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

[Lui]

With gays, a lot of the public acceptance has come from the legal protections which allow them to “come out”, and people can see who they are. There was a time that they were persecuted class which was defined largely by negative stereotypes.

The same goes with blacks. In the Thirties they were good enough to play the dumb negro or the train conductor yelling “All aboard!!!” in a movie. Then they were able to play pimps and drug dealers. Now it’s the opposite. Black people on TV or in movies always play the good guys, the judges, the smart doctors, the sophisticated guy while Hispanics took over the part of gang members. It goes from one extreme to another.
Bruce Lee wasn’t able to get good roles in the Seventies because he was “too Chinese”. He was even too Chinese to play Caine in Kung Fu. 40 years later not much has changed. You still don’t see Chinese other than in Kung Fu movies. How many Asian Indians or Persians do you see as doctors in movies? None, but in real life many. It just goes to show how many stereotypes still exist.

Gay people were always portrayed as a Liberace type of super queer. No one suspected a person like Rock Hudson being gay. Most gay friends I have are totally normal who act normal. They don’t act super queer nor do they fulfill any other gay stereotype.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

That is not clear. A 2009 study concluded that young black MSM do not engage in riskier behavior than latino or white men. Blacks are 13 percent of the population, yet 40 percent of the deaths from HIV and nearly 50 percent of the infections. Nobody knows why. A white man has 1 in 104 chance of acquiring HIV. A white women’s odds are 1 in 588. A black male is 1 in 16, black female 1 in 30. This is lifetime risk.

I thought I had read they were less likely to use protection

Lol. I mentioned that too but I love your way of describing it better

Society luckily improves. Often people talk about the good ol’ days when people still had values but 50 years ago black people were treated like s**t, had to use separate toilets, were refused service in certain places and had to sit in back of the bus. Only 64 years ago(we’re talking about when Bugs Bunny cartoons were being made) a man called Adolf Hitler classified Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals and others as Untermenschen, had them put into concentration camps and executed. In many nations today women are regarded as 2nd class humans and children are forced to work. Does that mean their values were/are correct?
A lot has changed in the past 50 years. Now a nation who still had slavery 150 years ago now has a black President.

I guess Jefferson was just into bondage

That was only an American problem. That was a German problem, also Hitler was dead in 1947. That’s a third world problem.

He’s mulatto .

With gays, a lot of the public acceptance has come from the legal protections which allow them to “come out”, and people can see who they are. There was a time that they were persecuted class which was defined largely by negative stereotypes. One you realize that the guys next door are gay, and their lives and values are no different than anyone else, then the myths and prejudices are dispelled. The advance of scientific and medical knowledge has helped a lot too. There wasn’t even a concept of “sexuality” as there is today, when the Church’s opinions were formed in the 1-3 centuries.

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

The same goes with blacks. In the Thirties they were good enough to play the dumb negro or the train conductor yelling “All aboard!!!” in a movie. Then they were able to play pimps and drug dealers. Now it’s the opposite. Black people on TV or in movies always play the good guys, the judges, the smart doctors, the sophisticated guy while Hispanics took over the part of gang members. It goes from one extreme to another.
Bruce Lee wasn’t able to get good roles in the Seventies because he was “too Chinese”. He was even too Chinese to play Caine in Kung Fu. 40 years later not much has changed. You still don’t see Chinese other than in Kung Fu movies. How many Asian Indians or Persians do you see as doctors in movies? None, but in real life many. It just goes to show how many stereotypes still exist.

Gay people were always portrayed as a Liberace type of super queer. No one suspected a person like Rock Hudson being gay. Most gay friends I have are totally normal who act normal. They don’t act super queer nor do they fulfill any other gay stereotype.

If you want an example of super queer look at the case of the guy who got removed from being head cheerleader because he was caught kissing another guy on camera…

 

[Lui]

That was a German problem, also Hitler was dead in 1947.

Sorry, I meant until 66 years ago(1939-1945).

If you want an example of super queer look at the case of the guy who got removed from being head cheerleader because he was caught kissing another guy on camera…

Obviously super queer acting gays exist but so do over the top styled women while other women are more modest. People just seem to notice the drama queens.

He’s mulatto .
.

He still would have been a slave 150 years ago or had to sit in the back of the bus in the Sixties. Most American blacks are mixed in one way or the other.

 

[Elizabeth502]

What part of my 500 posts in this thread don’t you get?

Hmm. My computer reads your was the 287th post on the thread. 500?

This is my personal opinion on active homosexuality: I DO NOT THINK THAT SEX AMONG THE SAME GENDER IS MORALLY WRONG AS LONG AS IT’S MUTUAL AND NOBODY IS FORCED TO ANYTHING HE DOESN’T WANT TO DO. I ALSO BELIEVE THAT HOMOSEXUAL PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO MARRY.

Title of thread = Is it objectively [not subjectively] meaningful…

The bolded portions of your quote indicate subjective responses, not objective.

 

[Lui]

Hmm. My computer reads your was the 287th post on the thread. 500?

Gimme a break. Seriously. On the one hand you come across as a well educated person and then you split hair on a slightly sarcastic exaggeration I did on purpose to make a point.

Title of thread = Is it objectively [not subjectively] meaningful…

The bolded portions of your quote indicate subjective responses, not objective.

I specifically answered to a statement that requested my SUBJECTIVE opinion and not to the title of this thread.

Stop speaking for modern societies and speak only for yourself.

I think you do that on purpose though. 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.
Nice try though

Who here can give an objective opinion anyway?

 

[Elizabeth502]

On the one hand you come across as a well educated person and then you split hair on a slightly sarcastic exaggeration I did on purpose to make a point.

Well educated people care about details, specifics, and accuracies, not “sarcastic exaggeration” as a point of argument, nor your frequent generalities and “guesses.”

I specifically answered to a statement that requested my SUBJECTIVE opinion and not to the title of this thread.

Then you failed to understand the poster who addressed you in that way. He was telling you that your subjective opinion cannot be generalized to the topic of the thread, because your subjective opinion is off-topic from the thread title.

 

[Lui]

Well educated people care about details, specifics, and accuracies, not “sarcastic exaggeration” as a point of argument, nor your frequent generalities and “guesses.”

I’m not even going to answer to this stupidity.

Then you failed to understand the poster who addressed you in that way. He was telling you that your subjective opinion cannot be generalized to the topic of the thread, because your subjective opinion is off-topic from the thread title.

Yeah right, but saying active homosexuality is a perverted disorder because the Teaching of the Catholic Church says so is an OBJECTIVE opinion

To quote myself:

Who here can give an objective opinion anyway?

To answer myself: no one.

 

[John21652]

Where do you get your ‘most people’ statistic here? And what’s to consider obnoxious? If you’re tired of being called ‘homophobic’, maybe you could consider relaxing your bigoted attitude to homosexuality. I don’t think you’ll find anyone claiming that those who oppose the abuses at Guantanamo Bay, for example, are ‘torturephobic’ - that is an obvious wrong. Two people of the same sex expressing love and desire is not so.

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.

So the abuse of children by Catholic clergy is not excused by the indoctrination of said children in Catholic belief? Fair enough - I agree.

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.

So why aren’t there an equal number of threads here condemning the immorality of the fast food industry? It’s one thing for the catechism to deal with an issue - quite another for practising Catholics to pay attention.

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.

I think you missed the point. I was drawing a contrast between the vitriol heaped upon homosexuality, a comparatively harmless practice,

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.

and the absolute silence - both on these forums and in public protest - about the far more destructive practices of the fast food industry. Could it be that the idea of ‘picking battles’ is a matter of finding targets that invoke the personal ire of individual Catholics, rather than addressing real social issues? For the record, if anyone on this forum wrote about the Catholic church’s stance on environmental stewardship, it would have to be said that most have failed to live up to any such standard.

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

That would depend upon the environmental issue addressed and the approach taken. The question was asked by another - why focus upon homosexuality? - and the answer given was that it’s necessary to ‘pick one’s battles’. I merely commented upon the fact that there are far more destructive forces against which to protest in our society than homosexual expression.

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.

 

[Mudgely]

I thought I had read they were less likely to use protection

Their is some speculation about that. I only know of the one study. There is not a lot of evidence. There is also speculation that the behavior might have changed with high profile people like Jesse Jackson talking about it, and Magic Johnson’s publicity. I suspect that younger black men would be well integrated into the gay community. It could be that older men had more of a problem. But, unless I am mistaken, infection rates for young men and women is much higher than other races in the US. In Africa, HIV is largely a heterosexual problem.

The theory is that the disease came cross species in Africa. One mystery is that the first known Caucasian infection was in 1955. A British sailor who had never been to Africa. He had shore leave once in Gibraltar. Otherwise, he had spent his life on British soil. He had two rare diseases - Karposi’s Sarcoma and Pnuemocystis Carnii Pneumonia. He was admitted. I think they diagnosed him with TB. Not Sure. Anyway, he was non responsive to treatment of any sort and died. The pathologist was so intrigued that he froze tissue samples for 40+ years, and brought them to light when it became possible to detect the actual virus. The virus appears to have four original human strains, based on mitochondrial DNA. Each came from a different simian species. So, there may be some genetic proclivity to infection for people of African descent. It works by rapidly replicating mutations until the immune system can no longer produce antibodies. Then the patient is vulnerable to all sorts of infections.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I’m not even going to answer to this stupidity.

Personal attacks now?

saying active homosexuality is a perverted disorder because the Teaching of the Catholic Church says so is an OBJECTIVE opinion

Actually, yes. The Church does stand for objective truth and moral absolutes, as opposed to the million subjective opinions of individuals and those of the Church’s antagonists.

 

[Lui]

Personal attacks now?

Now you know how it feels.

Actually, yes. The Church does stand for objective truth and moral absolutes, as opposed to the million subjective opinions of individuals and and those of the Church’s antagonists.

Well, that’s a matter of dispute. I personally think the Bible is all made up by man just like the stories of Grimm’s Fairy tales. That would mean it’s a collection of subjective opinions. Considering that the large majority of humanity isn’t Catholic and many catholics are non-practicing, I’m probably not the only one who doesn’t consider the teachings of the Church as objective truth.

 

[Lui]

Here’s one example

I actually thought this site is a satire. Unfortunately not…

 

[Mudgely]

I actually thought this site is a satire. Unfortunately not…

Women have particular health issues. Men have particular health issues. People who are sexually active have particular health concerns related to sexual practices. This is true for heterosexuals and for homosexuals. It says nothing about morality. A promiscuous person is taking more health risk than a non-promiscuous person, regardless of sexual orientation. A condom does not protect from HPV. Genital herpes is presenting more frequently as an oral infection. Viruses and bacteria mutate, and they will find a host when given the opportunity. There is nothing moral there.

As I have said previously. The CC is correct in stating that the only sure way to avoid STD transmission is for two virgins to enter a monogamous relationship. This is true whether the partners are of different or of the same gender.

If the claim is that proof of immorality lies in the HIV infection rates, then there is the problem of Haiti and Africa where HIV infection is more prevalent among heterosexuals.

 

[Mudgely]

Personal attacks now?

Now ** THAT ** is irony. At least there is a sense of humor.

 

[John21652]

Yeah right, but saying active homosexuality is a perverted disorder because the Teaching of the Catholic Church says so is an OBJECTIVE opinion
.

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…

 

[Lui]

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.

Sorry, but I can’t take you seriously. What’s next, a lecture on Young Earth Creationism?

Now ** THAT ** is irony. At least there is a sense of humor.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Now ** THAT ** is irony. At least there is a sense of humor.

I haven’t attacked anyone, so the “irony” is misplaced. I encouraged study, several times, which prompted outcries of “insults.” Yet time and again this poster has refused to engage in available research, yet lashes out at others (accusing them of “insults”) for daring to suggest that he obtain facts first, rather than arguing based on non-factual assumptions of religious beliefs which are not based on facts. And when discovered to have self-admittedly based his argument on amateurish statements from non-theologians and non-authoritative sources, he further attempts to justify his lack of objective research.

I certainly never accused anyone on this thread of “stupidity.”

Apparently other posters have also, upthread and just now, implored this poster to engage brain, keyboard, and perhaps library card or bookstore to discover facts before he asserts fictions on a philosophy subforum. When encouraged to read about how natural law is the basis of morality and practical law, the poster dismisses the notion as not worthy of being taken seriously.

You know, when a person refuses to study, he can’t expect to have a fruitful discussion, regardless of the attempt by others to take him “seriously.”

Hmmm.

 

[Lui]

You know, when a person refuses to study, he can’t expect to have a fruitful discussion, regardless of the attempt of others to take him “serious”(ly). (It’s an adverb. )

You’re hostility is getting more and more boring. I actually wanted to put you and John on my ignore list a while ago.
John and you dish out insults like candy with your arrogance and hostility to everyone who doesn’t agree with your opinions. I was finally fed up with it.

 

[Mudgely]

I haven’t attacked anyone, so the “irony” is misplaced. I encouraged study, several times, which prompted outcries of “insults.” Yet time and again this poster has refused to engage in available research, yet lashes out at others (accusing them of “insults”) for daring to suggest that he obtain facts first, rather than arguing based on non-factual assumptions of religious beliefs which are not based on facts. And when discovered to have self-admittedly based his argument on amateurish statements from non-theologians and non-authoritative sources, he further attempts to justify his lack of objective research.

I certainly never accused anyone on this thread of “stupidity.”

Apparently other posters have also, upthread and just now, implored this poster to engage brain, keyboard, and perhaps library card or bookstore to discover facts before he asserts fictions on a philosophy subforum. When encouraged to read about how natural law is the basis of morality and practical law, the poster dismisses the notion as not worthy of being taken seriously.

You know, when a person refuses to study, he can’t expect to have a fruitful discussion, regardless of the attempt by others to take him “seriously.”

Hmmm.

I hope this won’t be taken personally. I have noticed that your language sometimes seems condescending. For example, you accused me of “peddling” the gay agenda in a previous post.

John is over the top with his condescension and insults to anyone who disagrees with him. We can agree on that.

 

[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…

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.