Pro-Gay in the name of tolerance

[Mirdath]

Natural desire makes something not sinful is what you believe?

No.

Just because animals do it makes it OK?

It doesn’t make it evil, at least.

You don’t think these beliefs are obsurd?

Less absurd than I happen to find yours

So then we should live by the law of the jungle?

Whether we should or not, we basically do. There’s a thin layer of civilized behavior over that but all too often it’s ignored. Might does not make right; there are certain rights and responsibilities entailed in the state of being human.

That is the crux of it, as a Catholic we believe we are more than just animals and that we are called to a higher purpose. We allow our rational minds to control how we act and not our animal instincts. We believe divine revelation has shown us how to live and we strive to live as God wants us to.

Good for you! (I’m not poking fun here, if you have faith in God that’s a good thing, just please respect my lack of that faith)

The candy argument is non-sense as well. It is unjust that I can not run like LaDanian Tomlinson? It is unjust I can’t sing like Whitney Houston? It is unjust when one person is born rich and one is not? Is it unjust that everyone does not receive candy?

No, no, no, yes. Respectively. My ideal world is not that of Vonnegut’s Harrison Bergeron, but one in which a teacher gives out candy to all children in the class, not just those who aren’t wearing blue. There’s a difference between talent and mentality. It should be pretty easy to spot.

I have also repeated over and over how it is not discrimination yet you don’t get it. Love is not something that can be defined legally so you can’t say they are discrimnated against because they can’t marry someone they love.

I don’t get it because it is discrimination! The fact that there are no law-books written on the subject of love is completely irrelevant: people like to get up and say a lot of words ending with ‘I do’, and if all parties concerned are willing and able, why should the government get in their way based merely on what’s between their legs?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

As someone who prefers to think of and use words as daggers and barbs, I heartily appreciate this

You ‘prefer to think of and use words as daggers and barbs?’

But doesn’t that mean that your intent in communication is to draw blood? To pierce, to twist a knife into a person, to cut, to slice, to hurt another human being?

Just the idea that this is how you ‘think of’ and how you use the tools of communication saddens me. A human being given the marvelous gift of words, and to use them in such a way, deliberately. It nearly makes me weep.

How can you possibly expect to engage in communication–not just with any person here, but with any person, anywhere, when your communication is based on nothing but daggers and barbs?

I pity you. You must have suffered terribly deep in your soul to have such a view of words that your ‘desire’ is to use them ‘as daggers and barbs’. How sad, that you would embrace the idea of such injury in words to others as satisfying your desire. Again, the thought of such misery nearly makes me weep.

I will pray for you to find peace and relief. All things are possible with God and you also were redeemed through the sacrifice of His Beloved Son. You can try to set yourself ‘beyond the pale’ but even ‘hurting us’ won’t really succeed. You are loved. Your words in the end are ‘nothing’. Your soul is all. May it be one day part of the glorious chorus who sing eternally, “Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God of Power and Might.”

 

[BlazingBolt]

Just because animals do it makes it OK?

It doesn’t make it evil, at least.

There are countless things that animals do naturally that if humans did them would be evil. Some animals kill their mates, eat their young, kill each other, etc. etc.
We can not base morallity, or good and evil if you will, on how animals behave.

What is important is to determine what you think does determine morallity. For a Catholic it is God. For the atheist they determine their own morallity. You think my morallity is obsurd while I think basing your morallity on the law of the jungle is obsurd. The governments of the world should base laws on ethics which I don’t know much about but I guess they should be based on a rule of live and let live. From a secular position their is nothing wrong with homo-sexual behavior and there should not be laws against it.

People’s lack of faith is respected and you are free to believe homo-sexuallity is pure wholesome and healthy if you want. I have simply explained to why it is immoral for a believer and unless you have faith you will never understand these reasons.

In your candy argument you say there is a difference between talent and mentallity. (I assume your arguing that church should find it morally acceptable on these grounds) I don’t see your point. Again some people have a mentallity to be a pedophile, some are violent, etc. Now I agree that homo-sexuallity is different because there is 2 consenting parties and should not be regulated since there are no victims but clearly because one is given a certain mentallity does not entitle them to pursue it in regards to morallity.

Legally the law does not discriminate. People can get up and say I do if they want to. Legally we all have the same rights regardless of orientation. Do bathrooms and schools and such that segregate by sex perform some injustice? Same sex unions with new civil liberties with them is a new right and one that would allow heterosexual room-mates to gain tax benefits and whatever else as well. But should brothers be allowed to enter in to these unions? If then should Brother and Sister gain these rights too? Why not allow consenting adults to enter in to these unions with multiple people (no victims, all consenting adults right)?

 

[Wolseley]

Homosexuality isn’t abnormal either – it occurs with animals.

Oh, so now animal behavior is what defines normality? In that case…

Cannibalism isn’t unnatural either—that also occurs with animals.

Copraphagia isn’t unnatural either—that also occurs with animals.

Eating vomit isn’t unnatural either—that also occurs with animals.

Killing your partner after sex isn’t unnatural either—that also occurs with animals.

“Check six, Ghostrider…I read you as three up and locked.”

 

[goofyjim]

This thread is getting a little testy. It seems noone can understand my lighthearted approach to the situation. I’ll repeat-the acts are sinful but God may throw the homosexual condition to some to keep us from contributing to an excessive rising population. God’s form of birth control so the heterosexual population doesn’t have to practice it.

Again I have often viewed myself as proof that some are born homosexual because of all the psychologicla theories none fit me. I grew up in a normal suburban family where we didn’t talk about sex but same sex attraction was there long before I could put a name on it. Why can we not tolerate at least that bit of a difference in some of us instead of shipping us off to some shrink for proper conditioning?

 

[goofyjim]

BTW I believe one can have a homosexual orientation and be pleasantly happy, therefore gay.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Jim, I’ve heard it said that “a soft answer turneth away wrath.”

God bless you. And please keep us all in your prayers, dear brother.

 

[Mirdath]

You ‘prefer to think of and use words as daggers and barbs?’

In debate, of course I do! Arguments are fights, only the weapons are words and the movements grammar. It’s a beautiful thing to watch a master of rhetoric take an opponent’s points apart piece by piece.

But doesn’t that mean that your intent in communication is to draw blood? To pierce, to twist a knife into a person, to cut, to slice, to hurt another human being?

In debate, not usual communication – I may like my jokes like I like my coffee (black and bitter), but I don’t mean to wound people. And I’m good enough with language to be able to speak without causing unintentional harm most of the time. Intentional harm is, of course, quite possible; however, doing that doesn’t win one any friends, so I generally avoid it.

Just the idea that this is how you ‘think of’ and how you use the tools of communication saddens me. A human being given the marvelous gift of words, and to use them in such a way, deliberately. It nearly makes me weep.

How can you possibly expect to engage in communication–not just with any person here, but with any person, anywhere, when your communication is based on nothing but daggers and barbs?

I pity you. You must have suffered terribly deep in your soul to have such a view of words that your ‘desire’ is to use them ‘as daggers and barbs’. How sad, that you would embrace the idea of such injury in words to others as satisfying your desire. Again, the thought of such misery nearly makes me weep.

You wound me to the quick! How can you expect me to take your pity seriously when you use the same techniques as I both in the debate and here apart from it? Don’t be ashamed of me because I find rhetoric a thing of beauty and grace even at its most vicious.

I will pray for you to find peace and relief. All things are possible with God and you also were redeemed through the sacrifice of His Beloved Son. You can try to set yourself ‘beyond the pale’ but even ‘hurting us’ won’t really succeed. You are loved. Your words in the end are ‘nothing’. Your soul is all. May it be one day part of the glorious chorus who sing eternally, “Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God of Power and Might.”

I do not use my verbal weapons against you, but against your arguments – your own weapons. Were I trying to hurt anyone here, I’m pretty sure I could’ve done a good enough job of it to have already been banned. My intent in being here is to debate, discuss, and both learn about and teach others about differing points of view we may know little about. Sometimes all that requires a little verbal sparring, which I enjoy and appreciate.

---

Jim, I get it – without religious belief I don’t hold to it, but it’s fun

God’s got one nasty sense of humor if you’re right too…

 

[BlazingBolt]

This thread is getting a little testy. It seems noone can understand my lighthearted approach to the situation. I’ll repeat-the acts are sinful but God may throw the homosexual condition to some to keep us from contributing to an excessive rising population. God’s form of birth control so the heterosexual population doesn’t have to practice it.

Again I have often viewed myself as proof that some are born homosexual because of all the psychologicla theories none fit me. I grew up in a normal suburban family where we didn’t talk about sex but same sex attraction was there long before I could put a name on it. Why can we not tolerate at least that bit of a difference in some of us instead of shipping us off to some shrink for proper conditioning?

I agree with you goofyjim and I do not think anyone is disagreeing with you. I don’t see anyone claiming that orientation is a choice and you are proof that having a homo-sexual orientation is nothing wrong that needs to be “fixed” and that it does not mean you can not be an excellent Catholic and lead an upright Catholic moral life style. I agree with you also in finding fault with both pro-gay and anti-gay positions. Homo-sexuals are free to do whatever they want in their bedrooms but they can’t do it if they want to live a moral life according to the Church. Many can’t accept the Church’s morals and choose to live however they want and I am not just talking about homo-sexuals.

I only attempt to explain why homosexual acts are immoral in the eyes of the Church and to defend the objections against her position.

 

[setter]

BTW I believe one can have a homosexual orientation and be pleasantly happy, therefore gay.

Homosexual orientation = “gay” in your formulation? This is a different definition that the common socio-political usage understanding.

 

[setter]

…the religious right who insinuate a connection between AIDS and the homosexual condition as though it is God’s divine punishment on a group of people.

A temporal consequence/punishment for sin is sickness and unhealth in mind, body, soul and spirit. Illicit sex yields just this (weakened conscience, STD epidemic, eternal damnation, darkenened spirit) and yes homosexual sex is highly susceptible to the transmission of HIV/AIDS. You violate God’s natural moral law, and bad things happen. It is a simple as that. It does no one any favor to minimize the negative effect violating the Creator’s design and the eternal consequence of unrepentent mortal sin.

 

[setter]

I am not going to debate the morality or immorality of various forms of sex with you. You have your beliefs, I have mine, and while I can muster a certain amount of respect or at least apathy towards yours you don’t seem to be able to do the same for mine.

‘Morally’ according to a source I do not draw my moral standards from. You’re free to disagree, all I ask is you say your piece and not harp endlessly on it.

The mantra of moral relativism.

 

[setter]

No one can force another to change a belief. That seems impossible. One can offer information, but how can one force another to stop holding a belief? What we can do is change the civil law so that improper, and disordered, behavior is not inflicted on the population.

No one can force conversion of mind or heart. Conversion to the truth is ultimately the work of the Holy Spirit, who even then cannot force conversion upon a person. Pretty frightening how much God loves us that He respects our human freedom to the point of allowing one of his creatures to reject the offer of His perfect and pure love for all eternity.

 

[dapper]

Mirdath, I just found this thread and wanted to say BRAVO for having the strength and fortitude to respond to every one of the posts and arguements within. I have had discussions on this Forum (and others forums) on this very topic and have played the lone gunman but have never seen such a display of staying power such as yours. Again, bravo. :clapping:

Looking forward to reading more and responding!

 

[Mirdath]

A temporal consequence/punishment for sin is sickness and unhealth in mind, body, soul and spirit. Illicit sex yields just this (weakened conscience, STD epidemic, eternal damnation, darkenened spirit) and yes homosexual sex is highly susceptible to the transmission of HIV/AIDS. You violate God’s natural moral law, and bad things happen. It is a simple as that. It does no one any favor to minimize the negative effect violating the Creator’s design and the eternal consequence of unrepentent mortal sin.

Anal sex of any orientation has a higher risk of passing HIV than vaginal – and even the rate in the latter is plenty high since the vagina is still a mucous membrane. Rates have been on the rise in heterosexuals as well as homosexuals, especially in women. Nor is it passed only by sex – it can go through saliva, blood, dirty needles (both in hospitals and on the street). If this is God’s punishment of homosexuals, he’s doing an incredibly poor job of keeping it focused for an omnipotent being.

The mantra of moral relativism.

The mantra of someone who’s been annoyed by poor debate and doesn’t want to get any more sidetracked. I’ve not preached relativism here; all I’ve asked for is a little courtesy and respect toward people who are wired differently from your ideal.

I believe there are things which are intrinsically, absolutely wrong; it’s just a slightly different and much shorter list than the one you’ve got. That would be an absolutist position, no?

No one can force conversion of mind or heart. Conversion to the truth is ultimately the work of the Holy Spirit, who even then cannot force conversion upon a person. Pretty frightening how much God loves us that He respects our human freedom to the point of allowing one of his creatures to reject the offer of His perfect and pure love for all eternity.

People can be broken, sad but true.

I don’t find free will frightening; it’s a grave responsibility, yes, but one that comes with being human and must be met. Burdens are lighter when you aren’t shackled to them.

 

[skuld]

Haven’t you heard?

Tolerance now officially means ‘acceptance’. If you don’t accept everything from homosexuality to abortion, you aren’t ‘tolerant.’

I’m not sure if you were being sarcastic, but yes, tolerance does mean “acceptance.” If you tolerate homosexuality and abortion, you accept homosexuality and abortion. Fortunately, tolerating/accepting people of different beliefs does not mean one has to personally practice those nasty activities one so abhors!

 

[renee1258]

A temporal consequence/punishment for sin is sickness and unhealth in mind, body, soul and spirit. Illicit sex yields just this (weakened conscience, STD epidemic, eternal damnation, darkenened spirit) and yes homosexual sex is highly susceptible to the transmission of HIV/AIDS. You violate God’s natural moral law, and bad things happen. It is a simple as that. It does no one any favor to minimize the negative effect violating the Creator’s design and the eternal consequence of unrepentent mortal sin.

AIDS doesn’t discriminate on sexual orientation. AIDS is a virus, that is easily past through specific sexual acts and not others. AIDS needs an opening to get into the body, as with the most common homoseuxal act there is much tearing that occurings. The most common sexual act between heteroseuxals does not have tearing, because the vaginal wall is elastic in nature. Most STDs transmitted through heterosexuals cause infertility in women though. If more heteroseuxal engaged in anal sex and had the same amount of numerous partners, that we would see number par to par in relative populations.

I find it odd instead of discouraging anal sex in homoseuxals, in sex education (at least mine 15 years ago) told teenager girls to experiement it because we wouldn’t get pregnant and still satisfy the sex partner.

 

[Mirdath]

AIDS needs an opening to get into the body, as with the most common homoseuxal act there is much tearing that occurings.

Anal sex is far from the most common act among homosexuals – guys still find it messy and inconvenient, and you’re forgetting lesbianism entirely

I find it odd instead of discouraging anal sex in homoseuxals, in sex education (at least mine 15 years ago) told teenager girls to experiement it because we wouldn’t get pregnant and still satisfy the sex partner.

That’s just weird, and potentially quite harmful; I’ve also heard stories of girls doing that because they ‘didn’t want to lose their virginity’, and anal somehow doesn’t count for that. I don’t see it – virginity/innocence to me is far more a mental than a physical state.

 

[fix]

Homosexuality isn’t abnormal either – it occurs with animals. It’s only your moral standards that qualify it as ‘unnatural’.

My moral standards are not determined by me. I accept there exists an objective standard outside of me. That is one way I know your position is complete moral relativism. You claim your position is based on “fact” when all you offer is your opinion as to why unnatural behavior should be held to be natural. Your logic would lead us to conclude many things are natural because we decide to call them natural regardless of philosophical and moral proof they are unnatural.

The proofs are lacking – or at the very least, they’ve got severe holes and weaknesses. Even Immanuel Kant, who was religious, took the time to break proofs of the existence of God because he believed that to try to shoehorn divinity into logic was a useless exercise.

This is another thread, but no proof can be held as true if we deny the basis for our humanity. I can see why your argument seems to always go back to lower animals as the touchstone for authority.

I invite you to actually back that statement up – in pm or another thread though.

That statement is what this thread is all about.

I am not going to debate the morality or immorality of various forms of sex with you. You have your beliefs, I have mine, and while I can muster a certain amount of respect or at least apathy towards yours you don’t seem to be able to do the same for mine.

Another central point in this thread. Why would a reasonable person be expected to accept seriously immoral activity as something to be held as non problematic for society? It would be akin to asking me to hold that heroin use is good for society because some folks claim it is. Or, that I should believe heroin use is Ok for you, but not for me.

 

[Mirdath]

My moral standards are not determined by me. I accept there exists an objective standard outside of me. That is one way I know your position is complete moral relativism. You claim your position is based on “fact” when all you offer is your opinion as to why unnatural behavior should be held to be natural. Your logic would lead us to conclude many things are natural because we decide to call them natural regardless of philosophical and moral proof they are unnatural.

Why do I keep getting accused of relativism for subscribing to a different absolute moral code and not demanding everyone agree with me? It’s getting to be ridiculous.

Natural? What do philosophical and moral proofs have to do with nature? Animal homosexuality is an observed occurrence; therefore, it is found in nature; therefore, it is natural – ‘of nature’. Philosophy and morals are entirely irrelevant to that. They only come into play when you debate its rightness, not whether or not it is ‘natural’.

This is another thread, but no proof can be held as true if we deny the basis for our humanity. I can see why your argument seems to always go back to lower animals as the touchstone for authority.

I’m not arguing the morality of homosexuality with you anyway, and this thread is about ‘tolerance’. My principal argument here really needs no lower animals as I’m not trying to prove anything about its morality or ethicality; I merely submit that all humans deserve respect and the freedom to live their lives as they choose so long as they harm no one without consent.

That statement is what this thread is all about.

So back it up.

Another central point in this thread. Why would a reasonable person be expected to accept seriously immoral activity as something to be held as non problematic for society? It would be akin to asking me to hold that heroin use is good for society because some folks claim it is. Or, that I should believe heroin use is Ok for you, but not for me.

The morality or immorality of others’ actions has no effect on society as a whole unless and until they actively harm someone else. You keep claiming it’s bad for society, but you can’t bring anything in to back it up. Until you can, your argument is utterly worthless.

Heroin? Heroin and other opiates have inspired poets, writers, musicians, artists, and others for ages – and that’s an incontrovertible benefit. A world without Coleridge’s Kubla Khan (written entirely while the poet was in an opium-induced trance) would be a far less beautiful one. It’s a double-edged sword though – as a cleaned-up junkie, I can say from experience that it’s quite definitely bad for people. But the principal detriment to society is not in the drug itself, it’s in the black market that has sprung up due to its illegality.