I am an out gay man. Ask me anything.

[PatrickSebast]

You skipped over my post #65 and that was by far the thing I was most interested in hearing from you

 

[John21652]

No problem! Thanks a ton for your questions!

Well, first of all, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with promiscuity per se. You can take a number of precautions to minimize the health risk, such that it isn’t a very serious concern. If you’re doing it out of some terrible emotional problem, or if you’re being irresponsible with the emotions of the person involved, then I’d have a problem with it. I don’t really understand the criticism.

All that being said, I think it’s mistaken to think of gay bars as ‘promiscuous in nature.’ I’ve been to every gay bar in Austin a number of times. The most promiscuous thing I’ve encountered is a couple kissing passionately, and men dancing with no shirt on. And thaaat’s about it. Really, most gay guys go to gay bars to dance, drink, talk, people watch, and just hang out with other gay people. Maybe if I see a cute guy, I’ll go talk to him and see where the conversation goes, but never is my aim to take him home with me that night and then forget his name the next day. From my conversations with my many other gay friends, my opinion on the matter is pretty standard.

Of course, cruising for hookups *does *happen. It’d be unfair of me not to say that. In my experience though, most gay men are mostly looking for relationships, not meaningless sex.

Honestly, I think men in drag are hilarious, and they have waaaay more courage than I do. I haven’t seen it all that much in gay bars, but when I have, they usually sing, dance, or put on a little skit. It’s always fun, and I’ve really enjoyed it. I don’t really see the problem with it.

Most of the bars I visit feature fully-clothed clientele. Sometimes there are dancers with no shirts on, but I don’t really see the problem with that.

Huh. Interesting. Most of my gay friends are just normal people. They happen to also like men. Your friend’s experience sounds much different from mine.

Hmm. I don’t really know about that. That’s something I’ll have to think about. I do think about my appearance, of course. And my gay friends do tend to exercise more than my straight friends, but I’m not sure if that’s a bad thing. That being said, we aren’t *critical *with eachother, in my experience.

So let me get this straight.
You embrace promiscuity, you have turned away from the Church, don’t like the Bible and think gay men are normal?

And you are 20 years old.

So you have totally rejected who and what you were to embrace this homosexuality?

Correct?

Well, there are enough studies that have been done around the world to show that the male brain doesn’t reach maturity until around 22, or even higher, so we can perhaps forgive your intellectual and emotional immaturity to a certain degree. However, you are also rejecting the teachings of your parents, and your peers. Well, you did explain all the angst that your embrace of homosexuality caused. In other words, you rejected everything you were taught and then decided to ram your alternate views down everyone else’s throat. That reeks to high heaven of hedonistic, juvenile self centredness and nothing more or less. In the process you are endangering your immortal soul, as your parents taught you and as you believed for a long time. How you can feel comfortable when you reject everything is hard to believe. More so when the to the risk of your immortal soul you add the incredibly high risk of dreadful disease. You might fool yourself into thinking you can be monogomous, but your chances of finding someone who also will be are remote, because the homosexual lifestyle is renowned for its promiscuity. You showed that in your post. You need help with your disorder.

 

[Exalt]

If you want to look at and address anything below, feel free. If not, that’s fine.

I struggle with a lot of things, too. Setting aside the issue of homosexuality, there are many, many indeed personality disorders, tendencies to act in uncharitable ways towards others, vices, and defects in personality common in mankind. Many of them have links to one’s genetic makeup, some are acquired over time, some are combinations of the two. I have them. You have them. We all have them. Some of us naturally have more of them than others, and in some of us they can be more seriously disruptive to our lives and/or the lives of others. Is there anyone who is excluded from possessing them? The question is, what do we do about it? I believe we need to fight against them, to actively try to overcome them, or to at least make improvement. It doesn’t matter if we were “born” with the tendency or not. It is, in fact, our responsibility to work to better ourselves, and this is a work of a lifetime.

Should we be encouraged in our bad behaviors because they are “part of who we are” or should we accept help and advice from others, whether they be friends, family members, physicians, or just reading books in order to improve ourselves? Does having such tendencies give us an excuse for behaving in negative ways towards others?

Now, obviously, I believe that homosexual tendencies are included in my rambling discussion above, and you do not. That’s perfectly clear. But who decides which things are things to be included and which things excluded? Is it the individual? What would you say to a person who has a tendency towards anger and violence towards others who accepts that that is just the way he is and nobody should try to persuade him otherwise? What if this person were involved in an act of violence against another, say in a bar fight, in which he seriously injured another person? Do we, as a society, accept as his excuse, “Sorry, but that’s just the way I am - I tend to lose it at times,” or do we not rather hold the person responsible for his actions, irrespective of any “excuse” he may give for them?

So, who decides? Yes, one might say in regards to homosexuality, that it doesn’t affect others in a negative way or even the person himself, if he “embraces” who he is and rejects other opinions that what he is doing is “sinful.” But, it can be argued that the homosexual lifestyle does, in fact, do harm to others and to the individuals themselves. If it is true that it does do harm to oneself and others then, according to your own definition, it is wrong because it “does not encourage happiness,” although I am not here asserting if that lifestyle does or does not have negative effects. And then, there is the question of the “morality” of the behavior. Suffice it to say, some believe that the Creator of persons, who is God, has a right, being the Creator of the creatures, to demand from them that they act in certain ways and not act in others. To those with no belief in God, they feel they are not bound by “other peoples’,” as they would say, “morality.”

I’m really not interested in a debate, but I’d be happy to give some of my thoughts generally.

Morality became an interesting subject once I stepped outside of the Christian worldview. Why should someone be good? What does it mean to be good? What does it mean to do the right thing?

The truth is that I don’t really have absolute answers to those types of questions. Part of me has accepted that some of what we accept to be good we’ve accepted for their own sake. And I’m comfortable with that. I don’t hurt people because I don’t think we should hurt eachother. I’m respectful of others because that’s the kind of treatment that we should expect in our society. Why do I want respect and kindness from my fellow human? Just because. Good for goodness’ sake.

When I reflected on that idea further, I realized that I’d kind of been doing that already. There’s so much in the Bible that we reject because it’s wrong, even though God himself supposedly thought it was okay at the time. Why did we change our opinion? Did God change is mind? Or did we change our mind, and then change what we said God’s mind was? It was one of my first serious disagreements with orthodox Catholicism back five years ago.

And there’s a whole other way to look at the question of goodness too. You can look at reasons why you should be good – but you can also look at why we’re good. The two questions are different, and the second one can be assessed scientifically. There are tons of psychological experiments out there that look at the second question, and I find them fascinating.

 

[Exalt]

You skipped over my post #65 and that was by far the thing I was most interested in hearing from you

My bad. This thread is moving fast, and I missed it. Here’s your answer!

I would like to expand on both of those points if you don’t mind:

1. I understand that you would disagree with it, that much was clear from the lifestyle you already claimed, what I am interested in is if you think that the churches teaching itself (and not members of the church) is damaging to homosexuals.
2. Would you also be critical of a heterosexual catholic who denies themselves the experience of various sexual relationships because they are unwilling to have sex outside of marriage? Does the celibacy of the religious bother you, especially considering it is fully possible within Church teachings for the Pope to change it if he sees fit? Or is your primary concern with homosexuals due to their lack of options in the case that they wish to be Catholics?

#1. I think it’s damaging to children and teens who grow up, realize they’re gay, and have to deal with their beloved church telling them that they can’t ever have relationships. It was very tough on me. I think that some parents are very hard on children and teens who come out because of their religion, and that can cause some very serious problems. And, as a believer in objective truth, I believe that homosexuality is objectively not-necessarily-a-bad-thing, and that those kids suffer unnecessarily. So, I have to admit that ultimately I do find the church’s teaching on homosexuality harmful. I believe that it was harmful to me, as well. (But I learned from it.)

#2. Those are great question. You definitely got me thinking here.

I think one important distinction should be made here. I’m rarely critical of the *person *who chooses celibacy because of religion. That strikes me as unfair. I’m rather critical of the reasons the person has for choosing celibacy. Does that make sense?

So, I’ll say that I’m critical of the celibacy policy for priests, and the church’s positions on sexuality generally, including it’s ban on premarital heterosexual sex. I’m less critical of individuals who believe those teachings.

 

[Neelam]

Question for you: Have you read this article by another homosexual? If not, I recommend it.

christianorder.com/features/features_2011/features_jan11.html

good article.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I believe that homosexuality is objectively not-necessarily-a-bad-thing.

Why so? What, objectively (not subjective feelings – because subjective inclinations toward anything can be justified as “objectively” acceptable simply because a feeling or an inclination exists). For example, we could all justify our fantasies about any particular thing – a fantasy about doing harm, based on passion about an issue or an event, but our subjective feeling about or towards something does not raise the undeniable existence of that subjective feeling, inclination, or perception, to acting on that, and then defining the action as (“therefore”) objectively permissible, desirable, moral.

I’m rather critical of the reasons the person has for choosing celibacy.

Why do you think a person chooses celibacy?

 

[Exalt]

So let me get this straight.

You embrace promiscuity, you have turned away from the Church, don’t like the Bible and think gay men are normal?

And you are 20 years old.

So you have totally rejected who and what you were to embrace this homosexuality?

Correct?

Each of those statements are more or less accurate. I did turn away from the Church, I was 20 at the time, and yes, it was a complete change in life trajectory.

Honestly, I’m kind of proud that I did that. And here’s why. I’ve proven that I’m willing to completely throw my life up in the air in pursuit of truth. I’m willing to do anything, go as far as it takes, in pursuit of what I believe is right. That kind of courage is something I’m proud of. No one can accuse me of not taking evidence seriously, and being willing to change my mind if proven wrong.

I’m a couple months shy of 25 now. And I don’t *not like *the Bible; I just think of it the same way that I do the Odyssey, or another ancient text. There is beauty in the Bible, and I appreciate beauty wherever I find it.

Well, there are enough studies that have been done around the world to show that the male brain doesn’t reach maturity until around 22, or even higher, so we can perhaps forgive your intellectual and emotional immaturity to a certain degree. However, you are also rejecting the teachings of your parents, and your peers. Well, you did explain all the angst that your embrace of homosexuality caused. In other words, you rejected everything you were taught and then decided to ram your alternate views down everyone else’s throat. That reeks to high heaven of hedonistic, juvenile self centredness and nothing more or less. In the process you are endangering your immortal soul, as your parents taught you and as you believed for a long time. How you can feel comfortable when you reject everything is hard to believe. More so when the to the risk of your immortal soul you add the incredibly high risk of dreadful disease. You might fool yourself into thinking you can be monogomous, but your chances of finding someone who also will be are remote, because the homosexual lifestyle is renowned for its promiscuity. You showed that in your post. You need help with your disorder.

I do understand where you’re coming from here.

However, it’s important to note that the primary reason that I rejected what I was taught because I found that the evidence was severely lacking. That has been my experience. I’ve remained open to new evidence, but none has come to me that’s sufficient to match the extreme claims of Christianity. Remember, the burden of proof is on the person making the extreme claim. (Right? Otherwise you’d have to believe every alien abduction or miracle story that comes your way.)

Also, you should read what I typed earlier about risk of disease. It’s pretty low for me.

And finally, serial monogamy has actually been the norm in my experience, and I’ve known a number of gay people. With one exception: occasionally bringing in a third person into an otherwise-exclusive homosexual relationship appears to be more common than in heterosexual relationships, at least in my experience.

 

[Exalt]

Why so? What, objectively (not subjective feelings – because subjective inclinations toward anything can be justified as “objectively” acceptable simply because a feeling or an inclination exists). For example, we could all justify our fantasies about any particular thing – a fantasy about doing harm, based on passion about an issue or an event, but our subjective feeling about or towards something does not raise the undeniable existence of that subjective feeling, inclination, or perception, to acting on that, and then defining the action as (“therefore”) objectively permissible, desirable, moral.

Once again, I’m not here for a debate, but I’d be happy to relay my experience with the question.

When I was thinking seriously about the question of the morality of homosexuality back in 2006, I remember the question being asked in this way in my ethics class. Bob and John enjoy spending time together, and are not involved in any relationships, and want to have sex with each other. Should they?

I thought seriously about the reasons they shouldn’t, and decided they weren’t adequate. The natural law argument didn’t make much sense to me when I thought it all through. And the self-harm argument didn’t make much sense because you can very much minimize the risk of harm, and many enjoyable, good things in life carry a small risk of harm. I discarded the divine command argument, too. Having discarded all arguments in the negative as terribly inadequate, I accepted that there was nothing wrong with Bob and John having sex, and changed my mind.

 

[Peepers]

Hey everyone.

I’ve been thinking about doing this type of thread around here for a while, and I happen to have a few days free to post here.

A few notes:

• AMA, or “Ask Me Anything” threads are common on forums around the internet. It’s an opportunity for a group of participants to get to know someone from a novel background, and ask them all kinds of interesting questions. It’s a chance to dialogue, to learn from one another.
• I’m not here to press any agenda. The only reason I’m here is that I am curious and interested in religion and religious people – conservative Catholicism in particular. I don’t particularly care about persuading anyone of anything; evangelism is not my concern here. That being said, even though I’m not here to persuade anyone, you are totally free to attempt to persuade me or press any agenda you want. Remember, I’m here because I’m curious about you!
• I will answer every question completely honestly, and no question is off limits so long as it’s allowed by the forum rules.

Why am I here? Essentially, I’m curious about what actual conservative Catholics think about gay people generally. I know many of you believe that homosexuality is immoral, or that gays should not be allowed to adopt children or get married legally, or that homosexuality was caused by some early psychological trauma and might be able to be healed. But I don’t know what you would actually ask an out gay person if given the chance. Are you as curious as I am?

Let’s find out! I am an openly gay man. Ask me anything.

Exalt. I am a gay man (hello brother), who has chosen a life of celibacy because i am inclined to the view that there is an enduring moral standard. i accept the Catholic view that sexual activity should be procreative. obviously, you would reject the procreative requirement. my question to you would be: do you believe that moral guidelines should be relative to contemporaneous views on social justice? (my opinion is that popular opinion in this context is fluid and “trendy”) What do you view as the basis for any moral code? Is this merely a matter of personal choice and conscience? If so, then what is your view on pornography, as long as all parties agree to participate? Is it degrading, or is it a healthy expression of sexuality?

 

[John21652]

Each of those statements are more or less accurate. I did turn away from the Church, I was 20 at the time, and yes, it was a complete change in life trajectory.

It was more than “…a complete change in life trajectory”. It was a complete repudiation of who you were and what you were taught. A complete repudiation of what you were taught about right and wrong.

Honestly, I’m kind of proud that I did that. And here’s why. I’ve proven that I’m willing to completely throw my life up in the air in pursuit of truth. I’m willing to do anything, go as far as it takes, in pursuit of what I believe is right. That kind of courage is something I’m proud of. No one can accuse me of not taking evidence seriously, and being willing to change my mind if proven wrong.

Right? How defined? You have repudiated everything you were taught about what was ‘right’ and now you have invented your own sense of ‘right’. That’s not something to be proud of. And we can accuse you of one very obvious thing. The adoption of moral relativism amd self serving hedonism disguised under a banner of ‘courage’. True courage is not to be found in embracing a decadent hedonistic lifestyle and then excusing it as ‘right’. You confuse your right to do something with the rightness or wrongness of what you do.

I’m a couple months shy of 25 now. And I don’t *not like *the Bible; I just think of it the same way that I do the Odyssey, or another ancient text. There is beauty in the Bible, and I appreciate beauty wherever I find it.

I take it you are referring to Homer’s Odyssey? The big difference between the Bible and Homer’s epic is that the former is all about morality. The latter isn’t. Morality is all about rules for living and you have trashed the ones given to you and which hold society together. That’s nothing to be proud of.

I do understand where you’re coming from here.

I doubt that, because I have yet to explain “where I’m coming from”, so you are operating from conjecture here on in.

However, it’s important to note that the primary reason that I rejected what I was taught because I found that the evidence was severely lacking. That has been my experience. I’ve remained open to new evidence, but none has come to me that’s sufficient to match the extreme claims of Christianity. Remember, the burden of proof is on the person making the extreme claim. (Right? Otherwise you’d have to believe every alien abduction or miracle story that comes your way.)

Wrong.

What you are trying to label as “extreme claims” have been the norm for millenia. across all societies and cultural boundaries. If you seek to reject and overturn the accepted norms then the burden of proof is entirely upon you.

As for the lack of “evidence”, obviously you were very selective in what you accepted, because the norm is the norm because of evidence.

Also, you should read what I typed earlier about risk of disease. It’s pretty low for me.

I’m very tempted to say “They all say that” and leave it at that. However, I’ll just add that the ‘evidence’ to the contrary you say doesn’t exist is there for all to see.

And finally, serial monogamy has actually been the norm in my experience, and I’ve known a number of gay people. With one exception: occasionally bringing in a third person into an otherwise-exclusive homosexual relationship appears to be more common than in heterosexual relationships, at least in my experience.

Being of such a tender young age, your experience is, by definition, extremely limited. More so because you admitted to ‘changing’ at a late age. There is plenty of hard evidence to contradict your opinion. You just need the courage to seek it out and accept it. I know that’ll be hard when your hedonistic ‘morality’ is to be challenged.

 

[Santi2]

Question for you: Have you read this article by another homosexual? If not, I recommend it.

christianorder.com/features/features_2011/features_jan11.html

 

[Exalt]

Exalt. I am a gay man (hello brother), who has chosen a life of celibacy because i am inclined to the view that there is an enduring moral standard. i accept the Catholic view that sexual activity should be procreative. obviously, you would reject the procreative requirement. my question to you would be: do you believe that moral guidelines should be relative to contemporaneous views on social justice? (my opinion is that popular opinion in this context is fluid and “trendy”) What do you view as the basis for any moral code? Is this merely a matter of personal choice and conscience? If so, then what is your view on pornography, as long as all parties agree to participate? Is it degrading, or is it a healthy expression of sexuality?

I agree that there’s an enduring moral standard, actually. We just disagree on what that standard is.

1. I’m not a fan of moral relativity at all. So, no. Perhaps our guidelines grow and change over time, but they were *wrong *before, and are more right now.
2. The basis for my moral code is pretty simple. In terms of everyday conduct, I value cooperation and respect for my fellow humans. In terms of how I form my beliefs, I value evidence and reason. In terms of life goals, I value the pursuit of truth, and new experiences, and happiness. And I value most of these things for their own sake, and I’m more or less comfortable with that. And no, it’s not so much just a matter of personal choice and conscience. I suspect that humanity as a whole would be better off if everyone took the same basic values that I just mentioned.
3. My opinion on pornography: It can be harmful, definitely. Just like food can be harmful, or sex can be harmful, or cars can be harmful. Pornography can totally harm a healthy sex life. My opinion is that one should be aware of those possibilities if one chooses to make it a habit, but it’s not a huge deal. And yeah, of course I think pornography is only ever okay if all parties agree to participate of their own free will.

 

[the_phoenix]

Hi Exalt,

On a positive note, what is your FAVORITE hymn?

Back on Jun 22, '04, 1:52 am you answered the above question here at CAF with:

"Lord, prepare me. To be a sanctuary. Pure and holy, tried and true. In thanksgiving to be a living sanctuary for you.

-and-

“I Can Only Imagine” "

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=47182#post47182

…

How would you answer this same question today? What’s your favorite hymn?

~~ the phoenix

 

[lizaanne]

Honestly, I’m kind of proud that I did that. And here’s why. I’ve proven that I’m willing to completely throw my life up in the air in pursuit of truth. I’m willing to do anything, go as far as it takes, in pursuit of what I believe is right. That kind of courage is something I’m proud of. No one can accuse me of not taking evidence seriously, and being willing to change my mind if proven wrong.

You are clearly very proud of this. But if you want to really REALLY do something that requires a tremendous amount of courage ---- try Faith. It’s hard. Harder than anything you will ever do.

Those who live according to their own will are taking the easy path. Those who live according to Faith are the real heroes.

~Liza

 

[Peepers]

I agree that there’s an enduring moral standard, actually. We just disagree on what that standard is.

1. I’m not a fan of moral relativity at all. So, no. Perhaps our guidelines grow and change over time, but they were *wrong *before, and are more right now.
2. The basis for my moral code is pretty simple. In terms of everyday conduct, I value cooperation and respect for my fellow humans. In terms of how I form my beliefs, I value evidence and reason. In terms of life goals, I value the pursuit of truth, and new experiences, and happiness. And I value most of these things for their own sake, and I’m more or less comfortable with that. And no, it’s not so much just a matter of personal choice and conscience. I suspect that humanity as a whole would be better off if everyone took the same basic values that I just mentioned.
3. My opinion on pornography: It can be harmful, definitely. Just like food can be harmful, or sex can be harmful, or cars can be harmful. Pornography can totally harm a healthy sex life. My opinion is that one should be aware of those possibilities if one chooses to make it a habit, but it’s not a huge deal. And yeah, of course I think pornography is only ever okay if all parties agree to participate of their own free will.

1… hmmmm… cooperation and respect of fellow humans. do you determine this case by case, as with individuals in your life, perhaps in a libertarian sense, or is this more akin to a utilitarian value, where the greater good for the largest number applies? Or is this a more teleological argument related to the nature of man, as you define it? This seems like a rather vague standard, which lends itself to the whim of the moment. Would you clarify your position, please?

 

[Exalt]

It was more than “…a complete change in life trajectory”. It was a complete repudiation of who you were and what you were taught. A complete repudiation of what you were taught about right and wrong.

Right? How defined? You have repudiated everything you were taught about what was ‘right’ and now you have invented your own sense of ‘right’. That’s not something to be proud of. And we can accuse you of one very obvious thing. The adoption of moral relativism amd self serving hedonism disguised under a banner of ‘courage’. True courage is not to be found in embracing a decadent hedonistic lifestyle and then excusing it as ‘right’. You confuse your right to do something with the rightness or wrongness of what you do.

I take it you are referring to Homer’s Odyssey? The big difference between the Bible and Homer’s epic is that the former is all about morality. The latter isn’t. Morality is all about rules for living and you have trashed the ones given to you and which hold society together. That’s nothing to be proud of.

I doubt that, because I have yet to explain “where I’m coming from”, so you are operating from conjecture here on in.
Wrong.

What you are trying to label as “extreme claims” have been the norm for millenia. across all societies and cultural boundaries. If you seek to reject and overturn the accepted norms then the burden of proof is entirely upon you.

As for the lack of “evidence”, obviously you were very selective in what you accepted, because the norm is the norm because of evidence.

I’m very tempted to say “They all say that” and leave it at that. However, I’ll just add that the ‘evidence’ to the contrary you say doesn’t exist is there for all to see.

Being of such a tender young age, your experience is, by definition, extremely limited. More so because you admitted to ‘changing’ at a late age. There is plenty of hard evidence to contradict your opinion. You just need the courage to seek it out and accept it. I know that’ll be hard when your hedonistic ‘morality’ is to be challenged.

So, John21652’s thoughts are definitely interesting to me. But because I’m not looking for a debate, I’ll just keep giving my own thoughts and relating my own experiences.

It’s not really accurate to say that ‘I repudiated *everything *I was ever taught about right and wrong.’ That’s something of an exaggerated claim. What is accurate is that I rejected what I’d been taught about sexuality, and the truth of orthodox Catholicism. Many other very important values – such as respecting my neighbor and valuing the truth above everything else, among others – have very much stayed intact. In fact, it was my own pursuit of truth that led me away from Catholicism.

Just one thought on the “extreme claims” issue. I totally felt the same way you did at the beginning. I had been raised in Catholicism, it was all I knew, and believing differently seemed utterly radical. I probably would have said the exact same thing that you said six years ago. However, once I started to find irreconcilable problems with one doctrine here, and another there, and started to look more and more at the scope of Christianity as a whole, and the evidence to support it as a whole, the more I came to a rational conclusion that the claims it makes about the world really are objectively extreme. The evidence to support those claims was rather thin, given the radical claims. But it still struck me hard. It took months to get used to the idea that there wasn’t an invisible man in my head listening to my every thought, whispering just beyond what I could hear. Now, looking back, the idea seems very strange.

And yeah, I was pretty selective about what evidence I accepted. My thinking was that if a courtroom is selective about what evidence it admits to a trial, then I ought to be selective about what evidence I admit when I consider the truth of Christianity’s claims.

Finally, of course my experiences are limited, and yes, I’m young. I’m just speaking for myself.

P.S., I’m not a hedonist. I value things equally to happiness, like truth, and will sacrifice momentary happiness in pursuit of truth, as I think my history attests to.

 

[Exalt]

1… hmmmm… cooperation and respect of fellow humans. do you determine this case by case, as with individuals in your life, perhaps in a libertarian sense, or is this more akin to a utilitarian value, where the greater good for the largest number applies? Or is this a more teleological argument related to the nature of man, as you define it? This seems like a rather vague standard, which lends itself to the whim of the moment. Would you clarify your position, please?

I honestly don’t know if I can. I value cooperation and respect for their own sake. Is there a reason that I should seek a value beyond them?

 

[Exalt]

Hi Exalt,

On a positive note, what is your FAVORITE hymn?

Back on Jun 22, '04, 1:52 am you answered the above question here at CAF with:

"Lord, prepare me. To be a sanctuary. Pure and holy, tried and true. In thanksgiving to be a living sanctuary for you.

-and-

“I Can Only Imagine” "

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=47182#post47182

…

How would you answer this same question today? What’s your favorite hymn?

~~ the phoenix

Dunno about hymn, but I’m partial to John’s declaration that I shall know the truth, and the truth shall set me free.

 

[baltobetsy]

Are you going to keep this up all night, so that anyone who steps away from the thread to do something silly like go to sleep for the night will be hopelessly behind in the morning?

 

[John21652]

Once again, I’m not here for a debate, but I’d be happy to relay my experience with the question.

You began this thread by saying “Ask me anything”. If people ask you to justify what you are doing and why you are doing it, your not going to defend yourself? If you do, you have a debate. If you don’t then you are merely using the CAF facility to post your own views.

Which is it?

When I was thinking seriously about the question of the morality of homosexuality back in 2006, I remember the question being asked in this way in my ethics class. Bob and John enjoy spending time together, and are not involved in any relationships, and want to have sex with each other. Should they?

By Law, they are protected in their behavoural choices. Morally, there is nothing but hedonistic pleasure seeking, dangerous at that. Homosexuality, on all the available evidence, has no morality other than the persuit of sefish pleasure. That’s moral relativity writ large.

I thought seriously about the reasons they shouldn’t, and decided they weren’t adequate.

“I” decided they weren’t 'adequate". Subjectivism.

The natural law argument didn’t make much sense to me when I thought it all through.

Natural Law is an objective concept and so too is the morality drawn from it. Unless one is willing to address the Natural Law objectively, it will never make sense. It is not possible that you have thought it through in any way, shape, or form, because Natural Law denounces homosexuality. It can not do otherwise. What you really mean is you have rejected Natural Law reasoning, but don’t have the courage to say so.

And the self-harm argument didn’t make much sense because you can very much minimize the risk of harm, and many enjoyable, good things in life carry a small risk of harm.

According to all the available evidence, you can’t trust your peers, so the risk of self harm is extraordinary.

I discarded the divine command argument, too

. If you have rejected the Natural Law argument and way of thinking, then obviously the divine command ‘argument’ would be terribly inconvenient to you. Dumping it would, of course, be the morally expedient thing to do.

Having discarded all arguments in the negative as terribly inadequate, I accepted that there was nothing wrong with Bob and John having sex, and changed my mind.

You have rejected the philosophy, the theology and the social norms all to arrive at your own self centred conclusion. How expedient. No courage required, but a denial of self.