Pope's stance on gays 'like Hitler'

[trustmc]

St.Sharky:

That is a great point ElJay. Fetuses are not even self aware or concious, therefore abortion is not murder, whereas gassing an entire religious sub group is

Since when does self-awareness and consciousness define life? I pray you’re never in some accident in which you find yourself temporarily “unaware” or unconscious at the hands of a doctor who holds to your definition of life.

Mike

 

[uther]

Digger71:

It is undefined, it is non-specific, it is abstract. All three of these features creates a loop-hole where people can claim their specific acts of discrimination are ‘just’, that is homosexuals ‘deserve’ them.

The noteworthy feature of your examples is that they are exactly the opposite. Defined, specific, real-world.

Why does such an obvious point have to be spelt out?

Perhaps because it is only obvious to you?

 

[bones_IV]

“lets not do this”, i’ve been involved in a long thread on homosexuality and the topic is becoming boring. I am not sex obsessed as some, but do have more knowledge than many who wax lyrical on the subject of homosexuality.

I find the subject contains very little honesty from the ‘anti-gay’ side who argue from their conclusions using self-serving stereotypes while filtering out contraindicators from their world view.

Well, I’ll be more precise. They are honest enough about how disgusting homosexuality is (to them), but utterly mendacious about causative functions, the effects of exclusion, the harm to society, the benefits to society, ad nauseum.

The truth is, homosexuality is not harmful per se, it is natural in the literal sense of the word (occurs in nature), and most of supposed problems comes from social exclusion, not sexuality.

It is distressing to find zero honesty on this topic coming from so many.

Weasel words exist where definition is poor,…“unjust” is pointless without some guidence as to what is just or unjust. The Phelps think their actions are just (godhatesfags.com), and given the opposition to gay rights here, it is clear that the interpretation of ‘unjust’ is pretty wide.

This an attempt to disconnect sin with consequences. Are you Catholic?

 

[BlindSheep]

“lets not do this”, i’ve been involved in a long thread on homosexuality and the topic is becoming boring. I am not sex obsessed as some, but do have more knowledge than many who wax lyrical on the subject of homosexuality.

Of course you do. You know everything. You are infallible.

I find the subject contains very little honesty from the ‘anti-gay’ side who argue from their conclusions using self-serving stereotypes while filtering out contraindicators from their world view.

Look who’s talking.

Well, I’ll be more precise. They are honest enough about how disgusting homosexuality is (to them), but utterly mendacious about causative functions, the effects of exclusion, the harm to society, the benefits to society, ad nauseum.

Who said anything about how “disgusting homosexuality is to them”? Not me, that’s for certain. I probably should be disgusted by it, since it is a mortal sin, but in all honesty I’m not. If I feel any emotion about it at all, it’s sadness.

The truth is, homosexuality is not harmful per se, it is natural in the literal sense of the word (occurs in nature), and most of supposed problems comes from social exclusion, not sexuality.

That’s the truth, is it? Well, I suppose it must be, since you say so.

It is distressing to find zero honesty on this topic coming from so many.

Oh, I get it. In your language, honesty means “agreement with Digger”.

Weasel words exist where definition is poor,…“unjust” is pointless without some guidence as to what is just or unjust. The Phelps think their actions are just (godhatesfags.com)/), and given the opposition to gay rights here, it is clear that the interpretation of ‘unjust’ is pretty wide.

If you would like to know what the Catholic definition of “justice” is, I suggest you read the rest of your Catechism (you know, the parts that don’t specifically refer to your pet issue). The Pope is, of course, addressing Catholics, most of whom are already aware of the Catholic meaning of “just” and “unjust”.
The Phelps, by the way, are **not **Catholic.

 

[Ace86]

ElJay:

The difference being that innmates are people and not just a cluster of stem cells

Inmates AND unborn babies are both people. Abortion is MURDER. And it’s the worst kind of murder.

 

[Kristopher]

Dear Reader:

I read the article. This senator in Ireland already has fallaciously reasoned that a person with a Swastika on his, or tatooed at any other place on a person’s body, must be ostercized and therefore, no matter what the opinion on any matter by the person–any person with a tattoo of a Swastika should not be heard, but ostercized.

What a hypocrite, and the trite arguement: religion is to blame for whatever animosity exists toward homosexuality is ludicrous.

How have we managed to gain many incompetent public servants, and done by vote, too? Democracy looks more and more pathetic every day!

Beyond common sense, most science supports what the Pope stated: science cannot go against what is infallible. Natural science will confirm faith; though, it is within the Catechism that we do not know everything, but certainly what the Pope stated is known.

Most sincerely,

Kristopher

 

[jenny22]

St.Sharky:

That is a great point ElJay. Fetuses are not even self aware or concious, therefore abortion is not murder, whereas gassing an entire religious sub group is

“Another key element of human ecology is the inviolability of human life, especially at its beginning and its end. The Holy See insistently proclaims that the first and most fundamental of all human rights is the right to life, and that when this right is denied all other rights are threatened. The assumption that abortion and euthanasia are human rights deserving legislative sanction is seen by the Holy See as a contradiction which amounts to a denial of the human dignity and freedom which the law is supposed to protect. A society will be judged on the basis of how it treats its weakest members; and among the most vulnerable are surely the unborn and the dying.” Pope John Paul II

Since I am Catholic, and strongly believe that we all have souls, I think unborn children have a right to living as any religious group. What scares me about abortion is that we are fooling with the unknow. When does a child receive his or her soul? Of course, this is a matter of faith for me.

We were all in the same boat at one time. We were all unconcious fetuses, and I feel a great deal of sympathy to those who did not have a chance to experience life.

ElJay and St.Sharky, I’m thankful you are here to post your views.

 

[trustmc]

jenny22:

When does a child receive his or her soul? Of course, this is a matter of faith for me.

Even if a person does not subscribe to Catholic teaching about the beginning of life and when a body is “ensouled,” we are all still morally bound to resolve any doubt on the side of life.

Mike

 

[jenny22]

trustmc:

Even if a person does not subscribe to Catholic teaching about the beginning of life and when a body is “ensouled,” we are all still morally bound to resolve any doubt on the side of life.

Mike

Mike - I find your posts very compelling. If you have the time could you elaborate?

 

[Libero]

trustmc:

Your comment reminded of the scene from African Queen starring Katherine Hepburn as a missionary and Humphrey Bogart as a boat captain where he tries to justify to her his alcoholism as being perfectly “natural” given its common occurence in nature.

Hepburn puts down her bible and looks at him over her glasses and says rather matter-of-factly, “I believe we were put on this earth precisely to rise above our nature.”

The truth of the matter is that homosexuality is not natural in that it does not contribute to the furtherance of nature. It is maladaptive, to use a naturalistic term. It prevents the continuance of mankind. That it occurs in nature does not make it natural, anymore than diseases that cause sterility can be called natural. Like them, homosexuality is evidence that nature is “broken” and in need of corrective measures to insure that its flaws do not infect the rest of nature.

Affirming homosexuality as just another lifestyle choice blunts the positive effects of heterosexual, monogamous marriage on successive generations by diminishing the importance of this unique institution and encouraging them to pursue so-called alternative ends that do not foster the best environment for raising children. Two-parent homes are not ideal for the child unless the parents are of the opposite sex.

All sociological statistics show that most social pathologies, such as promiscuity, crime, gang affiliation, drug addiction, school drop out, depression and poor mental health are all caused by a lack of a mother and father in the home, not just merely two parent figures of any sex. Society should work towards upholding and supporting normative heterosexual commitments by finding ways to reduce divorce, and restore the exclusive role of sex in marriage. A rather daunting task to be sure, but not one predicated on failure and defeatism.

Mike

Not the alcoholic argument again… That is one of the worst analogies ever!!! If you cannot recognise the huge difference between alcoholism and sexual orientation, then why are you engaging in a debate about the topic? As for the idea that homosexuality ‘infects’ the rest of nature - well, I strongly suggest you actually try and find out what homosexuality is… (said nicely) - by the way

 

[trustmc]

Libero:

Not the alcoholic argument again… That is one of the worst analogies ever!!! If you cannot recognise the huge difference between alcoholism and sexual orientation, then why are you engaging in a debate about the topic? As for the idea that homosexuality ‘infects’ the rest of nature - well, I strongly suggest you actually try and find out what homosexuality is… (said nicely) - by the way

I wasn’t comparing alcoholism with homosexuality. I was showing how common people can misuse the “natural” argument to justify any and every behavior that is common in nature. Hepburn’s answer applies to all of them. And, yes, all sin infects nature. It’s why each of us are in dire need of grace and a Savior (also said nicely, BTW). Consider how the “private behavior” of consenting adults have led to the global AIDS epidemic, with all of its misery, disease and death spead among even innocent children, and then tell us again how sin does not affect the rest of nature.

Mike

 

[Digger71]

BlindSheep:

1. Of course you do. You know everything. You are infallible.
2. Look who’s talking.
3. Who said anything about how “disgusting homosexuality is to them”? Not me, that’s for certain. I probably should be disgusted by it, since it is a mortal sin, but in all honesty I’m not. If I feel any emotion about it at all, it’s sadness.
4. That’s the truth, is it? Well, I suppose it must be, since you say so.
5. Oh, I get it. In your language, honesty means “agreement with Digger”.
6. If you would like to know what the Catholic definition of “justice” is, I suggest you read the rest of your Catechism (you know, the parts that don’t specifically refer to your pet issue). The Pope is, of course, addressing Catholics, most of whom are already aware of the Catholic meaning of “just” and “unjust”.
   The Phelps, by the way, are **not **Catholic.

Well, when you return to civility again I shall respond, unless, of course, you post something utterly rediculous.

ps. I know the phelps are not Catholics, but they feel their actions are just.

 

[trustmc]

Digger71:

I know the phelps are not Catholics, but they feel their actions are just.

Just like you think that your actions are also. Please don’t construe this as a defense of the Phelpses. I’m only saying that justice can only be argued using objective reason, not subjective feelings and experiences.

Mike

 

[Digger71]

trustmc:

Just like you think that your actions are also. Please don’t construe this as a defense of the Phelpses. I’m only saying that justice can only be argued using objective reason, not subjective feelings and experiences.

Mike

I have never met anyone defend the Phelps. I would be very surprised to.

As for ‘objective reason’, I think I have writen before that if an argument is objectively reasoned and true all additional information will confirm it.

Lets take a couple of examples:

Persona A: "homsexuality is unnatural:

Person B “Here’s a list of animals known to have exclusive homosexual members”

Person A: :That doesnt make it right!"

A common enough context switch. Person A asserts something empirically falsifiable. Confronted, she changed her reason for objecting. She had to change, data was against her, but she could not completely rethink it. Her disaproval came first, and she used arguments simply to support her previous position. That is, she argues backwards from conclusions.

Our church is similar. It recognises the intrinisic nature of it, yet refuses to accept that this makes it natural and normal for those people. It cannot accept that for (most of) these people the procreative function is not a primary or co-primary purpose of their genitals. Homosexuality is no longer a temptation to everyone, it is not like other sins in that regard, but the church is too wedded to apriori arguments from design, so it must find new reasons for its objection. That is, it argues backwards from conclusions.

When our Church finally has the courage to deal with the massive implications of congenital homosexuality honestly the world will stand back in shock. Simply these people are ‘objectively’ homosexual so any ‘objective’ heterosexual function does not exist for them.

“Objectively disordered” is a not a reasoned response. It’s ‘throwing the zooms’.

 

[BlindSheep]

Digger71:

Well, when you return to civility again I shall respond, unless, of course, you post something utterly rediculous.

You find my words uncivil? Perhaps you should look for the contradictory meaning in them!

Digger71:

ps. I know the phelps are not Catholics, but they feel their actions are just.

Well, considering that they most likely consider him the antichrist, I doubt very highly they base this on any words of the Pope’s.

 

[trustmc]

Digger71:

Homosexuality is no longer a temptation to everyone, it is not like other sins in that regard, but the church is too wedded to apriori arguments from design, so it must find new reasons for its objection. That is, it argues backwards from conclusions.

I don’t know if there was ever a point in history when homosexuality was a common temptation to everyone. Still, that homosexual desires are not universal doesn’t mean that they are not sinful. Murder is not a universal temptation. Neither is rape or pedaristry. These inclinations afflict but a few people, thankfully, but the Church is not going to reverse arguments against these sins either just because they are relatively rare. (A case could be made that should these sins become less, then the temptation for them will increase. But I reserve that argument for another thread.)

What is universal to mankind is the inclination to pervert sexuality in general. This perversion takes on many forms, to include lusting after pornography, masturbation, voyerism, exhibitionism, premarital sex, adultery and prostitution. Some of these sins are more common than others, but not a single one of these sins are universal.

Homosexual desires are prevalent among just 2-5% of the American population according to one of your previous posts. If I’ve read you correctly, you assert then that for about 95% of the population homosexuality is sinful, but not so for the 2-5% who have actual inclinations towards that behavior. I guess a good lawyer could argue then that a client arrested for child molestation did nothing wrong given that such behavior would be perfectly natural for him, with the only objection being if the child consented or not.

It follows then that in the above example a jurist should not be prejudiced against the pedarist’s inclination, nor whether he acts on his temptations, but on rather how he acts on it. This would make “virtual sex” with photographic or computer generated images of kiddie porn morally neutral – even justified according to your reasoning – but morallly repugnant if he seeks sex with actual children, and only then if the sex is forced.

Sexual disorientations of any form are objectively disorded no matter how many ways they are manifested. Sex is necessary for procreation, so much so that the act is designed to bring immense pleasure so that people have the incentive to seek it out despite the enormous responsibilities and sacrifice that come with caring for and protecting children. When sexual pleasure becomes an end rather than a means to an ends, it opens the door to all sorts of abuses, to include, but not limited to, abortion, rape, exploitation and slavery.

While homosexual activity may not have an obvious and immediate victim, it nonetheless reinforces the dangerous notion that sex is primarily for pleasure and only incidental to procreation, thus giving greater justification for other sins with clearer victims. Therefore no sex act that is not open to procreation within a lifelong relationship committed to conceiving and rearing children will be morally upheld by the Catholic Church. Giving credence to those heterosexual married couples who, through no fault of their own, are baren still upholds the procreative design of sex, and does not – like homosexuality – affirm a perversion of it that reinforces further abuse.

Mike

 

[cathgal]

siamesecat:

When a woman goes into have an abortion, most of the time she is scared, upset, and probably very sad about the choice. She feels backed into a corner and doesn’t want to kill her child, she wants to preserve her life. Now I agree with you this can be very selfish and unfair, but women do not do it because they hate babies or children (at least most don’t) or because they want to wipe out the next generation, and they don’t want to see the baby suffer. What is scary about the Holocaust, and I think more so than other genocides where people kill each other over a culture or religious war, is that the very twisted ideas of a few people got everyone in the country swept up in an immense hatred for a group of people. They very calculatedly enjoyed the suffering and those who were privy to what was going on in the Camps wanted to see a race of people eliminated, and they were going to do it well. And people bought into it. People have bought into abortion, but not because they hate children, want to see them wiped out, or want to see them suffer. Abortion is certainly not a good thing, but the horrificness of the Holocaust is much worse IMO due to the fact that normal people like you and me could be turned into such unfeeling people as to enjoy watching people suffer and actually wanting to see them die.

At least with the Holocaust, the world recognize it for what it is. Pure evil. What do the world think of abortion. Except for those who don’t have a moral disorder, most are indifferent to it. They don’t recognize the personhood of the fetus. To them, it’s just a THING to be eliminated. How long has this evil been going on…30+ years of killing… and growing! How long did the Holocaust last. Not even comparable to abortion. What’s more evil than that most of humanity doesn’t recognize abortion for what it is. The most vulnerable of our society are being murdered every minute and most people can care less. There’s no such indifference with the Holocaust. And you think there are no ‘unfeeling people’ with abortion…or ‘the very twisted ideas of a few people’ has mislead thousands into thinking that abortion is just a way of life when it’s an inconvenience. I wouldn’t go so far as to say the Holocaust is more horrific than abortion. Maybe you feel that way because, abortion, after all is a subject ‘unfeeling people’ don’t want to talk about.

 

[trustmc]

(A case could be made that should these sins become less, then the temptation for them will increase. But I reserve that argument for another thread.)

Too many words were cut out here. I meant to say “become less taboo,…”

Mike

 

[St.Sharky]

trustmc:

Homosexual desires are prevalent among just 2-5% of the American population according to one of your previous posts. If I’ve read you correctly, you assert then that for about 95% of the population homosexuality is sinful, but not so for the 2-5% who have actual inclinations towards that behavior.

Mike

Theres a difference between not being homosexual and and finding homosexuality sinful. Not all heterosexuals find homosexuality as scary/confronting/sinful as most of the people here

 

[ElJay]

trustmc:

Your comment reminded of the scene from African Queen starring Katherine Hepburn as a missionary and Humphrey Bogart as a boat captain where he tries to justify to her his alcoholism as being perfectly “natural” given its common occurence in nature.

Hepburn puts down her bible and looks at him over her glasses and says rather matter-of-factly, “I believe we were put on this earth precisely to rise above our nature.”

The truth of the matter is that homosexuality is not natural in that it does not contribute to the furtherance of nature. It is maladaptive, to use a naturalistic term. It prevents the continuance of mankind. That it occurs in nature does not make it natural, anymore than diseases that cause sterility can be called natural. Like them, homosexuality is evidence that nature is “broken” and in need of corrective measures to insure that its flaws do not infect the rest of nature.

Affirming homosexuality as just another lifestyle choice blunts the positive effects of heterosexual, monogamous marriage on successive generations by diminishing the importance of this unique institution and encouraging them to pursue so-called alternative ends that do not foster the best environment for raising children. Two-parent homes are not ideal for the child unless the parents are of the opposite sex.

All sociological statistics show that most social pathologies, such as promiscuity, crime, gang affiliation, drug addiction, school drop out, depression and poor mental health are all caused by a lack of a mother and father in the home, not just merely two parent figures of any sex. Society should work towards upholding and supporting normative heterosexual commitments by finding ways to reduce divorce, and restore the exclusive role of sex in marriage. A rather daunting task to be sure, but not one predicated on failure and defeatism.

Mike

Homosexuality is NOT a lifestyle chioce, it is a genetic trait replicable in laborartory mice, it occurs in species other than our own in nature and is, therefore, normal - for a homosexual to “rise above” their nature would be about as natural as one of you god-fearing individuals to walk out on your family and CHOOSE to be homosexual - i honestly don’t think it’s going to happen. 6% of the worlds population is homosexual and given the ever-expanding nature of of our planets human population, the non-existant offspring of that 6% is hardly going to be missed.

BlindSheep:

Who said anything about how “disgusting homosexuality is to them”? Not me, that’s for certain. I probably should be disgusted by it, since it is a mortal sin, but in all honesty I’m not. If I feel any emotion about it at all, it’s sadness.

Dont feel sad about homosexuals, we’re perfectly happy the way we are

A mortal sin? Oh no! If i was anything other than atheist i would probabally have to care! Nice try everyone - but i’m not convinced that today’s the day i convert and start some research into genetically modifying myself so i am not a walking sin.