'Open up the conversation' on gay priests

  • Thread starter Thread starter fix
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Richardols:
I think that you and fix don’t know what the word “pathology” means.
Click to expand...
Counselor, let me be precise so there is no confusion. Those that seek out homosexual acts, or have such a desire or inclination, have a pathology. That pathology is same sex attraction disorder. It is was accpeted by the “authorities” until 1973 when for political reasons it was deemed to be no longer pathologic. The fact it is no longer accepted by many practitioners of medicine or psychology does not mean it is not pathological. It only means many are deceived.

In my other post I listed several procedures and acts that are seen as non pathological by the “authorities”. Intentional sterilization, as an example, is is to produce a pathology in a body. Transgender surgery is to introduce pathology into a body.

There is legitimate medicine and psychology and illegitimate medicine and psychology. We need to be careful to discern which is true and which is false.
 
Richardols said:
“Manner of pathology”? The manner of studying diseases and their causes? What is hard about understanding that?
Click to expand...

Ummmm…sometimes in the English language, words have more than one meaning. Pathology can mean the “study of diseases,” but “pathology” can also refer to the disease itself… I.e., the pathology of the liver led to his death…

Dictionaries are helpful, inexpensive, and available at most bookstores.

Fiat
 
Main Entry: pa·thol·o·gy merriam-webster.com/images/audio.gif
Pronunciation: -jE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -gies
Etymology: New Latin *pathologia *& Middle French *pathologie, *from Greek *pathologia *study of the emotions, from *path- + -logia *-logy
1 : the study of the essential nature of diseases and especially of the structural and functional changes produced by them
2 : something abnormal: a : the structural and functional deviations from the normal that constitute disease or characterize a particular disease b : deviation from propriety or from an assumed normal state of something nonliving or nonmaterial
 
40.png
fix:
The fact it is no longer accepted by many practitioners of medicine or psychology does not mean it is not pathological.
Click to expand...
Yes, indeed, your logic is sound. However, the logical converse may also be true - that the fact it is no longer accepted means that it is not pathological.
 
40.png
Richardols:
Yes, indeed, your logic is sound. However, the logical converse may also be true - that the fact it is no longer accepted means that it is not pathological.
Click to expand...
And of course from your perspective ONLY pathologists can determine what a pathology is. God’s law means nothing in this regard. Am I reading you correctly?

Fiat
 
40.png
Richardols:
Yes, indeed, your logic is sound. However, the logical converse may also be true - that the fact it is no longer accepted means that it is not pathological.
Click to expand...
Well, only if there is no objective way of determining pathology. If it is all relative, then none of science is sound.
 
40.png
Fiat:
And of course from your perspective ONLY pathologists can determine what a pathology is. God’s law means nothing in this regard. Am I reading you correctly?

Fiat
Click to expand...
Yes, I think you are. Physicians, psychologists, etc rarely begin their inquires from a vantage point where they accept an objective truth. That is why they readily accept pathological procedures and behavior as non pathological.
 
40.png
Fiat:
Thank you for admitting that the logic of your inverse conclusion now falls apart.

Fiat
Click to expand...
Not at all. You said “only” pathologists. I did not speak in absolutes. I noted that it was as logical for it to be not pathological as pathological.
 
40.png
fix:
If it is all relative, then none of science is sound.
Click to expand...
Doesn’t our understanding of science change as more study is done about aspects of science? The fact that understanding changes doesn’t mean that science is not sound.
 
40.png
Richardols:
Not at all. You said “only” pathologists. I did not speak in absolutes. I noted that it was as logical for it to be not pathological as pathological.
Click to expand...
Don’t insult our intelligences. Your bizarre statement: the fact it is no longer accepted means that it is not pathological, works only if you presume that pathologists are the only ones to determine what a pathology is. Fix’s point is that pathologists don’t have that right.

If you would like to argue that in fact pathologists do have that right, be our guest.
 
4 marks:
While heterosexual attraction may be “normal” not all of it is acceptable. Those with heterosexual orientation must also struggle against sexual sin and strive for purity.
Click to expand...
True. But that’s not really what we’re talking about here.
 
40.png
gilliam:
Well, there you go then. We could have eliminated 78% of the problem if homosexuals were not priests.

So the question is, should we?
Click to expand...
Actually 81% of all the victims were male. We should stop treating homosexuality as if it is not a disorder. Bad assumptions lead to bad policy. In this case, bad policy lead to alot of kids getting hurt.
 
40.png
Richardols:
Doesn’t our understanding of science change as more study is done about aspects of science? The fact that understanding changes doesn’t mean that science is not sound.
Click to expand...
Sure, but just becuase something *can *be done does not mean it should be done. IVF, surrogate motherhood, abortion, etc are all scientifically "sound"yet quite immoral.

The point of all this is that the “experts” are not infallible either in science or morals. The other part of all this is how we define normal and abnormal. If the experts have no grounding in the truth, then their definitions may be inauthentic. Are we all to accept as infallibly true that homosexual attraction is not pathologic because some scientific group says so? It is not as if we can culture a bacterial species, plate it out and test them for antibiotic sensitivities. Some of these things are more nuanced and open to manipulation by political forces.
 
40.png
Fiat:
Your bizarre statement: the fact it is no longer accepted means that it is not pathological
Click to expand...
Read what I said, not what you imagined that I said. I said MAY.
 
40.png
fix:
Sure, but just becuase something *can *be done does not mean it should be done. IVF, surrogate motherhood, abortion, etc are all scientifically "sound"yet quite immoral.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
The point of all this is that the “experts” are not infallible either in science or morals.
Click to expand...
An accurate truism.
The other part of all this is how we define normal and abnormal. If the experts have no grounding in the truth, then their definitions may be inauthentic.
Click to expand...
The question in your statement is to define “normal,” “abnornal,” and the “truth”; and here’s where the controversy lies.
 
40.png
fix:
… Are we all to accept as infallibly true that homosexual attraction is not pathologic because some scientific group says so?
Click to expand...
And they didn’t say so for scientific reasons as we all know. They bowed to political pressure from the gay rights crowd.
 
40.png
miguel:
And they didn’t say so for scientific reasons as we all know. They bowed to political pressure from the gay rights crowd.
Click to expand...
That is true and should be an explosive finding for the media. It is one of the biggest errors in science that goes without discussion.
 
40.png
Richardols:
Read what I said, not what you imagined that I said. I said MAY.
Click to expand...
I quoted your little “logical converse” exactly. The word “MAY” is not a part of your your argument. Reread your own posts.
Fiat
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top