Is it objectively meaningful and functionally correct to class Same Sex Attraction as a genuine form of human Sexuality?

[Mudgely]

Once again I need to tell you that you should really do some homework. I mean, do some serious study. The Church is predicated on Natural Law, which gives us objective moral truths. I suspect you haven’t even heard of it, which is a shame, because the world’s great western democracies were built on it and those same great democracies flourished because of it. Unfortunately, like ancient Egypt, Greece and Rome and even the Byzantine Empire, our western civilisation is going into decline because those Natural Law foundations are being ignored and even trashed…

The “problem” with “natural law” of course is that there is nothing natural about it, and it is not a “law”. It is deductive reasoning by philosophers over some period of time based on their perceptions and assumptions. It is colored by the culture of the times, and the limitations of their knowledge of natural systems. As science moves from the empirical model to the evidentiary model, “natural law” is either revised or discarded as evidence and scientifically obtained findings displace fantasy and philosophical construct. The OP asks if there is an objective standard. “Natural Law” is not an objective standard by any measure. This is the single most compelling argument against the fanciful notion of an objective moral standard which is based on natural law. The foundation is quicksand.

We went through this process culturally in the “hard” sciences such as astronomy and biology. Only fringe Christians would deny the solar system, or evolutionary theory. With the progress in the behavioral, and neurological sciences we are now knocking down the superstitions regarding sexuality and psychological issues. This trend will only continue. It won’t be stopped.

 

[Sair]

Well, you prove my point time and time again. Anyone who takes a moral stand against homosexuality is labelled a ‘bigot’, or 'homophobic. This is a philosophy forum, or it’s supposed to be. However philosophic enquiry goes out the window when those who philosophically explore homosexuality and find it disordered are labelled as bigots and homophobes by the protagonists of the homosexual agenda. In other words, people like you attempt to dissalow philosphical and moral enquiry by throwing labels at people. That just shows the level of argument has sunk to new, probably all time, lows, because of that propensity to fling epithets.

For me to have proven your point would require you to have actually made one. All you are doing here is throwing out a reactionary tirade because your opinions have been recognised for what they are - prejudiced. I’m quite happy to philosophically discuss homosexuality, and in fact have done so on this thread and others. Flatly condemning homosexuality as ‘revolting’ and ‘perverted’ does not amount to philosophical discussion, only an expression of personal disgust. People who feel this are entitled to their opinion, but should own it for what it is, and not get all huffy when others call them on it.

Like I said, one wrong is not excused by another. However, once again you prove my point by throwing in another subject to take the focus off your own philosophical failings.

Again with the nonexistent point-making. A single comment in response to your misunderstanding of my previous post hardly constitutes a diversion of the discussion, nor indeed a philosophical ‘failing’.

There aren’t an equal number of threads devoted to the fast food industry because too many people are busy being gluttons and out there demanding fast food! Meanwhile, back here at the ranch, too many pro-gay lobby people are so busy starting up threads devoted to supporting the homosexual agenda and denigrating the Church’s moral stance on the issue that the rest of us never get the time to even consider the gluttony issue, let alone start a dedicated thread on the topic. Anyway, if you think gluttony is immoral, then go right ahead and start a relevant thread.

Does it occur to you that these ‘pro-gay lobby’ people might actually have no political agenda whatsoever, but might actually be recognising that the Church’s stance on homosexuality is ill-informed and unjust? The panic about the ‘homosexual agenda’ would be laughable if it wasn’t so dangerously misguided - gay people are not trying to take over the world, just seeking acceptance. Those of us with LGBT friends recognise this. It’s not a matter of being swayed by propaganda - an accusation, by the way, which reveals just how little you know about people - but of recognising a wrong and endeavouring to address it. As for starting threads on gluttony and the fast food industry, I’ve been there and done that, and had reactionary types just like you calling me a tree-hugging hippy and a communist.

I’m still deciding whether you are being intentionally misleading here, or are a victim of the gay lobby propoganda on the ‘normalcy’ of homosexual behaviour. Homosexuality is not, by any definition, a “comparitavely harmless practice”. The information available on the internet which is devoted to the string of diseases related to homosexual activity is legion.

There’s all kinds of information available on the internet, about anything and everything. You can find swathes of material to justify any prejudice you like. Most internet sources should be taken with a grain of salt, paying careful attention to evidence of bias. Speaking of which, I just did a quick google of ‘diseases homosexuality’ and the first three sites that returned were from right-wing, church-based sources. Only the fourth site was an honest assessment of the health risks faced by homosexual people, with a view to providing support and treatment. The first three had your attitude - it’s dangerous, therefore we should ban it. Well, here’s something that may come as news to you - no lifestyle is without its inherent risks. Indeed, up until very recently in our history (in the West, anyway), by far the leading cause of premature death in women was childbirth - a condition transmitted by church-sanctioned, vanilla sex. I don’t think anyone seriously thought about banning it, do you? The point is to responsibly assess the risks and deal with consequences. Anyone who is careless with sex, whether straight or gay, puts himself or herself at risk.

At least the fast food industry is subject to dishing up clean food laws!

And we all know how well the various chains conform to those laws… In any case, these laws do very little to address the numerous other abuses inherent in the system.

Homosexual “expression” is a danger to the moral and physical health of entire societies. That such a small percentage of the population can garner so much media time and take up so much of the political debate is testament to the political agenda of the gay lobby. They want to make equal that which can never be.

A slew of unsupported assertions here. If you’re worried about being branded ‘homophobic’, you might want to consider taking a more balanced stance. I should imagine that words just like yours above came from the mouths of those who were against the abolition of slavery, women’s suffrage and black equality, too.

 

[Lui]

Have you ever considered simply stating your opinion, however you would like to support it, and not tell people what they should do? Just a suggestion.

That’s their strategy: be condescending and make the other person look like an uneducated person, dish out advice like “you need to do your homework” and then make your own statement sound like the undeniable truth.

This is what I wrote a few posts ago:

You ignore all the important things that a person says that isn’t useful to you, pick out an unimportant detail a person wrote, emphasize that in the attempt to discredit the person and then whip out your “you should do your homework” strategy.

This is what John wrote a few posts later:

Once again I need to tell you that you should really do some homework. I mean, do some serious study. The Church is predicated on Natural Law, which gives us objective moral truths.

See, that emphasizes his claim that “the Church is predicated on Natural Law, which gives us objective moral truths” much more.

 

[Mudgely]

I’m still deciding whether you are being intentionally misleading here, or are a victim of the gay lobby propoganda on the ‘normalcy’ of homosexual behaviour. Homosexuality is not, by any definition, a “comparitavely harmless practice”. The information available on the internet which is devoted to the string of diseases related to homosexual activity is legion.
Here’s one example, and another and another. The list of diseases that are prevalent amongst homosexuals includes, but is not limited to rectal cancer, herpes simplex virus, Neisseria gonorrhoeae, C. trachomatis, G. lamblia, and Shigella, Hepatitis A, B, non-A/ non-B, Herpes, Warts -molluscum and condyloma, Syphilis, Trichomoniasis, Epididymitis/prostatitis, Fungal infections, Lymphogranuloma venereum, Granuloma inguinale, Chancroid, Cytomegalovirus. Anal Intercouse, Passive: Physical protitis, Rectal gonorrhea, Warts, Syphillis, Escherichia coli and Helminthic parasites, Oral warts, Oral gonorrhea, Syphilis, Lymphogranuloma venereum, and then there’s Analinction, dung-eating, or “rimming” as the homosexuals call it. If you want a truly fascinating read and a scary one, then Google parisite infections amongst homosexuals. The incidence of all these diseases is way higher in homosexual populations than amongst the heterosexual populations. Of course, the latter population is put at great risk through the behaviour of the bi-sexual population.

You seem to be an expert on gay sex. Why is that?

Homosexual “expression” is a danger to the moral and physical health of entire societies. That such a small percentage of the population can garner so much media time and take up so much of the political debate is testament to the political agenda of the gay lobby. They want to make equal that which can never be.

Blacks are about 13% of US society. Their civil rights movement got plenty of media attention. What you are complaining about is simply the press covering social change. What should they cover? The political debate is legitimate, as the courts have confirmed. It is an issue for us to come to terms with as a society. The Church may express its opinion, as well may the gay lobby and every citizen. Why does this disturb you? This is the American political process. Do you reject that?

 

[John21652]

Have you ever considered simply stating your opinion, however you would like to support it, and not tell people what they should do? Just a suggestion.

Well, if you’d take the time to read other’s posts properly, you’d notice I gave a long and considered opinion right back at the start of this thread and attempted to answer the OP’s question directly. Since then we have had a plethora of uninformed opinions and banal generalities that really do nothing for the topic. Unless posters do their homework this thread goes nowhere. So, my suggestion to you is go back and read!

 

[BigFellaMick]

I don’t see the purpose of prolonging this debate. Let homosexuals know the risks medically and spiritually of what they’re doing and let them loose. Inform them the Church’s doors are always open to them. Any more and you’re pushing them further away. As long as they are not allowed marriage and ABSOLUTELY not allowed to adopt children or force their sinful agenda on innocent children, then they are free to do what they want. You won’t be able to stop everyone from walking into the fire. The harder you try to push them away from it the faster they’re going to run into it. And this applies to every other form of sin as well, not just homosexuality. But the opposition to the Catholic Church here should move on since they are getting nothing out of this argument and the Catholics on here should pray for those who need it and move on because this argument won’t ever be won until the day Christ returns in judgement and we are ALL held accountable for our actions.

 

[John21652]

The “problem” with “natural law” of course is that there is nothing natural about it, and it is not a “law”. It is deductive reasoning by philosophers over some period of time based on their perceptions and assumptions. It is colored by the culture of the times, and the limitations of their knowledge of natural systems. As science moves from the empirical model to the evidentiary model, “natural law” is either revised or discarded as evidence and scientifically obtained findings displace fantasy and philosophical construct. The OP asks if there is an objective standard. “Natural Law” is not an objective standard by any measure. This is the single most compelling argument against the fanciful notion of an objective moral standard which is based on natural law. The foundation is quicksand.

Well, you built that entire rebuttal of Natural Law on an error. Natural Law is not built on deductive reasoning at all. It is built on inductive reasoning. Go away and learn the difference please, because until you do, you just write rubbish. Natural Law is indeed the benchmark of objectivity in philosophical discourse. It underpins western philosophical, moral and legal discourse. The legal code which governs western society stems from the objectification of old Roman and Greek Law. In case you didn’t know it, Judaism and Islam also recognise embrace it. Your trouble is you are a victim of the utilitarianism that has pervaded our societies since the mid 1700s.

For instance, how can science move from an empirical model to an evidentiary model? :banghead: Oh, yeah, it can if you want to move to the subjectively based eveidentiary procedures which are just ideology all dressed up in new clothes. You’ll replace metaethics with meta theories for each scientific discipline, right? In other words, you’ll fragment science and the ‘scientific method’ will be all broken.

We went through this process culturally in the “hard” sciences such as astronomy and biology. Only fringe Christians would deny the solar system, or evolutionary theory. With the progress in the behavioral, and neurological sciences we are now knocking down the superstitions regarding sexuality and psychological issues. This trend will only continue. It won’t be stopped.

You are ignoring the hard science and using data to make up your own meta theories. Great way to excuse whatever it is you want excused. The evidence is still there that psychological and disease problem rates are still abnormally high amongst homosexuals. Trying to ‘normalise’ the phenomena wont make any difference. The thing is, without hard science the homosexuals would have taken up all the romms in our hospitals. Now, they are using hard science to attempt a breeding program. Objectively, what a contradiction!!

 

[John21652]

You seem to be an expert on gay sex. Why is that?

I’ve learnt not to take at face value the errant nonsense that the pro-gays try to put up on the CAF threads. I do my homework.

Blacks are about 13% of US society. Their civil rights movement got plenty of media attention. What you are complaining about is simply the press covering social change. What should they cover? The political debate is legitimate, as the courts have confirmed. It is an issue for us to come to terms with as a society. The Church may express its opinion, as well may the gay lobby and every citizen. Why does this disturb you? This is the American political process. Do you reject that?

13% is way, way above the 1-3% of the population that is homosexual. It’s tyranny by a minority. The human rights issues relating to the integration of blacks into American society was not about changing moral codes, either. It was about allowing them to be a part of the moral character of the general population. The gays, on the other hand, wish to change the moral structure of society to accomodate their immorality. Big difference, don’t you think?

 

[Lui]

You won’t be able to stop everyone from walking into the fire.

I thought that the Catholic Church teaches that only God knows who will go to Hell.
Maybe I’m not the only one who needs to do his homework

 

[John21652]

That’s their strategy: be condescending and make the other person look like an uneducated person, dish out advice like “you need to do your homework” and then make your own statement sound like the undeniable truth.

This is what I wrote a few posts ago:

This is what John wrote a few posts later:

See, that emphasizes** his claim** that “the Church is predicated on Natural Law, which gives us objective moral truths” much more.

My ‘claim’, as you wrote, is fact. Let me spell that out for you F.A.C.T.
If you’d bothered to do that homework, you’d find that the Catholic Catechism, at 1954 explains it all. All you have to do is find the courage to realise and accept that your opinions are based on false assumptions. Try this article for starters - Catholicism and Natural Moral law for Dummies.

Now, off you go and have a good read…

 

[Nooj]

13% is way, way above the 1-3% of the population that is homosexual. It’s tyranny by a minority.

I believe the point is to protect the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

The human rights issues relating to the integration of blacks into American society was not about changing moral codes, either. It was about allowing them to be a part of the moral character of the general population. The gays, on the other hand, wish to change the moral structure of society to accomodate their immorality. Big difference, don’t you think?

I don’t agree. The moral character of the general (read: white) population was a racist one. That’s not to say there weren’t anti-racist white people, but the *culture *was undoubtedly racist.

Black equality wasn’t about integrating blacks into the nice, tolerant white society. It was about changing the racist, intolerant white society into one in which blacks could participate. I’m sure blacks didn’t want to be part of the moral character of the general population, when that moral character was a vile one.

Changing the moral structure of society is not necessarily a bad thing and the Civil Rights era just proves this.

 

[Lui]

My ‘claim’, as you wrote, is fact. Let me spell that out for you F.A.C.T.

My answer to that is: LOL.

 

[Nooj]

Have you noticed how LGBT seems over represented in TV shows?

I don’t know, is it over represented? There seems to be a lot of gay people and they all need to watch something that appeals to their interests.

 

[Lui]

All you have to do is find the courage to realise and accept that your opinions are based on false assumptions.

Maybe… but maybe **your **whole belief is based on a lie.

 

[John21652]

I believe the point is to protect the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

It’s supposed to be. That’s why I wrote what I wrote. However, it has been reversed and it’s tyranny from a minority. Look up the effects of the introduction of same sex tolerance laws in England. They now have discrimination in reverse!

I don’t agree. The moral character of the general (read: white) population was a racist one. That’s not to say there weren’t anti-racist white people, but the *culture *was undoubtedly racist.

I doubt that the majority of the population were morally wrong on the integration issue. If they were, integration would never have happened. The original anti-black laws were instituted by a minority with vested interests in the first place.

Black equality wasn’t about integrating blacks into the nice, tolerant white society. It was about changing the racist, intolerant white society into one in which blacks could participate. I’m sure blacks didn’t want to be part of the moral character of the general population, when that moral character was a vile one.

What you write here is predicated on the assumption that the majority of the general population was morally wrong on this issue. I find that hard to beleive, because integration wouldn’t have taken place if that were the case. However, let’s accept for the sake of argument that you are right and that most Americans were indeed immorally rascist. What drove the integration movement was the Natural Law argument which also led to the abolition of slavery in the first place. The Natural Law says that all men are born equal and free. The United States Declaration of Independence asserts that and other “self evident” rights. Before that, Magna Carter asserted the same thing. It’s also the moral view that won World War II and underpinned the prosecution of the Nazi leaders. That moral view triumphed in the American civil rights issue

Changing the moral structure of society is not necessarily a bad thing and the Civil Rights era just proves this.

It is if you wish to overthrow the very moral constructs which gave that society its freedoms in the first place!!

 

[John21652]

My answer to that is: LOL.

So is this the level of debate you aspire to? Someone gives you a link to verify a fact and all you can do is write LOL?

You are starting to look like a Troll.
You avoid the points that answer your wild assertions and you don’t do your homework. So why are you here?

 

[Lui]

So is this the level of debate you aspire to? Someone gives you a link to verify a fact and all you can do is write LOL?

There was a different poster who presented “facts” to me in another thread. He wanted me to read the “facts” that the earth is about 10000 years old. There are only a certain amount of ridiculous claims I can handle at once without laughing out loud.

What you consider as a fact is just a theory. You just have to accept that. Calling me a troll just adds to the endless list of insults you dish out to anyone who doesn’t share your opinions.

 

[Nooj]

It’s supposed to be. That’s why I wrote what I wrote. However, it has been reversed and it’s tyranny from a minority. Look up the effects of the introduction of same sex tolerance laws in England. They now have discrimination in reverse!

Okay, I will. But doesn’t America have same sex tolerance laws? What sort of reverse discrimination is happening in your country?

I doubt that the majority of the population were morally wrong on the integration issue. If they were, integration would never have happened.

If America was a tolerant, good place, then there would have been no need for a Civil Rights era and desegregation, because blacks would have been considered equal from the start.

The original anti-black laws were instituted by a minority with vested interests in the first place.

Are you serious?

What drove the integration movement was the Natural Law argument which also led to the abolition of slavery in the first place. The Natural Law says that all men are born equal and free. The United States Declaration of Independence asserts that and other “self evident” rights. Before that, Magna Carter asserted the same thing. It’s also the moral view that won World War II and underpinned the prosecution of the Nazi leaders. That moral view triumphed in the American civil rights issue

Have you considered the idea that your understanding of Natural Law is wrong? How do you know that equal rights for gays is not a part of Natural Law?

It is if you wish to overthrow the very moral constructs which gave that society its freedoms in the first place!!

How can equal rights for gays overthrow Natural Law? Doesn’t NL exist regardless of whether it is put into place or not? So why does it matter if for example, gay marriage becomes legal in America? Did slavery overthrow NL?

If you’re right, gay marriage will still be wrong. And you can keep on holding that opinion, it’s just that gays and their supporters won’t care.

 

[John21652]

There was a different poster who presented “facts” to me in another thread. He wanted me to read the “facts” that the earth is about 10000 years old. There are only a certain amount of ridiculous claims I can handle at once without laughing out loud.

I gave you a link to the Catholic Catechism to show you that my claim was not simply my claim but a verifiable fact. You ignored the link because you don’t want the truth to interfere with your wild assertions about Catholicism. You’ll go on endlessly repeating them, just liken other trolls.

What you consider as a fact is just a theory. You just have to accept that. Calling me a troll just adds to the endless list of insults you dish out to anyone who doesn’t share your opinions.

If pointing out to you that your assertions are wrong and that you should do some homework insults you, then, obviously, you are not here to be educated, are you? You prove that by ignoring he salient points of an argument and by refusing to acknowledge links that prove you wrong. I believe other posters have cosnsitently pointed out to you the errors of your opinions and yet you still persist with posting errors. That is trollish behaviour. So, like I said, why are you here?

 

[Lui]

I gave you a link to the Catholic Catechism to show you that my claim was not simply my claim but a verifiable fact. You ignored the link because you don’t want the truth to interfere with your wild assertions about Catholicism. You’ll go on endlessly repeating them, just liken other trolls.

If I don’t believe in Catholicism, how can the Catholic Catechism show me any facts. Morality is based on subjective rules made by man according to my belief.

I If pointing out to you that your assertions are wrong and that you should do some homework insults you, then, obviously, you are not here to be educated, are you? You prove that by ignoring he salient points of an argument and by refusing to acknowledge links that prove you wrong. I believe other posters have cosnsitently pointed out to you the errors of your opinions and yet you still persist with posting errors. That is trollish behaviour. So, like I said, why are you here?

Your assumptions that you are right and I am wrong are false assumptions. You can prove nothing to me and neither can you educate me. You ask why I am here? I want to express my opinion on homosexuality against homophobic people like you who discriminate against others and go against their rights.

This whole thread is based on the assumption that there is an objective moral code. Sorry but that doesn’t exist… Natural moral law is a theory and northing else, just like the Christian religion and all other religions…