C
Crescentinus
Guest
I salute you for standing up and speaking up about this issue!
- Status
D
Deo_Volente
Guest
Grace & Peace!
All of that would be pertinent to the conversation if we were talking about sodomites. I was under the impression that we were talking about same-sex attracted folks. Now, same-sex attracted folks can be sodomites. So can opposite-sex attracted folks. But neither are sodomites by virtue of their attraction to one sex or the other. If two same-sex attracted folks are in a relationship, they do not engage in sodomy unless they actually engage in a sodomitical act. The fact of their relationship does not necessitate the commission of any particular act any more than a dating man and woman are necessarily fornicating simply because they’re in a dating relationship.
But here’s the problem: you assume that two same-sex attracted people in a relationship are sodomites. You assume that every same-sex attracted person desires not a loving relationship with another person of the same sex but that they necessarily desire to commit sexual sin by virtue of their same-sex attraction.
Now, to bring all this back to the thread title, I do not believe that LGBT equality is exactly the same as black equality for a number of reasons I could get into. But I cannot help but think that when a whole group of folks in a particular out-group are characterized as necessarily desiring what is evil that some sort of bias is being exhibited by the literal demonizing of the out-group. And one bias need not be identical to another bias in order to be analogously destructive, demeaning or dehumanizing.
Your use of the language of disease is telling in this context. Indeed, it looks like you believe that same-sex attracted folks are fundamentally diseased in a way that opposite-sex attracted folks are not. They’re fundamentally different, in other words: that’s what I hear you saying. I hear you saying that opposite-sex attracted folks are healthy. They can desire good things, though they may desire them inappropriately. They can turn rotten, sure. But same-sex attracted folks are rotten from the start–they can only desire bad things in bad ways. They’re different. They’re moral monsters out to corrupt opposite-sex attracted folks and all the good things opposite-sex attracted folks desire.
Since that’s what you seem to be saying, it would be hard for me to imagine that you have a sense that the human dignity of a same-sex attracted person is equal to that of an opposite-sex attracted person.
Under the Mercy,
Mark
All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!
Coptic. Again. You miss the point.
All of that would be pertinent to the conversation if we were talking about sodomites. I was under the impression that we were talking about same-sex attracted folks. Now, same-sex attracted folks can be sodomites. So can opposite-sex attracted folks. But neither are sodomites by virtue of their attraction to one sex or the other. If two same-sex attracted folks are in a relationship, they do not engage in sodomy unless they actually engage in a sodomitical act. The fact of their relationship does not necessitate the commission of any particular act any more than a dating man and woman are necessarily fornicating simply because they’re in a dating relationship.
But here’s the problem: you assume that two same-sex attracted people in a relationship are sodomites. You assume that every same-sex attracted person desires not a loving relationship with another person of the same sex but that they necessarily desire to commit sexual sin by virtue of their same-sex attraction.
Now, to bring all this back to the thread title, I do not believe that LGBT equality is exactly the same as black equality for a number of reasons I could get into. But I cannot help but think that when a whole group of folks in a particular out-group are characterized as necessarily desiring what is evil that some sort of bias is being exhibited by the literal demonizing of the out-group. And one bias need not be identical to another bias in order to be analogously destructive, demeaning or dehumanizing.
Your use of the language of disease is telling in this context. Indeed, it looks like you believe that same-sex attracted folks are fundamentally diseased in a way that opposite-sex attracted folks are not. They’re fundamentally different, in other words: that’s what I hear you saying. I hear you saying that opposite-sex attracted folks are healthy. They can desire good things, though they may desire them inappropriately. They can turn rotten, sure. But same-sex attracted folks are rotten from the start–they can only desire bad things in bad ways. They’re different. They’re moral monsters out to corrupt opposite-sex attracted folks and all the good things opposite-sex attracted folks desire.
Since that’s what you seem to be saying, it would be hard for me to imagine that you have a sense that the human dignity of a same-sex attracted person is equal to that of an opposite-sex attracted person.
I wouldn’t expect him to. But then again, that’s not what I was talking about… I was talking about same-sex attracted folks. But your default position is that all same-sex attracted folks are or desire to be active sodomites. Such a position is shameful.
Under the Mercy,
Mark
All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!
C
CopticChristian
Guest
Mark,
Is it your opinion that two males in a sodomite relationship are not in a sinful relationship by virtue of being in a sodomite relationship?
This thread is about LGBT and racial equality that are non-sequitors.
D
Deo_Volente
Guest
Grace & Peace!
1–I have (in this and recent threads) taken the teaching against extra-marital sex (including fornication and same-sex sexual activity) for granted, which means that
2–I have not been talking about sodomitical relationships when I have been talking about relationships between same-sex attracted folks.
Under the Mercy,
Mark
All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!
Regardless of my mere opinion on the matter, it is immaterial for two related reasons:
1–I have (in this and recent threads) taken the teaching against extra-marital sex (including fornication and same-sex sexual activity) for granted, which means that
2–I have not been talking about sodomitical relationships when I have been talking about relationships between same-sex attracted folks.
I have no idea what this sentence means, but I’ll tell you for free that your question regarding my opinion is a bit of an actual non-sequitur given, in particular, what I wrote in post #142 above which you quoted in post #143.
Under the Mercy,
Mark
All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!
D
Dakota_Roberts
Guest
I don’t find the intent of Deo Volente’s statement to try to persuade, I find them products of an intelligent and inquisitive person who is attempting to gain greater understanding through the Socratic method.InSearchofGrace said:
Your very question illustrates that you fail to fully comprehend what he is saying because of reading them with preconceived notions about the contents of his posts. Furthermore the thread you opened up where you forked post #138 appears to conclusion or I may be quite wrong about it and that thread is actually an attempt a character assassination stemming from narcissistic rage which would also seem to explain the projecting you seem to do to him.CopticChristian said:
C
CopticChristian
Guest
Dakota,
Explain character assassination with example.
Explain your understanding of narcissism.
Explain how you determine rage from reading a post.
Explain your understanding of projection and how you determine that from reading a post.
Thank you
D
Dakota_Roberts
Guest
CopticChristian said:
C
CopticChristian
Guest
Dakota,
What you percieve as appearance is a summary of thoughts. I have literary license to summarize anything I choose without providing reasons.
Rage is a sin. Anger is not. You believe, based on what I do not know, that I have rage. This is based on reading something. In other words you percieve, based on reading, that someone has written with rage. I never realized my writings were so powerful. I never realized I had such power to project that kind of emotions.
Projecting heresy? Explain how someone projects heresy in simple language.
Look Dick, Look Jane…there is a crane…funny, funny crane…Oh look spot sees the crane… make your explaniation simple for me because I do not understand how someone can project heresy.
D
Dakota_Roberts
Guest
Well then you didn’t seem to understand what he wrote well.
phrases can not always be so neatly disected
I don’t know how to use English in such a simple and infantile way.
C
CopticChristian
Guest
Dakota,
Did I use quotes, ie “words with” suggesting that I was quoting someone verbatim?
If you cannot explain then let it go…
D
Deo_Volente
Guest
Grace & Peace!
The fact is that you did indeed use the quote feature used on these forums when you quoted my post(s). And while you may believe that you have literary license to do what you like when you’re summarizing, it is nonetheless the case that when you quote someone without attribution, out of context, with no indication regarding where and how you have edited the quotation (such as through the use of ellipses), and all in an effort to summarize a point which you did not actually understand to begin with, then you’re not so much exercising literary license but are engaged in an exercise of misrepresentation.
That you attributed what I wrote to “homosexuals” also remains problematic. I have no idea if homosexuals universally use my words, arguments or thoughts when discussing something, but I know that I do. I’m not sure if it is your general practice to elide an individual’s identity in favor of a corporate one or vice versa, but such a practice, coupled with the misrepresentation of my position (which you have done before) is indicative of some sort of issue you seem to have with me, and I would not be surprised if that issue were related to the fact that I am a Christian who is same-sex attracted, though I am not the sort of Christian, it would seem, that you would prefer me to be.
I would like to believe that you are an intelligent person who seeks to understand and disseminate the truth. But whatever issue it is you have with me has clearly clouded your judgment regarding how you may best apprehend and/or witness to the truth you seek. Then again, you have often stated that perception is reality, so perhaps the only truth you’re interested in is what conforms to your perceptions of the real. The thing is, though: our perceptions condition our understanding of reality–they do not determine what is real.
Either way (and to bring this back to the thread), when issues cloud our judgment or when the only truth we’re interested in is what conforms to our perceptions, we are in danger of behaving in ways that are irrational and /or biased. I believe that has been Dakota’s concern here. It is certainly mine. And to repeat, one bias need not be identical to another in order to be analogous.
Under the Mercy,
Mark
All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!
Perhaps unsurprisingly, l appreciate Dakota’s efforts here and share his concerns.Dakota,
Did I use quotes, ie “words with” suggesting that I was quoting someone verbatim?
If you cannot explain then let it go…
The fact is that you did indeed use the quote feature used on these forums when you quoted my post(s). And while you may believe that you have literary license to do what you like when you’re summarizing, it is nonetheless the case that when you quote someone without attribution, out of context, with no indication regarding where and how you have edited the quotation (such as through the use of ellipses), and all in an effort to summarize a point which you did not actually understand to begin with, then you’re not so much exercising literary license but are engaged in an exercise of misrepresentation.
That you attributed what I wrote to “homosexuals” also remains problematic. I have no idea if homosexuals universally use my words, arguments or thoughts when discussing something, but I know that I do. I’m not sure if it is your general practice to elide an individual’s identity in favor of a corporate one or vice versa, but such a practice, coupled with the misrepresentation of my position (which you have done before) is indicative of some sort of issue you seem to have with me, and I would not be surprised if that issue were related to the fact that I am a Christian who is same-sex attracted, though I am not the sort of Christian, it would seem, that you would prefer me to be.
I would like to believe that you are an intelligent person who seeks to understand and disseminate the truth. But whatever issue it is you have with me has clearly clouded your judgment regarding how you may best apprehend and/or witness to the truth you seek. Then again, you have often stated that perception is reality, so perhaps the only truth you’re interested in is what conforms to your perceptions of the real. The thing is, though: our perceptions condition our understanding of reality–they do not determine what is real.
Either way (and to bring this back to the thread), when issues cloud our judgment or when the only truth we’re interested in is what conforms to our perceptions, we are in danger of behaving in ways that are irrational and /or biased. I believe that has been Dakota’s concern here. It is certainly mine. And to repeat, one bias need not be identical to another in order to be analogous.
Under the Mercy,
Mark
All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!
C
CopticChristian
Guest
Mark,
You confuse the quote function with words that are surrounded by “quotes”.
What point is it you believe that I do not understand?
You have stumbled on a tenet of General Semantics. No ones perception is reality. What is out there and what is in our heads differ from individual to individual so that as Korzybski says …what is in our heads, the perception of “The map is not the territory”. You got it.
In that regard in my head…
a Christian in a sodomizing relationship is in sin by virtue of the relationship that is sinful
Do you agree or disagree, yes/no?
This is a simples yes/no question?
Perhaps you lack the ability to offer a yes or no answer.
I believe that this relationship is sinful or I do not believe that this relationship is sinful would answer the question.
What does your map offer that differs?
Since we are all human, we all rationalize to some extent and sometimes we are all irrational and such is the human condition. Some of us rationalize more than others.
I suggest you consider succint, less verbose answers followed by your explanation as for me the answers get lost in discussion. Perhaps you are not capable and for that I can understand. I cannot expect anyone to be able to do what they cannot do and for that I should be accepting.
In the context of this thread, no LGBT has been transported from any country and enslaved in the USA, no LGBT has been forced to sit in the back of the bus, denied the right to vote, forced to use separate bathrooms, drinking fountains or barred en masse from education.
D
Deo_Volente
Guest
Grace & Peace!
Is what you refer to as a “sodomizing relationship”:
A–A relationship which is solely predicated on the commission of sodomitical acts (understood to be sexual acts in which a man achieves orgasm outside of vaginal penetration of his wife)?
B–A relationship in which sexual sin (including sodomy) may occur.
Clear this up for me, and I’ll attempt an answer to your question. In the meantime I would refer you to posts 142 and 144 of this thread.
But I will affirm: simply because two biases are different does not mean they are not analogous.
Under the Mercy,
Mark
All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!
Explain the difference. If I want to indicate that I am responding to something you’ve written and I wish to quote you, either I’ll use the quote function or quotation marks. They serve the same basic function: i.e., they indicate that something is being quoted. That’s one of the reasons why the code for the quote function includes the word quote.
See posts 138, 140, 142, 143 and 144 in this thread. In post 140, you responded to my post 138 as if I had launched a defense of sodomy. I had done no such thing. I am doing no such thing. I do not plan to do any such thing. You subsequently started a separate thread which was based on your misapprehension. I attempted to clear things up for you in post 142. Your post 143 indicated that you were still misunderstanding what was happening. My post 144 sought to further clarify. Your most recent post is indicative of a persistent misapprehension which, at this point, I can only characterize as willful.
I’ve not stumbled on (or onto) General Semantics: what I wrote is a basic principle of semiotics. Moreover, I would distrust any “movement” such as GS that attempted to disallow the use of certain types of words through such linguistic programs as E-Prime or Basic English, both of which sound like steps towards Newspeak to me and indicative of an attitude which is fundamentally opposed to the poetic or artistic impulse in humanity. That GS informed the pseudo-science of Neuro-Linguistic Programming certainly does not recommend it either. However, and in light of your misapprehensions and your insistence on people writing things in simple terms, your invocation of General Semantics is illuminating.
Not necessarily a simple yes/no question. Before I can attempt to answer it to either your or my satisfaction, I need to know the following:
Is what you refer to as a “sodomizing relationship”:
A–A relationship which is solely predicated on the commission of sodomitical acts (understood to be sexual acts in which a man achieves orgasm outside of vaginal penetration of his wife)?
B–A relationship in which sexual sin (including sodomy) may occur.
Clear this up for me, and I’ll attempt an answer to your question. In the meantime I would refer you to posts 142 and 144 of this thread.
That’s just the General Semantics and NLP “training” talking. Try actually engaging with what people write, and I’m sure you’ll be able to keep track of their answers.
I’m all for nuance, Coptic. And while the map may not be the territory, I’m interested in knowing by what maps people navigate. I may be at point D and my friend at point A, and we both may be using different maps, but if we can share with each other what our maps look like, maybe we’ll eventually be able to find our way to each other.
I have never stated anything to the contrary. Nor will I. See post 142 of this thread.
But I will affirm: simply because two biases are different does not mean they are not analogous.
Under the Mercy,
Mark
All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!
S
Slavonic
Guest
Stop defining relationships on sex acts, is demeaning to anyone, gay or straight. Unless you wish to define a marriage as an “intercourse relationship” don’t do it with male/male relationships. Also, don’t assume that every male/male couple engages in ‘sodomy.’
Actually, there were almost certainly African American LGBT individuals who faced discrimination for being black. I think you mean to say they didn’t face those things based on their orientation.
This whole idea of comparing different civil rights movements is ridiculous. Just because some groups faced discrimination different from those of other groups does not mean one need not be concerned about the discrimination faced by that group. This need to compare it to racism is wrong on two levels. First, it allows people to trivialize, minimize, or outright oppose the need to address the rights of LGBT individuals in society by saying racism was worse. That line of reasoning does not consider the fact the LGBT individuals, while having made great progress in the past 50 years, still face discrimination in society. Such thinking also serves as justification to further judge, insult and attack LGBT individuals for seeking civil rights for themselves when in some respects they “did not have it as bad.” Second, comparisons to racism breed complacency. It gives the idea that because government sanctioned racism has been eliminated, society has no further civil rights concerns to address. This line of thinking allows one to avoid the hard truth that this is not the case.
C
CopticChristian
Guest
Mark,
You say you are not defending Sodomy. I understand. Just answer this simple question then, yes/no…
A male/male relationship that sodomizes is acceptable or not acceptable to you…without qualifiers.
E-prime is an attempt to eliminate prejudice in speaking and not meant to do anything other than clarify feelings rather than judgement. It is like writing poetry using syllabic formula, pentameter or the like. It is just something that is used and not anything other than that. In this context…
Sodomy is good
Sodomy is evil
as opposed to
I like sodomy
Sodomy makes me feel…whatever
Concerning your premises concerning sodomy…a simple
two men, commit sodomy, is it sinful or not…without any outside parameters. Just the act itself…no issue about a committed relationship, one night stand, love, or any other parameter…just the act…
So, in reference to your map…my map…I am driving…I see a deer…that deer is crossing the road…
I see a need to stop and avoid the deer and protect the life of the deer
I see a chance to get dinner without a gun, hit the deer, take it home
The deer is the deer…my map determines my actions
I see two men, engaging in sodomy…
I see a sinful act
What do you see?
Since this thread is about LGBT and race…I see LGBT and do not equate that to race.
C
CopticChristian
Guest
Slavonic,
Stop.
Is this a request, command, desire?
I assume nothing about homosexuals and their behavior. I just asked about sodomy.
Slavonic, most of what you say is not in concert with Catholic teaching with the exception of insulting and attacking. I agree with this and appreciate that you are able to express Catholic teaching I have not seen before.
In the context of this thread sexual orientation is not equivalent to race…
B
Bernard8791
Guest
The point of marriage is for the procreation of children. That is the whole reason socially to get married. In the Catholic sense it is to have children and raise them as a member of the Body of Christ that is the Church. Now with couples of the same gender, procreation is inherently impossible. Where the individuals involved are of the opposite gender procreation is always possible. Therefore it is always good when it is between a man and a woman and never good when it is other than that. I hope that this helps explain it for you.
I
InSearchofGrace
Guest
Or, “what about a heterosexual couple who can’t or won’t have children. Do they not have a right to marry? Should they remain celibate?”
Here is an excellent 5 minute video that addresses this question among other arguments that same sex “marriage” advocates continually use:
Marriage = Biology (not Bigotry)
,
A
aragonjohn1
Guest
Don’t forget the “200 animals” myth
Shalom
God bless
C
Crescentinus
Guest
- Status