Pick a side on gay issue!

[setter]

Digger71:

OK, what are you saying?

I am beginning to feel like this is becoming a circular discussion (note: my feeling is giving me feedback to confirm my cognitive suspicion).

Let me relocate you back to my original, common sense, readily evident, no fluff, connect the dots, observation and assertion of the explicit gay activists agenda:

Originally Posted by setter
Let’s connect the dots here: Remove homosexuality as a mental health diagnosis from the APA DSM which is the mental health field “bible” for diagnosis of mental disorders; then debunk the efficacy of reparative therapy; make diagnosis of “homophobia”; normalize and mainstream gay lifestyle/partnership; prove the “gay gene” to rule out environmental and personal choice variables, hence reparative therapy is really a cruel misnomer. What agenda you ask?

 

[fix]

MikeinSD:

Again, if marriage is about having children, then gay parents with kids meet the qualifications. If marriage is about potential to have children, then both str8 and gay couples qualifiy.

This is the basis for the entire debate. All the statistics and advocacy science merely obfuscate the underlying fundamental principle. Marriage is a specific insitution and union that is not self defined, nor is it plastic that can be shaped by our desires.

It may be possible to manipulate all types of situations and make them appear to be stable, “natural” and legitimate. The problem is such things are counterfeit.

 

[rlg94086]

You have a habit of obfuscating the primary purpose of an activity or institution by bringing up other uses. The fact that the institution of marriage was used to seal treaties, retain family honor, etc. does not change the primary purpose of marriage.

A couple things about 12 year olds: 1) my 12 year-old daughter is already…ahem…a woman as far as puberty is concerned. 2) marrying before procreation is possible doesn’t change the purpose (i.e. the prepubescent spouse will be able to procreate soon).

Digger71:

Your purpose for marriage. Of course marriage isnt needed for that. That is an additional structure overlaid on the activity. It’s been pointed out that marriage to seal treatise has existed (political reasons), to retain ‘family honour’, and marriages to 12 year olds in biblical times can hardly be pointed to as for procreation as the girls would not even have been in puberty.

Marriage has existed, but it was not always for propagation in the sense that you mean? I think Catholic marriage originally reflected the stoic take on marriage, that children where needed for continuation. Love was not part of that set-up (Stoics).

 

[setter]

1. As long as my meaning is clear so what.

So be it.

1. Try using a NEW biology book, or pubmed, and also look at other twin studies which do offend certain socio-political groups.

Thank you.

1. What is SSA?

A less ambigious terminology (than “homosexuality” or “gay”) to denote a person afflicted with homosexual/Same Sex Attraction.

1. Natural Law? Naturalistic fallacy.

You are entitled to you opinion, though not all opinions are equally valid or sound.

1. Evidentialy, from your posts, you demonstrate this.

Yes.

1. Civil unions do not impinge on your ability to practice your religion, ditto me.

Again, you want to segregate and restrict “religion” from the mainstream welfare of society.

In seeking to establish primacy for you form of marriage you prefer to live in a less order society than is possible

.
Is this a new tangent of assertion. Not clear what you are referring to. All order is based on adherence to the laws and intended use of the Designer, aka the one God the Creator of all.

In keeping ‘marriage’ to your self you are actively seeking to continue the disadvantage others…in my opinion.

You are entilted to you opinion. I am charged with the responsibility to advocate and work for the protection and preservation of the welfare of others. That is Christian charity in action.

No substantive arguments have been presented to show same-sex unions cause harm.

Denial of the facts?

 

[BlindSheep]

Digger71:

Social exclusion is damaging, leads to extreme behaviour, damages health, and creates unstable sub-cultures. Same sex marriage will help them, and it will help you. This debate seems to me to be about voting for the greater of two evils.

Digger -if the problems of the gay subculture are really due to social exclusion rather than being inherant to homosexual activity, why hasn’t greater social acceptance been shown to reduce these problems? I refer to problems like physical disease, depression, suicide and drug abuse.
Your theory that recognition by the govenment of gay relationships will alleviate the problems of the gay community is not backed up by the availiable evidence - nor have you shown that such recognition will not create new problems for society as a whole.

 

[setter]

I will repeat myself one last time, and if you do not have a response, please just ignore or say so, rather than circumvent and deflect (obfuscate), because your lack of a coherent response demonstrates to me that your premise is flawed and lacking:

Originally Posted by setter
I was hoping that you could give a more thoughtful and serious response than this. I continue to challenge you on this because: The advancement of your argument, that SSA based relationships deserve parity with natural law santioned heterosexual marriage, rests solely on the proposed premise/foundation that emotional experience enjoys primacy for the basis of defining (i.e., redefining) reality, in order to fit your self-construed paradigm of reality and substantiate acting against revealed moral and natural law.

Originally Posted by setter
BTW – I am wondering if you are going to respond to my #243 post to you in which I challenged your presupposition of the proper ordering and preeminence of subjective emotional experience in defining one’s reality independent of absolute norms.

Originally Posted by Digger71
In reverse order. Dont wonder, I am simply considering my answers.

 

[rlg94086]

Digger71:

Well gay people have always been involved in helping through th e extended family, and stable gay relationships (which marriage would support) bring extra resources to the family…

In a specific case one of my friends, MIchelle, is bringing up an autistic child. It’s very difficult, he is deeply autistic. Her brother and his BF have helped out a lot both financially, and because the BF has Aspergers Syndrome, there the BF has a lot of experience with autism. While most parents wont look after the child that couple have no problem, ths couple seem designed for it.

**Really? Attaching design to their relationship? Interesting. **

Changing marriage won’t change the capability for the brother and SO to help out. If my adulterous uncle’s girlfriend helps out my handicapped brother, should we change marriage to allow bigamy, so the adulterous relationship could be sanctioned?

First of all marriaage changes all the time. And the current state of marriage is not down to gay people. quickie divorces, adultery, illegitimate children and abortion are all our work, straight peoples work. Given what we have done I think we should be a bit more flexible towards people who are positive about an institution we have damaged so much.

Adding gay marriage won’t improve marriage. Your argument that it changes all the time is moot.

And the benefits have already been spelt out.

Then the onus is on you to demonstrate logical errors. Done.

By normalising the situation and creating instiutions that support and protect and nurture, as well as integrating, we create situations where mutual rejection is lowered, dangerous cultural artifacts can be dealt with humanely and stabalise things.

In rejecting gay marriage and gay rights, you simpy tell us you want bad things to happen to gay people because they are not heterosexual. Your opinion. That is not what I’m telling anyone.

And even if that is not what we mean to say, it IS the message we send out. I can’t be responsible for someone’s misunderstanding of my message. All I can do is educate.

In case you havent noticed, they dont need encouragement. Homosexuality appears all by itself. And in case you havent noticed the other part, the stonewall riots and the gay liberation movement started because of oppression and discrimination.

Since they don’t need encouragement, they don’t need marriage. Thanks for making that argument.

In the funniest irony of this whole debate it is the ‘anti-gays’ who made the gay movement, it is the ‘homophobes’ (note the inverted commas) who created gay lib, it is the intolerent who made them fight back.

Talk about shooting yourselves in the foot!

They’ve shot themselves in the foot, as well, by trying to shout people down. Calling others ‘homophobe’, ‘breeder’, etc. and having a Gay Pride parade where you ridicule the straight community just escalates the problem and alienates the gay community even further. Your point does not add to the debate.

The natural purpose of reprodictive organs is to have sex. Marriage and heterosexuality are versions of that, as is homosexuality.

And what is the primary biological purpose of sex? I know, that’s a toughie for you…give it some thought. Homosexuality is a disordered version of that.

What is SSA?
**I think someone else answered, but it’s Same Sex Attraction. The correct description of someone who has a desire for the same sex. The Church teaches that your sexual preference is not an integral part of who you are. It is a disordered desire, which needs to be resisted. It’s similar to kleptomania…the desire is there, but to act on that desire is to sin…or even closer would be heterosexual desire for sex outside of marriage. **

 

[setter]

rlg94086:

The natural purpose of reprodictive organs is to have sex. Marriage and heterosexuality are versions of that, as is homosexuality.
***And what is the primary biological purpose of sex? I know, that’s a toughie for you…give it some thought. Homosexuality is a disordered version of that./***I]

What is SSA?
I think someone else answered, but it’s Same Sex Attraction. The correct description of someone who has a desire for the same sex. The Church teaches that your sexual preference is not an integral part of who you are. It is a disordered desire, which needs to be resisted. It’s similar to kleptomania…the desire is there, but to act on that desire is to sin…or even closer would be heterosexual desire for sex outside of marriage.

To clarify and dispute the highlight statement, I provide the following CCC (Catechism of the Catholic Church) citations that clearly emphasize that human sexuality, of which one’s sexual attraction (preference) is a central facet of, is not simply biological, but is fully integral to the identity and functioning of the human person:

2332 Sexuality affects all aspects of the human person in the unity of his body and soul. It especially concerns affectivity, the capacity to love and to procreate, and in a more general way the aptitude for forming bonds of communion with others. (CCC)

2337 Chastity means the successful integration of sexuality within the person and thus the inner unity of man in his bodily and spiritual being. Sexuality, in which man’s belonging to the bodily and biological world is expressed, becomes personal and truly human when it is integrated into the relationship of one person to another, in the complete and lifelong mutual gift of a man and a woman.

The virtue of chastity therefore involves the integrity of the person and the integrality of the gift. (CCC)

2361 “Sexuality, by means of which man and woman give themselves to one another through the acts which are proper and exclusive to spouses, is not something simply biological, but concerns the innermost being of the human person as such. It is realized in a truly human way only if it is an integral part of the love by which a man and woman commit themselves totally to one another until death.” (CCC)

 

[rlg94086]

Actually, what you highlighted isn’t refuted. I talked about sexual preference, not sexuality. I also did not say that it is purely biological. I have used my biological arguments as a secular support for Church teaching. I’m sorry I wasn’t clear. It is the very importance of our human sexuality, that explains why SSA is disordered.

Please note what you didn’t bold from the catechism:

2332 Sexuality affects all aspects of the human person in the unity of his body and soul.** It especially concerns affectivity, the capacity to love and to procreate, and in a more general way the aptitude for forming bonds of communion with others**. (CCC)

2337 Chastity means the successful integration of sexuality within the person and thus the inner unity of man in his bodily and spiritual being. Sexuality, in which **man’s belonging to the bodily and biological world is expressed, becomes personal and truly human when it is integrated into the relationship of one person to another, in the complete and lifelong mutual gift of a man and a woman. **

The virtue of chastity therefore involves the integrity of the person and the integrality of the gift. (CCC)

2361 “Sexuality, by means of which man and woman give themselves to one another through the acts which are proper and exclusive to spouses, is not something simply biological, but concerns the innermost being of the human person as such. It is realized in a truly human way only if it is an integral part of the love by which a man and woman commit themselves totally to one another until death.”

setter:

To clarify and dispute the highlight statement, I provide the following CCC (Catechism of the Catholic Church) citations that clearly emphasize that human sexuality, of which one’s sexual attraction (preference) is a central facet of, is not simply biological, but is fully integral to the identity and functioning of the human person:

(CCC)

 

[Digger71]

setter:

I am beginning to feel like this is becoming a circular discussion (note: my feeling is giving me feedback to confirm my cognitive suspicion).

Let me relocate you back to my original, common sense, readily evident, no fluff, connect the dots, observation and assertion of the explicit gay activists agenda:

You are not being explicit. “Connect the dots” is a rhetorical device that leaves unsaid your actual meaning. Thus, it reads to me like you believe there is a conspiracy going on.

‘HomoCentral’ perhaps.

Be explicit. If you use rhetorical devices you risk misinterpretation.

 

[setter]

Actually, what you highlighted isn’t refuted. I talked about sexual preference, not sexuality

. I also did not say that it is purely biological. I have used my biological arguments as a secular support for Church teaching. I’m sorry I wasn’t clear. It is the very importance of our human sexuality, that explains why SSA is disordered.

Please note what you didn’t bold from the catechism:
Thank you for clarifying. My understanding is that sexual preference is an integral facet/component of sexuality. It is not a disassociated feature, which is only intact/integral for those possesing an ordered heterosexual preference/attraction/orientation., which is how the highlighted wording in your quote comes across as denoting.

Originally Posted by rlg94086

The Church teaches that your sexual preference is not an integral part of who you are.
My clarification: Human sexuality is integral to the human person. Sexual preference/attraction/orientation is integral to sexuality, hence, sexual preference/attraction/orientation is integral to the human person. Whether it is central to who we are is another discussion.

 

[setter]

Digger71:

You are not being explicit. “Connect the dots” is a rhetorical device that leaves unsaid your actual meaning. Thus, it reads to me like you believe there is a conspiracy going on.

‘HomoCentral’ perhaps.

Be explicit. If you use rhetorical devices you risk misinterpretation.

Let me be explicit: Connect the dots = Let me point out the obvious.

Case in point obvious: The gay activist agenda is very much alive, strategic and militant.

To avoid the accusation of simply a rhetorical devise, here is but one recent documented example that you may first want to chew on a bit before spitting out:

March 10, 2006

Gay Activists Using Bad Science
by Kim Trobee

Gay activists are being accused of infiltrating influential professional groups and in the process, using bad science to turn them into political propaganda machines.

Once a highly respected organization, the American Psychological Association now appears to be a front for the gay movement. Former President of the APA, Dr. Nicholas Cummings, takes exception with the group’s stance on some very political issues.

“Any scientific professional organization should not speak as a scientific professional organization unless it has psychological evidence.”

It appears the APA doesn’t subscribe to that belief any longer. Dr. Jeffrey Satinover studied APA briefs submitted to the US Supreme Court and says what was offered as legitimate scientific references turned out to be a lot of smoke and mirrors.

“For example, in the Romer brief, a full third of the citations came from this one person, Gregory Harek who obviously wrote the brief. If the person you look to to substantiate the claim is yourself, it’s kind of a joke.”

Satinover found many of the references were to opinion pieces or surveys. That’s especially troubling when used as evidence in cases before the High Court.

“The fact is, nobody at the Supreme Court, even a clerk for a conservative justice, took the trouble to actually check to see whether these influential briefs were worth the paper they were printed on.”

Satinover thinks the APA is at risk of becoming irrelevant by supporting a political agenda over scientific inquiry.

family.org/cforum/fnif/news/a0039793.cfm

As to the expanse and success of the homosexual movement strategic agenda, here is evidence:

Homosexual Agenda
Homosexual activist predicted takeover of nation

Randy Sharp
Projects Director
June, 2004

In 1987, gay revolutionist Michael Swift accurately outlined the homosexual movement in America. In less than two decades, Swift’s predictions have come to pass.

When first published, American Family Association reprinted it in the October 1987, edition of the National Federation for Decency (NFD is now American Family Association (AFA)) Journal. Ironically, many in the Christian community scoffed at the contention that the homosexual movement could actually attain the article’s outrageous goals.

In the text below are the ominous predictions by Michael Swift, “Gay Revolutionary,” printed in bold type, from The Congressional Record, first printed in Gay Community News, February 15-21, 1987. Examples of these fortellings coming to pass follow each paragraph: (click hyperlink for details)

afa.net/homosexual_agenda/takeover.asp

 

[rlg94086]

My understanding is the only sexual preference that is a part of human sexuality would be the sexual preference for the opposite sex (i.e. not SSA and not any other kinky preferences that a ‘heterosexual’ may have). Therefore, as a component, it only has one dimension. SSA is a disorder of this component. I don’t think we should be identified by our disorders.

setter:

Thank you for clarifying. My understanding is that sexual preference is an integral facet/component of sexuality. It is not a disassociated feature, which is only intact/integral for those possesing an ordered heterosexual preference/attraction/orientation., which is how the highlighted wording in your quote comes across as denoting.

My clarification: Human sexuality is integral to the human person. Sexual preference/attraction/orientation is integral to sexuality, hence, sexual preference/attraction/orientation is integral to the human person. Whether it is central

to who we are is another discussion.

 

[Digger71]

rlg94086:

You have a habit of obfuscating the primary purpose of an activity or institution by bringing up other uses. The fact that the institution of marriage was used to seal treaties, retain family honor, etc. does not change the primary purpose of marriage.

It is not obfuscation. They are simple facts. Thet are played down because they do not fit comfortably with the paradigm you assert. And worse, they indicate that marriage can be exapnded and has in the past been shrunk. Call it obfuscation…it actually demonstrates that certain assertions about marriage can be falsified.

What you are actually doing is back porting your current view and insisting you see it in all previous set-ups and dismissing contraindictaors.

rlg94086:

A couple things about 12 year olds: 1) my 12 year-old daughter is already…ahem…a woman as far as puberty is concerned. 2) marrying before procreation is possible doesn’t change the purpose (i.e. the prepubescent spouse will be able to procreate soon).

The onset of puberty is going down the age scale. This is due to better diet and increasing body mass, and is both well studied and an issue of concern. You are again making an error is assuming continuity, “what is today has always been”

In anycase, what ever claims are made for the ‘primary’ purpose, this in no way invalidates secondary purposes which have valuable social outcomes.

Agreeing that a same-sex couple cannot have children short of miracle or novel mutation, and given this will not be their primary purpose for marriage. The primary purpose of their marriage is different to yours.

This does not invalidate the marriage, it just means their marriage is not the same as your marriage.

 

[Digger71]

fix:

This is the basis for the entire debate. All the statistics and advocacy science merely obfuscate the underlying fundamental principle. Marriage is a specific insitution and union that is not self defined, nor is it plastic that can be shaped by our desires.

Falsified by history. Marriage exists in a social and legislative context, and I believe same-sex marriages existed in the past and currently exist in several european countries in one form or the other.

The underlying fundamental principle recognised is the relationship in these instances, not reproduction.

 

[rlg94086]

Digger71:

Agreeing that a same-sex couple cannot have children short of miracle or novel mutation, and given this will not be their primary purpose for marriage. The primary purpose of their marriage is different to yours.

This does not invalidate the marriage, it just means their marriage is not the same as your marriage.

And their opinions are more valid than mine because?

Again, put it up to the voters in our country. I have no problem with that. I will vote my conscience. As a Catholic, there is only one choice that I see. Along with my personal religious beliefs, I still don’t see any advantage to society in making this change. In fact, I think it will devalue marriage. My understanding from other posts I’ve seen is that empirical data, your favorite requirement, shows a sharper decline in marriage in countries that have allowed same sex civil unions. As someone who values the institution of marriage, I see no reason to make a change which will hasten it’s demise.

 

[Digger71]

BlindSheep:

Digger -if the problems of the gay subculture are really due to social exclusion rather than being inherant to homosexual activity, why hasn’t greater social acceptance been shown to reduce these problems? I refer to problems like physical disease, depression, suicide and drug abuse.
Your theory that recognition by the govenment of gay relationships will alleviate the problems of the gay community is not backed up by the availiable evidence - nor have you shown that such recognition will not create new problems for society as a whole.

I believe Denmark provides evidence of all of these, including reduced suicide, promiscuity, and lowering of disease. They of course introduced their reforms some time ago.

In other countries, Spain, Belgium and the UK these changes have been recent, less than 2 years…So it’s its too soon to tell in those cases.

And, of course, you have not defined ‘problem’, so it’s not clear what you mean.

 

[Digger71]

ths couple seem designed for it.

Really? Attaching design to their relationship? Interesting.

You should have bolded the word SEEM. It was there for a purpose. You ignored it.

Thus your concluding statement is in error.

See how ignoring all the information leads you to error.

 

[rlg94086]

Okay. You seem to be insane.

Digger71:

ths couple seem designed for it.

Really? Attaching design to their relationship? Interesting.

You should have bolded the word SEEM. It was there for a purpose. You ignored it.

Thus your concluding statement is in error.

See how ignoring all the information leads you to error.

 

[setter]

rlg94086:

My understanding is the only sexual preference that is a part of human sexuality would be the sexual preference for the opposite sex (i.e. not SSA and not any other kinky preferences that a ‘heterosexual’ may have). Therefore, as a component, it only has one dimension. SSA is a disorder of this component.

I think that we are saying the same thing. Whereby, SSA is a deviation, abberation from the norm of properly ordered (versus dis-ordered) and is a symptom of an underlying psychological disorder/disturbance.

I don’t think we should be identified by our disorders.

I whole heartidly agree. Example: A person with bipolar disorder should not have a pathological identity such as “he/she is a bipolar”, but rather “he/she is afflicted with bipolar mood disorder”. We can always be whole in Christ as we keep united with Him. That is Christian reality and the good news of the gospel.