C
CopticChristian
Guest
Why does NARTH have no credibility as you say it has none?
- Status
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear Not Sure,
Cordial greetings and a very good day.
Unfortunately, dear friend, in todays godless society, any man will be branded a ‘homophobe’ if he dares to speak negatively of homosexual deviancy on religious grounds. This is not dissimilar to using the term ‘troll’ on the interweb as an ad hominem strategy to discredit an opposing position by spitefully attacking the proponent. Both are instances of people registering their annoyance with opposing viewpoints (by which they have usually been thrown off balance) and trying to score cheap debaters points at the expense of their antagonist.
Invariably, calling a man a ‘homophobe’ is an attempt to halt rational debate by shifting the focus to one of the participants. In so doing they dismiss another man’s arguments, and even close him down, based on some real or supposed attribute of the person. In this instance the supposed attribute is a fear of homosexuals. However, even if a chap was afraid of homosexuals for some reason, that would not necessarily diminish the force of his argumentation against their sinful and aberrant acts.
In any event, the homophobia charge does not stand up to scrutiny, for the vast majority of those who denounce homosexual vice are not fearful of homosexuals. Clearly, one can strongly disagree with something without necessarily fearing it. Thus the attempt to close down reasoned discussion falls flat. It is nothing more than an attempt to divert attention away from the arguments against one’s position by unfairly focusing on the one who proposed the arguments, whilst trying to claim some moral high ground against him. This, dear friend, surely says more about the chap using the abusive epithet than the one against whom the abuse is directed.
God bless.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
C
clem456
Guest
Hatred and fear are very intertwined. Sodomy is repulsive to many/most hetero people, myself included. That repulsion can cause anxiety and fear. Sometimes it leads to violence and/or discrimination. What is seen as hatred is frequently the expression of that fear or repulsion. I would submit again that it is natural to have homophobic feelings about homosexuality. We have fears and repulsion toward lots of things that are unnatural to us. So the question might be, how do we as Catholics deal with fear?
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
I’ve got my own share of experience with being labeled as a person of hate or anger for not being in agreement with “the norm” for a particular environment. The problem is there are also those that will use language of hate and references to God when sharing their thoughts. I think that to get the public to not group all those that speak against it into the same “box” it would be necessary for one group to either directly or indirectly contrast themselves from the other group (such as by making displays of love or public discouragement of the behaviour of the other group with which the loving group is being conflated).
D
davidv
Guest
C
clem456
Guest
Good catch!
D
Dakota_Roberts
Guest
NARTH has been discredited in the view of the secular world as their research has been shown to have flawed methodology and numerous other studies have shown the opposite of what NARTH claims (the other research shows that changing from homosexual to heterosexual is exceptionally rare and that it is outweighed by psychological harm to some). Then there is of course Spitzer retracting his study. Spitzer’s study was major in advancing the ex-gay cause because he had no biases in favour of reparative therapy. As of a month ago NARTH still had ~300 citations to his study. Also Exodus International is backing away from reparative therapy.
B
BobCatholic
Guest
I didn’t say marriage is mandatory either. All I said was that 100% of people are not called to be married.
J
johnnyjones
Guest
Your missing the bigger point. 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. This is the test of any self proclaimed group that wants to argue for their preservation.
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear ThinkingSapien,
Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for your response above.
Indeed, my dear friend, sadly there are those in the religious camp who do use very intemperate and uncharitable language when speaking about homosexuals and that is most inexcusable. Hopefully it helps to heal the hurt when good religious men freely acknowldege that this is unfortunately the case and apologise for their brethren who let the side down.
As a Catholic, dear friend, I would strongly discourage any unkindness, be it in word or deed, displayed towards those of a homosexual pre-disposition and would wish to distance myself from any who display such un-Christian unkindness. Thus whilst I believe that homosexual aberrant acts are “intrinsically disordered”, I believe that homosexuals themselves “…must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity” (*Catechism of the *Catholic Church, paras. 2357- 2358).
God bless.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
I’ve not missed the point. But it’s not the case that homosexuals or any other person that doesn’t wish to participate in procreation operate in isolation. What is the case is that homosexuals, heterosexuals, autosexuals, asexuals, and others largely co-operate in the same society. For an individual, keeping partial replica of your genes in the gene pool doesn’t necessarily impact your personal survival. Nor does it necessarily impact the survival of humans as a life form. The argument is dependent on a state of affairs that isn’t descriptive of present reality.
Hypothetically, if you placed nothing but homosexuals and asexuals on an island none of them are obligated to ensure that the island remains populated with humans for generations to come. If enough of them do desire that their genes or human life continues in that isolation then at most they would need to engage in an occasional heterosexual act but could stick with homosexuality any other time. Even in present times there are homosexual people that have conceived children both directly and by indirect means.
J
johnnyjones
Guest
Whether homosexuals desire to engauge in procreation or not is irrelevant. By their own admission they are not attracted to the opposite gender, therefore rendering themselves incapable of self preservation as a unique people. Only with the assistence of heterosexuals can there be the possibility for more homosexuals.
The faulty part of your argument lies in what would be defined as "true " homosexuality. A person stating they are heterosexual has sex only with opposite gender members. Homosexuals fight to be with the same sex at all costs, many even causing the disolving of marriages just to be gay. If just gay people were on an island as you brought up, they would have to go against their supposed true nature to reproduce.
A straight man can’t get aroused by another male, it is in fact repulsive. This defines heterosexuality. By what miraculous action does the gay man have ability to arouse himself over a woman. The claim by gay people is EQUAL sexual attraction to same sex as heteros have opposite sex. If that’s not the case then the whole homosexual argument should be thrown out the window, it would be baseless.
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
Sure it is relevant. Otherwise the argument for procreation is only applicable to homosexuals that want to procreate and can procreate. Given a homosexual that doesn’t want to produce kids that he or she had heterosexuals in his or her ancestry isn’t going to be a strong argument to convince him or her to not engage in sexual activity with a partner. Especially not on secular grounds. And if he or she is sterile that argument would carry even less weight.
I’m not sure what “self preservation as unique people” means. I’m guessing it’s another term that means “procreate.” Otherwise one’s ability to live isn’t dependent on whether or not he or she has procreated within their lifetime. Either way we all die.
Since there seems to be an emphasis on homosexual people that want to procreate let’s talk about that for a moment. Such people also have the option of artificial insemination. It’s no miracle. The male donating the sperm could be heterosexual, homosexual, or autosexual. (Technically he could even be in a coma. Without so much as an incision there’s a simple way to cause immediate ejaculation of sperm that I don’t wish to describe here). The female carrying the child can be homosexual, heterosexual, autosexual, or what ever. Yes, lesbians can have themselves impregnated and gay men can donate sperm. The fusion of the sperm and the egg isn’t dependent on the sexuality or sexual attraction of the involved parties. Artificial insemination and related options have been around for the past 34 years now.
But I only say this as a side note. Whether or not homosexuals can have off spring or not doesn’t seem like a strong argument for the reasons given in the first paragraph.
J
johnnyjones
Guest
I don’t see you fully understanding my “argument”. Your dealing with modern times and all the the assistence that provides. With the dawn of man, homosexuality could not have been the predominent orientation. Otherwise, we don’t continue as a people, that is assuming a homosexual is truely a person that can not have sexual relations with the opposite sex, which is what it is supposed to be.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
The best and simplest counter-arument against homosexuality is that the male sex organ was not designed by nature either for the female or the male anus. Also, the finger was not designed to be poked in the eye. Nor was the toe designed to be poked in the ear. 
J
johnnyjones
Guest
The best and simplest counter-arument against homosexuality is that the male sex organ was not designed by nature either for the female or the male anus. Also, the finger was not designed to be poked in the eye. Nor was the toe designed to be poked in the ear.
D
Dakota_Roberts
Guest
Previously some tried invoking Kantian morality by saying that if everyone were homosexual then the species would die off therefore it is bad, but if everyone where celibate (and continent) then the species would die off too, as the latter is not actually immoral it means that Kantian morality can not be used to determine that homosexuality is bad as the rule does not always work for behaviour.
All it takes is enough desperation for sex, the sphincter muscles provide all the friction necessary for stimulation to ejaculation.
J
johnnyjones
Guest
So if a gay man is desperate for sex he will resort to a woman? That more than slightly defeats the whole purpose of being gay to begin with. Unless your saying gay people don’t really care what gender it is, as long as they “get some”. I don’t think too many gay people would like your analogy. After all, why would they be fighting to show the “genuineness” of homosexuality?
J
johnnyjones
Guest
No. Straight men still won’t look for "friction’ from another male. If you have prison in your mind, forget the myths. I worked 17 years with COs. Straight guys stay straight, unless you are talking about rape, which you wouldn/t want to do, would you? The gay guys in jail are gay already.
N
Non_sum_dignus
Guest
That’s a whooooooole lot of desperation for sex you’re talking about there. Even after 29 years of celibacy, I would have fought to the death to avoid that sort of friction.
- Status