Same sex attraction

[Betterave]

I have made salient points which you have uniformly failed to address, instead you have attacked the method of my debate and called me names. Now, I’m pretty thick skinned, so it doesn’t bother me, but neither does it move the conversation forward.

You’re so thick-skinned that it apparently doesn’t bother you that you’ve ignored my arguments and fed me a bunch of straw man silliness - and continue to do so. What to do?

You’ve called me arrogant (“Since you know everything, blah blah blah”). Why is this? Because I’ve pointed out that your arguments are sophomoric? But they are! Your responding to this by telling me I’ve insulted you and that I think I know everything is based on WHAT? Could it be: your own arrogance, your own arrogant refusal to consider the possibility that what I’ve said is true? Wouldn’t that be ironic… but it’s possible, isn’t it??

 

[Seeker2010]

So no, until you address my points, I have nothing further to say to you. Not my method, but the actual points.

 

[Betterave]

How typical that you attack the method of my argument, but not the message.

This is another false dichotomy. If your method is cuckoo (e.g., your arguments are all straw mans), that means that your message has no credibility. They’re connected!

Your book tells a story of a very interactive god. He spoke with many people, performed miracles, smited entire cities, made war on entire populations. Caused the earth to stop rotating in it’s orbit (though the story says the sun stopped, as the sources of your religion were so ignorant they thought the sun revolved around the earth.)

If he did all of that, he’s capable of making his presence known, not to my satisfaction, but in such a way that it’s impossible for ANYONE of sound mind to deny.

Obviously He is capable of that. So what?

Given that his demands of us are faith and obedience, he could accomplish 100% compliance by doing so.

Non sequitur: knowledge does not imply compliance.

Instead he ‘influences’ the thoughts of a single individual and we’re collectively just supposed to take that individuals word for it, and obey his commands.

No we’re not. I’ve already pointed out that this is a gross caricature. Why do you just ignore that? That is sophomoric. I’m not calling you names here. That’s just a fact.

Does that really seem reasonable to you? I guess it must. Since you know everything.

Again, that is sophomoric - it just is, for the reasons given: you’ve got your head down and you’re just plowing ahead with your stupid straw man.

Me, I admit there’s more than I don’t know than there is that I do.

So what? Do you think you deserve congratulations for this? You need to actually act like there’s a lot more that you don’t know than there is that you do. This merely formal admission is pretty worthless.

I believe there is a supernatural creator, a ‘god’ if you will. After all, we are here! But I see no credibility in the documents given to us by mere mortal men from thousands of years ago, and your arrogance in your dealings with me and others is not making progress convincing me I have erred in my conclusions.

What arrogance? Please read my comments on libel. Like BS, you’re just making stupid insulting assertions here based on the fact that you don’t like what I’ve said, rather than based on the fact that what I’ve said is unjustified.

 

[JChapel]

…and so the flame war and personal attacks continue.

Might I suggest attacking the idea instead of the person?

 

[Betterave]

Originally Posted by Seeker2010
So no, until you address my points, I have nothing further to say to you. Not my method, but the actual points.

You’re like the guy who keeps walking into the closed door and saying “see? - I can’t get in.” Someone tells him he needs to open the door first, and so what does he do? He walks into the door again and says, “see? - I told you I couldn’t get in!”

 

[Betterave]

…and so the flame war and personal attacks continue.

Might I suggest attacking the idea instead of the person?

Might I suggest referring this comment to something specific please?

 

[Betterave]

So from now on, please keep your rude comments to yourself. Actually address the topic rather than resorting to putting others down.

Please take your own advice here.

 

[JChapel]

You’re so thick-skinned

Could it be: your own arrogance, your own arrogant refusal to consider the possibility that what I’ve said is true? Wouldn’t that be ironic… but it’s possible, isn’t it??

That is sophomoric

Again, that is sophomoric

Do you think you deserve congratulations for this?

…you’re just making stupid insulting assertions

There you are.

 

[Betterave]

There you are.

I think those comments were addressed to ideas. Please show me one that was not - maybe you didn’t understand it and I can explain.

 

[Seeker2010]

Obviously He is capable of that. So what? Non sequitur: knowledge does not imply compliance.

Ah, we have actual substance. Excellent!

So here is the question. If he is capable of doing so, why doesn’t he? After all, the penalty for a lack of belief is eternal damnation, we’re told god wants salvation for all, so he could ensure a lot more belief by showing himself. And you are right, knowledge does not directly imply compliance, but faced with an indisputable fact that lack of belief and/or specific actions will cause eternal damnation will cause most people to comply.

It being an indisputable fact is very different from “Well, I know this or that religion SAYS this or that action (or belief) will lead to eternal damnation, but I don’t believe that to be true so I see no reason to comply.”

At 9:30AM this coming Tuesday, I may feel the desire to masturbate. However, if I happen to be in public I will refrain from doing so because the risk of arrest is virtually 100%, and I don’t want to go to jail. However, if I am home and my blinds are pulled I might do it. But, if I know, indisputably, that doing so will result in a trip to hell forever, I’m going to refrain to avoid that, as my understanding is jail is a walk in the park compared to hell, and if I’m willing to abstain to avoid jail, I’m doubly willing to abstain to avoid hell. Whether or not I agree with it.

Obviously, I don’t believe that, and I certainly don’t KNOW it, so if I am in appropriate circumstances and desire to masturbate, I guess I will.

But if god wants salvation for me, but will in actuality send me to hell for masturbating, why not show himself to me (I’m using the first person here, but this is just an example and really applies to everyone) so that I will be more inclined to obey and subsequently receive salvation?

No we’re not. I’ve already pointed out that this is a gross caricature.

If you did so, I missed it. Did you point it out (e.g. explain yourself) or merely declare it so?

 

[BlueShadow123]

Please take your own advice here.

I never called anybody any names, so I don’t know what you’re on about.

Actually, I was the one to tell YOU not to call people ignorant and immature.
That is no way to debate somebody. It wont get you anywhere.

 

[Betterave]

I never called anybody any names, so I don’t know what you’re on about.

LOL! As I’ve pointed out, neither did I. Here was the advice which I asked you to follow (I’ll ask you again):

“So from now on, please keep your rude comments to yourself. Actually address the topic rather than resorting to putting others down.”

 

[JChapel]

I think those comments were addressed to ideas. Please show me one that was not - maybe you didn’t understand it and I can explain.

I’m not saying that they weren’t, but the way they are presented makes them look like personal attacks. In other words, instead of saying:

You’re so thick-skinned that it apparently doesn’t bother you that you’ve ignored my arguments and fed me a bunch of straw man silliness.

…you could have just left it at:

You seem to have ignored my arguments and fed me a bunch of straw man silliness.

…and instead of using the line “that is sophomoric”, which is basically a sophisticated way of flaming the other poster for making childish arguments (not that said arguments aren’t necessarily childish), you could, again, just leave out the comment and point out the logical fallacy and/or just respond in a less condescending manner.

For example, to this:

Does that really seem reasonable to you? I guess it must. Since you know everything.

Instead of this:

Again, that is sophomoric - it just is, for the reasons given: you’ve got your head down and you’re just plowing ahead with your stupid straw man.

…this would have been more appropriate:

I don’t know everything, but you’ve got your head down and you’re just plowing ahead with your straw man.

To conclude, if you have to resort to (directly or indirectly) attacking your opposition just to get your point across, you aren’t getting very far above their level, and are instead inviting further unsupported back-talking. If your reader respects you, they will respect your point.

BTW: It isn’t just you, Betterave. I think everyone who has posted on the last page or two should be reading this.

 

[BlueShadow123]

LOL! As I’ve pointed out, neither did I. Here was the advice which I asked you to follow (I’ll ask you again):

“So from now on, please keep your rude comments to yourself. Actually address the topic rather than resorting to putting others down.”

My comment wasn’t rude! I asked you to quit calling him immature and ignorant!

Then you twist it on me saying that I was the one being rude by telling YOU to quit calling others names?

Yeah, I don’t think so. Ive had enough of you and your games. Grow up.

 

[John21652]

The topic of this thread is “Same sex attraction”.

It is rather obvious the topic is not being addressed and everyone is bogged down in semantics.

So here is my view.

Same sex attraction is a disorder of human sexuality. Regardless of whether it is something the afflicted people are born with, or develop, the fact is, it is an abnormality of human sexual attraction.One does not need to do a whole lot of research to realise that many of those who are thus afflicted, lament that affliction.

However, the point is, same sex attraction is not a crime. Nor, according to the Catholic Church, is same sex attraction a moral wrong unless that same sex attraction is acted upon and homosexual activities are entered into. Homosexual activities are very disordered, unnatural and immoral according to Church dogma and also according to the Natural Law, upon which Church doctrine is based.

Here is what the Catholic Church’s catechism has to say on the subject -

**2357 **Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,140 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."141 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
**2358 **The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
**2359 **Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

Secular laws ending discrimination to to people who must endure same sex attraction is one thing. The Catechism as quoted above actually supports this non-discriminatory view. However, secular laws giving equality to a disordered sexuality is giving credence to that disorder and giving that disorder credence has serious social ramifications. Many of those social ramifications are becoming apparent now and society is suffereing because of them.

 

[BlueShadow123]

I agree it is abnormal but not to be considered a disease.

An animals instinct is to reproduce, so being gay basically throws that off track. Although the gay population is really small, I really do wonder if they are born that way. I don’t think it is right for God to allow that to even happen especially since he says its an abomination. That just screws with somebodies mind. Never to be able to be married to the person you love because its an abomination? Yeah, it would really upset me if people are truly born that way, because that means God would have allowed it to be a possibility. And that just breaks my heart, because it messes with their feelings. Big time. Although I do know some people who actually chose to be gay because these days a lot of people are bisexual, especially the younger generation. Only about 3 of my friends chose to be bisexual to fit in with their crowd that they hang out with. Which to me, is just disgusting to choose something like that on PURPOSE but they obviously felt pressured to…

Anyways, back to what I was saying, I am still waiting on science to determine wether they are truly born gay or not. So far we have ‘well maybe due to this study and that study…’ but there is no 100% proof, and thats what we should look for.

 

[davidv]

I agree it is abnormal but not to be considered a disease.

Would it make any difference if it was a disease?

An animals instinct is to reproduce, so being gay basically throws that off track. Although the gay population is really small, I really do wonder if they are born that way. I don’t think it is right for God to allow that to even happen especially since he says its an abomination.

Moral evil entered the world because mankind misused his free will. How would you know that there is a better way than the one laid out by God?

That just screws with somebodies mind. Never to be able to be married to the person you love because its an abomination? Yeah, it would really upset me if people are truly born that way, because that means God would have allowed it to be a possibility. And that just breaks my heart, because it messes with their feelings. Big time. Although I do know some people who actually chose to be gay because these days a lot of people are bisexual, especially the younger generation. Only about 3 of my friends chose to be bisexual to fit in with their crowd that they hang out with. Which to me, is just disgusting to choose something like that on PURPOSE but they obviously felt pressured to…

How are these feelings any different than those related to the many other disorders that inflict themselves on mankind?

Anyways, back to what I was saying, I am still waiting on science to determine wether they are truly born gay or not. So far we have ‘well maybe due to this study and that study…’ but there is no 100% proof, and thats what we should look for.

From a moral behavioral perspective it really doesn’t matter whether one is born with it, or develops from environmental facts or is a combination.

 

[Seeker2010]

Many of those social ramifications are becoming apparent now and society is suffereing because of them.

Really? Care to point some out to us, because off the top of my head I cannot think of anything.

 

[Seeker2010]

An animals instinct is to reproduce, so being gay basically throws that off track.

Does that make homosexuals who choose not to have children abnormal as well? (Please note I’m using the word from the perspective of a value judgment. Wherein abnormal=bad. If you mean statistically abnormal, I agree with you, both homosexuals and probably child-free-by-choice heterosexuals are statistically abnormal.)

 

[Seeker2010]

How are these feelings any different than those related to the many other disorders that inflict themselves on mankind?

There is a disease, I forget the name, but it causes humans to always be hungry (well, starving actually) regardless of if they have recently consumed the entire all you can eat bar. As you might imagine, it’s a horrible condition, and family members in many cases resort to literally locking up available food, as overeating has both short term as well as long term consequences.

It’s is also said that gluttony is one of the seven deadly sins that will send you to hell for eternity.

Do you think a person with this disease who, because of the disease, is in fact gluttonous would be sent to hell for that?

No, I don’t either.

To me, homosexuality is the same thing. Homosexuals are not responsible for their condition any more than the disease I mentioned above.