Pick a side on gay issue!

[Digger71]

rlg94086:

That said, homosexuality as a state of being is not a scientifically known fact. Yes, psychologists have changed it from being a disorder, but the cause of same sex attraction is not known.

Well, homosexuality is a known scientific fact. Just as evolution is. There are arguments aabout what the facts mean, but the facts remain.

We don’t know the cause of homosexuality, but we do know there are several phenotypes. Inded, many argue that we should be talking about ‘homosexualities’

rlg94086:

Even if the cause was known, the fact that someone has a desire does not make the actions which result from that desire acceptable.

The habit of many anti-gay people to equate consensual, victimless activities with murder and activities with victims is most distrubing.

 

[Digger71]

** Their marriage can radiate a fruitfulness of charity, of hospitality, and of sacrifice. **

I rests my case…even the church recognises that sterile relationships are not really sterile…now if they just take that logical step…

without diminishment of the other ends of marriage

But it does diminish the other ends of marriage…

 

[fix]

Digger71:

I am afraid BlindSheep disagrees with you. He has strong objections to people using the term ‘breeding’ to describe his activity.

The term breeder accurately describes the actions in question. The word may carry additional nuances. The phrase same sex attraction also describes the inclination of certain people. I see little comparsion between the two words. A better analogy would be to compare the label breeder with calling one with SSA a sodomist. I take no offense if one says I have opposite sex attraction. Why do you dislike it one you are said to have same sex attraction?

And the language is not accurate, just as ‘breeding’ in no way respects the life and values and intense emotions involved in ‘breeding’, so ‘SSA’ in no way recognises the life, and values and intense emotions in ‘SSA’.

This assertion simply attempts to skew the argument in your favor. SSA is a phrase that describes the inclination of some people. That those folks, and all folks, have emotion and values does not discredit the term or its use.

Both terms are derogatory. Neither is respectful.

Nonsense. Same sex attraction is defining the inclination just as opposite sex attraction defines the inclination.

If the church really wants to teach respect for humans, it needs to start with itself, in this instance.

The Church uses words carefully and accurately. Propagandists want to control the argument. That is why they choose words like “gay” instead of more accurate terms.

That whole paragraph starts with an ‘if’. And clearly as I and many others say ‘it is not disordered’ the rest of the paragraph doesnt apply.

So leave off it. The paragraph is true.

If I was being strictly literal I would ask if by ‘disordered’ you meant some measure of entropy.

As explained disordered means not ordered toward the good.

Naturally, the exact opposite is true.

The label SSA is used to deny the existance of the love, respect, affection, loyalty, and deep emotional life these people experience. It focuses on one facet.

Gay reflects an identity which includes not just attraction, but experience, politics, feelings, culture and a whole set of shared experiences.

No, SSA is simply a description. That folks with such an inclination may love, have emotions, show affection in no way is obviated by an accurate term.

“Gay” is a propaganda term used to further an agenda.

That statement could apply equally either way, and is confirmatory of my view.

incidently, I am assuming you mean ‘true’ and ‘True’.

The intellect should rule emotions, not the opposite. That you think it could apply either way reveals you do not accept an objective moral truth.

 

[fix]

Digger71:

Not until the ceremony, after that, they are. It may be a civil marriage, but it’s still marriage, albeit i a form you do not like.

Well, they may have a certificate from the state that says they are married, but that does not mean they have a marriage. Simply calling something by another name in no way changes what it authentically is, no matter what civil authority claims it may do.

 

[rlg94086]

Digger71:

Well, homosexuality is a known scientific fact. Just as evolution is. There are arguments aabout what the facts mean, but the facts remain.

We don’t know the cause of homosexuality, but we do know there are several phenotypes. Inded, many argue that we should be talking about ‘homosexualities’

The habit of many anti-gay people to equate consensual, victimless activities with murder and activities with victims is most distrubing.

Same sex attraction is an observed reality in behavioral science. That some people consider this an integral, unchangable part of their humanity is true, but it does not make it a “scientific fact”. Until the actual cause is determined (genetic, psychological, chemical, etc.), I don’t think your insistence makes it so.

I do not equate “gay sex” with stealing as activities. As far as “victimless crime” that is debatable. What I am equating is the fact that there is a desire in both instances, and there is an action which results from that desire. In the case of kleptomania, I’m sure you agree it is a disorder. I’m sure you also agree that the stealing that results from it is still a sin (or at least you’ll agree it’s a crime, I don’t know your stance on sin).

If you are disturbed, this may also be an observed phenomena in the behavioral sciences .

 

[rlg94086]

It is only the next logical step if you take the only sentence you chose out of context. The Catechism is a much larger document. Do you want us to show you more quotes?

And, no it doesn’t diminish the other ends of marriage.

BTW…your Robinson statement in the other post, is ridiculous. The fact that for a quadriplegic, the legs have no use, does not diminish the normal use of legs for all of humanity.

** Their marriage can radiate a fruitfulness of charity, of hospitality, and of sacrifice. **

I rests my case…even the church recognises that sterile relationships are not really sterile…now if they just take that logical step…

without diminishment of the other ends of marriage

But it does diminish the other ends of marriage…

 

[setter]

Digger71:

I need only point to the existance of the notice board we are posting to to demonstrate the power of labeling and self-identification.

It also demonstrates ghettoisation.

I does not escape me that many views here are far from the mainstream, and many of the questions asked here would get people laughed at on more mainstream sites. Nor does it escape me that I frequently come across references to christianity being ‘under attack’.

It’s very condensending this talk about ‘accurately labeling’ things.

This response is a lot of fluff about nothing. Why are you against and offended by medical terminology appropriately and accurately used?

BTW – Mainstream is determined by which school of fish that you are swimming with. Anyone identifying, “Labelling” themself as a “Catholic” should in all integrity know what the Catholic position is, the basis for and why this is the Catholic position, and if proposing/aligning with a mutually exclusive position, then that “Catholic” person should be able to reconcile this with an informed and well formed conscience. Do you not agree?

On another board **I used to be called ** a “atavistic, spook-worshipping superstitionist” and the poster uses very similar language to you to explain why this is OK; ‘accurate labelling’.

Please let me know if ever my appropriate labelling comes across as a personal attack – this is never my intention. I attempt to always refrain from the presumption of personal labelling.

 

[Digger71]

fix:

The term breeder accurately describes the actions in question. The word may carry additional nuances. The phrase same sex attraction also describes the inclination of certain people. I see little comparsion between the two words. A better analogy would be to compare the label breeder with calling one with SSA a sodomist. I take no offense if one says I have opposite sex attraction. Why do you dislike it one you are said to have same sex attraction?

Partially correct, partially wrong, I think I actually used the word ‘breeding’ and my first take was as yours, it is simply accurate. But I had a think about BlindSheeps points and I saw them. I still use the word in certain contexts, such as this. BlindSheep also kicked off the same string of reasoning about ‘accurate descriptions’ of homosexuality, which if course revealed that none of the descriptions are neutral, homosexual was coined to describe a pathology, SSA is similar, gay is a counter reaction to these, queer is just insulting unless the individual claims it for themselves.

I personally take no offense at being called gay, when I was younger (before coming to terms my oldest friends homosexuality) I would have got very angry. But those days are long gone.

 

[Digger71]

setter:

Please let me know if ever my appropriate labelling comes across as a personal attack – this is never my intention. I attempt to always refrain from the presumption of personal labelling.

I mean, the poster use very similar rationalisation, not language.

I wasnt offended by him and i havent been offended by you. I am sure you are pleased to read that.

 

[setter]

Digger71:

We have already established that perception is affected by feelings/emotions which modify your interactions with the environment, thus creating a reality, albeit subjective. It is possible for objective facts to be established, such as finding the fossils of the aerchiopterix, but what reality is established? To Hoyle it was a hoax, to some pealiontologists it was a clrear transitional form, to some creationists it is a test of faith and to others a true bird. In the scientific community a concensus is reached, but that reality is not agreed by all, other interpretations are possible and these directly affect the cultural reality, though the fossils themselves remain objectively real.

The problem with the gay rights issue is that what many consider objective reality is actually cultural bias. This whole debate is about two interpretations of what we consider to be ‘objective’ facts. Simply, I know that your objective facts are actually subjective interpretations.

I’ll skip on to Robinson, who unfortunately finds himself marooned on a island with no other humans. That is, no one but him.

The ‘objective fact’ that his reproductive organs are to be used for propagating the species is immediately found to be false. There are no other people with which to breed. That use ceases to be the real use, and simply becomes a theoretical use and remains so until the situation changes.

We find in some of the doctrines we are asked to believe a similar situation. The difference being that rather than accept the objective fact that there is a problem in the analysis, reality is criticised for not matching the theory.

This is a perfect example of relativism. At least you should take credit for which philosophical foundation that you ascribe to and argue from.

relativism n. Philosophy defn : A theory, especially in ethics or aesthetics, that conceptions of truth and moral values are not absolute but are relative to the persons or groups holding them.

BTW – Relativism is incompatable with Catholic moral theology and is an untenable position for one identifying themself as Catholic to use as their philosophical basis to argue from.

 

[Digger71]

rlg94086:

BTW…your Robinson statement in the other post, is ridiculous. The fact that for a quadriplegic, the legs have no use, does not diminish the normal use of legs for all of humanity.

Robinson is a fully functional male, he in no way resembles a castrati or a paraplegic. From the moment he arrived on the island the ‘normal’ use ceased to exist in that context.

In case you still dont get it I have been experimenting with salamis. You cant hammer nails with it, but you can hammer drawing pins, you can roll pastry with it, you can get the dog in from the garden with it, it makes a below average club, and a dreadful boomerang. Oddly, they are somehow less appealing as food now.

On the otherhand…eddnet.org.uk/comedy/deadcat01.php

 

[BlindSheep]

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.

OK, then answer this - if it is a different relationship, with different purposes, different potential, and a different role in society, why do you insist upon using the same word and the same legal status for it?

 

[Digger71]

setter:

This is a perfect example of relativism. At least you should take credit for which philosophical foundation that you ascribe to and argue from.

relativism n. Philosophy defn : A theory, especially in ethics or aesthetics, that conceptions of truth and moral values are not absolute but are relative to the persons or groups holding them.

BTW – Relativism is incompatable with Catholic moral theology and is an untenable position for one identifying themself as Catholic to use as their philosophical basis to argue from.

I’m not arguing from relavatism, I am arguing that:

1. New knowledge must be fully incorporated into dogma, and that dogma must be re-argued from first principles to see if the same conclusions are reached. Arguing from conclusions backwards does not count.
2. Same-sex unions are have enough positive effects to be considered a good end in themselves despite childlessness.

The fact is, if the logic is right, you can re-argue the entire case, incorporating all knowledge, and get to the same conclusion.
And you would do this without references to tradition.

It is note worthy no one ever does this. On these boards I doubt we actually could, we would have to get grossly biological, deeply philosophical, and could not start from homosexaulity, but from a much more basic level.

 

[BlindSheep]

Digger71:

But you both miss so many points. Our Church teaches us to treat everyone with respect, calling it ‘SSA’ and calling SSA and affliction contradicts this.

Deeper, if disorder is a bad thing then our opposition to same-sex unions is hypocritical, for we make sure people who enjoy ‘SSA’ are deliberately destabalised. destabalisation is the opposite of ‘ordered’ and we become authors of that we oppose.

Deeper still, you cannot label someone with their knowledge without creating identity. With labels we create a community, a culture, and a movement…just as we identify with being Catholics, so communities by being called ‘disordered’ (something they do not feel) come in to existance.

Gay people are not afflicted by with feelings, they are afflicted with us.

Digger -
I’ll respond to a few of your posts together.
First of all, you seem to be making the claim that if same-sex attraction is disordered, it would be less disordered if it were more accepted by society. This is not logical. It is based on the false assumption that “disordered” only means “outside of society’s order”, when actually it often means “outside of nature’s order” (note that this does not mean something does not happen spontaneously, but rather, that it represents a dysfunction, as with MS and diabetes). An attempt by society to treat something unhealthy as if it is healthy will not help. For instance, if someone with diabetes refused to take their insulin because they didn’t want to feel “abnormal”, this would not be a healthy choice. Now, I realise that you disagree about the healthfulness of homosexuality, but here you seem to say “if it is unhealthy, accepting it will make it less so”, when the opposite could be the case, as I’ve explained.
Second, would you mind giving some references showing why you believe that normalizing homosexuality would be beneficial to homosexual people? Everything I’ve seen has undermined this theory, so I would be interested to see what evidence you base your conviction on.
Regarding the terms “SSA” and “breeding”, it seems to me you are reading something into the term “SSA” that isn’t there. “Homosexual” is just as deviod of emotion, as far as I can see. The term “SSA” is meant to make the distinction between sexual feelings and sexual activity, a distinction “homosexual” and “gay” do not make. If anything, it seems to me “homosexual” and “gay” are more dehumanizing terms, since they imply human beings have no ability to consciously choose how to deal with their feelings of attraction.
I also have no problem with saying that I experience “opposite sex attraction”.I also would agree that, when it is directed toward men other than my husband, this attraction is disordered.

 

[rlg94086]

The fact that Robinson is a fully functional male, doesn’t change a thing. My point is that the fact that one individual can not use his sexual organs to procreate, in no way diminishes the purpose for the rest of humanity. It is a silly argument with no logic whatsoever.

Digger71:

Robinson is a fully functional male, he in no way resembles a castrati or a paraplegic. From the moment he arrived on the island the ‘normal’ use ceased to exist in that context.

In case you still dont get it I have been experimenting with salamis. You cant hammer nails with it, but you can hammer drawing pins, you can roll pastry with it, you can get the dog in from the garden with it, it makes a below average club, and a dreadful boomerang. Oddly, they are somehow less appealing as food now.

On the otherhand…eddnet.org.uk/comedy/deadcat01.php

 

[setter]

I’m not arguing from relavatism, I am arguing that:

1. New knowledge must be fully incorporated into dogma, and that dogma must be re-argued from first principles to see if the same conclusions are reached. Arguing from conclusions backwards does not count.

You show an ignorance of what dogma means:dogma, n, defn: 1) A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church; 2) An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true.

New knowledge can only confirm and further contribute to our understanding of dogma. The Church does not change or modify dogma to “incorporate” new knowledge, as dogmas are articles of belief as formally revealed by God that fall under the doctrine of the Church. This is a stumbling block and often a parting of ways for those who adhere to the belief system of relativism.

DOCTRINE. Any truth taught by the Church as necessary for acceptance by the faithful. The truth may be either formally revealed (as the Real Presence), or a theological conclusion (as the canonization of a saint), or part of the natural law (as the sinfulness of contraception). In any case, what makes it doctrine is that the Church authority teaches that it is to be believed. This teaching may be done either solemnly in ex cathedra pronouncements or ordinarily in the perennial exercise of the Church’s magisterium or teaching authority. Dogmas are those doctrines which the Church proposes for belief as formally revealed by God

. (Etym. Latin doctrina, teaching.)
therealpresence.org/dictionary/ddict.htm

1. Same-sex unions are have enough positive effects to be considered a good end in themselves despite childlessness.

According to whose principles of moral theology? These are the moral principles that Catholics hold to:

“An evil action cannot be justified by reference to a good intention” (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Dec. praec. 6). The end does not justify the means. (CCC 1759

)

The fact is, if the logic is right

, you can re-argue the entire case, incorporating all knowledge, and get to the same conclusion.
And you would do this without references to tradition.
“…if the logic is right, …” Relativism requires this clause to be consistent with the belief that truth and moral values are not absolute. Basically, with relativism, anything goes, i.e., all is relative (even Relativism itself).

It is note worthy no one ever does this

. On these boards I doubt we actually could, we would have to get grossly biological, deeply philosophical, and could not start from homosexaulity, but from a much more basic level.
That is because as Catholics we believe that God has revealed absolute truth.

 

[Digger71]

BlindSheep:

OK, then answer this - if it is a different relationship, with different purposes, different potential, and a different role in society, why do you insist upon using the same word and the same legal status for it?

I quite agree with the first half. And I do know some gay people who deride the very concept of gay marriage (“aping a stale and broken institution”), but I think the supporters think it in terms of having their family recognised, of having the same legal status, duties and rights, as heterosexuals, and public recognition of the commitment they have made.

I think in essense there are two reasons why ‘marriage’ is wanted.

1. It’s the already established method of doing all the above. It’s evolved before, it can do so again. It provides a framework in which those other purposes can flourish.
2. A different institution/ceremony, like the Boswell’s adelphopoiesis, are contrary to ‘equality’, the same rights, the same laws, the same everything means equality.

 

[trustmc]

fix:

That some civil authority recognizes illegitimate unions does not mean they are good or reasonable. Civil authorities make errors all the time.

Very good point. See history on slavery. The U.S. sanctioned it, but it did not make slavery morally good. FYI MikeinSD: morality does play a role in legislations as demonstrated by the slavery example.

Mike

 

[BlindSheep]

Digger71:

I think in essense there are two reasons why ‘marriage’ is wanted.

1. It’s the already established method of doing all the above. It’s evolved before, it can do so again. It provides a framework in which those other purposes can flourish.
2. A different institution/ceremony, like the Boswell’s adelphopoiesis, are contrary to ‘equality’, the same rights, the same laws, the same everything means equality.

But you are contradicting yourself. It may be an established method of doing the above, but that is at best only a partial description of what it is. You have already agreed that the relationship is different and has different purposes, a partial similarity does not mean it is the same thing.
And considering that we are talking about a different type of relationship, equality is not an issue. You’re comparing apples with oranges and expecting equality between them. The legal status of the mother/child relationship, father/child relationship, the employer/employee, lawyer/client - all are different. The rights attached to a relationship depend on what the relationship is.

 

[Digger71]

BlindSheep:

And considering that we are talking about a different type of relationship, equality is not an issue. You’re comparing apples with oranges and expecting equality between them. The legal status of the parent/child relationship, the employer/employee, lawyer/client - all are different. The rights attached to a relationship depend on what the relationship is.

As I was presenting views I am aware of, not just my own, but other arguments. Perhaps I should have bolded my editorial. In anycase, the circle is squared by noting that my view is not universal either here, or amongst my straight or gay friends.