is sex without condoms. Millions of people have suffered horribly because of this, and billions of dollars has been spent on medical care and research. And NONE of this would have happened if the USA and other nations has not allowed gay sex to become accepted. Gay men are just naturally vastly promiscuous. No denying it.
But, to be “fair,” the USA and other nations allowed unlimited sexual promiscuity among heterosexuals as well, beginning in the 1960s/1970s, and that has had horrible consequences and led to immense suffering for families, children, and individuals.
But the reason, I think, that we have so much trouble convincing others of the immorality of Gay Liberation is that we are don’t seem to be as concerned by the vast sexual promiscuity of heterosexuals.
Thus, it seems to people that we are singling the gays out, just because we are prejudiced against people who aren’t like us, along the lines of whites hating blacks or Mexicans.
Notice how many states pass laws and constitutional amendments against gay marriage, but NEVER even propose laws to forbid shacking up, dating sex, or quick and easy divorce among heterosexuals.
We need to be WHOLE CATHOLICS, not partial Catholics. We need to not let ourselves me manipulated by politicos who just want to get into office for reasons of ambitions for power and/or greed.
Huh?**Fornication is not as bad as homosexuality because fornication is not against the natural law. **Although I do call for the ban of divorce, and shacking up. Also the banning of pornography and strip clubs, immoral bars.
Sodomy is one of the sins that cry out to heaven for vengeance. That is why we focus on it.
It is one of the most destructive sins that is approved by society. Drug abuse is not. **Murder is not. **Sodomy is.
Divorce is also approved by society, even though it shows a lack of commitment that should be a red flag for anyone applying for a job. If you perform a no-fault divorce, that means you have no respect for a contract. And if you commit a no fault divorce with children, you have no respect for your children.