S
stewstew03
Guest
You are responding to a point that no one has made. It’s probably best to stick to points that people have actually made.
- Status
C
CandideWest
Guest
???
Take your pick, CW. You can’t have it both ways.
Either the analogous senior citizens baseball team, like an infertile couple, have a possibility of winning/getting pregnant…in which case this illustrates why infertile couples’ unions are moral…
OR!
The senior citizens baseball team, like an infertile couple, will admittedly never achieve the natural end of their activity, yet we see how their play is still ordered towards this end…in which case this illustrates why infertile couples’ unions are moral.
Which is your position?
Er, I think you need to read my posts more carefully. My position is that your analogy fails. In order for it to work you will need to show that either:
a). It is physically impossible for the seniors team to win the game. Not just unlikely etc.
b). All infertile people can actually have children even if they do not have testes etc.
If you cannot show either of those then your analogy fails because the two situations are not analogous.
I
inocente
Guest
Not often I see anyone trying to conflate morality with the law of the land.
Obviously a civil code needs to be legalistic, it’s a legal document.
But after promising your partner to love and cherish her till death parts you, if you then bed someone else it will do you no good to point out that legally you never promised not to, you’ll still break her heart.
This is where these attempts to redefine marriage end up - in baby factories or prenuptial contracts rather than celebrating what is perhaps the deepest relationship two people can ever have.
Discussion of evolution is banned.
Wow, you make everything so complicated. We can’t love our children without an “understanding of the proper purpose of human faculties”?
Is a child not even allowed to love her pet dog without first taking a course in understanding the proper purpose of human faculties?
I
inocente
Guest
S
stewstew03
Guest
You are trying to exploit the fact that no analogy is perfect. You continue to poke at these analogies until you convince yourself they are too weak, with the hope that they will lose their purpose. (Your response to the “gum chewing” analogy was nonsensical: “ah-ha, so Catholics believe gum chewing is immoral!”).
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
L
Lochias
Guest
So God doesn’t act through human agents?
You’re not much of a fan of free-will then.
Tell me, is it God who comes down from Heaven Himself to preach at your church every Sunday, or is it your pastor?
C
CandideWest
Guest
If two situations used in an analogy are not in fact analogous (as I have shown above) then the analogy fails. This is called the “fallacy of the false analogy”.
???
I have shown the the same logic used to reach the conclusion that homosexuality is immoral also reaches the conclusion that chewing gum is immoral. Thus far nobody has identified any errors in the logic there.
If there is one why don’t you point it out and we can discuss?
L
Lochias
Guest
Who, exactly, have you “shown”? The mouse in your pocket?
S
stewstew03
Guest
As I’ve already pointed out, you confuse function with purpose, and I’ve become bored with trying to help you understand the difference…
B
buffalo
Guest
Research Pertinent to the Boy Scouts of America Policy Change Debate
A National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality White Paper
Michelle Cretella, M.D. and David C. Pruden, M.S.
The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) is a professional, scientific organization that offers therapeutic assistance to those who struggle with unwanted homosexuality. As an organization, NARTH disseminates educational information, conducts and collects scientific research, promotes effective therapeutic treatment, and provides referrals to those who seek our assistance.
In keeping with NARTH’s commitment to science and education, NARTH offers the following synopsis of scientific research on homosexuality that may be helpful to the national council of the Boy Scouts of America as it deliberates a change in policy that would allow homosexually-identified youth as members.[1]
****The development of homosexuality is influenced by environment. ****
.
Homosexuality is not an unchangeable biologically determined trait like race. The American Psychological Association reports, “There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles…”[2]
The environment, including family dynamics, peer interactions and other social factors, can contribute significantly to the formation of one’s sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is not fixed at birth but rather is environmentally influenced and unfolds slowly across childhood, adolescence and even into adulthood for some individuals.[3]
more…
A National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality White Paper
Michelle Cretella, M.D. and David C. Pruden, M.S.
The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) is a professional, scientific organization that offers therapeutic assistance to those who struggle with unwanted homosexuality. As an organization, NARTH disseminates educational information, conducts and collects scientific research, promotes effective therapeutic treatment, and provides referrals to those who seek our assistance.
In keeping with NARTH’s commitment to science and education, NARTH offers the following synopsis of scientific research on homosexuality that may be helpful to the national council of the Boy Scouts of America as it deliberates a change in policy that would allow homosexually-identified youth as members.[1]
****The development of homosexuality is influenced by environment. ****
.
Homosexuality is not an unchangeable biologically determined trait like race. The American Psychological Association reports, “There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles…”[2]
The environment, including family dynamics, peer interactions and other social factors, can contribute significantly to the formation of one’s sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is not fixed at birth but rather is environmentally influenced and unfolds slowly across childhood, adolescence and even into adulthood for some individuals.[3]
more…
I
inocente
Guest
If you look back, the actual claim was first that only God ought to mete out justice (post #908) and then that this doesn’t preclude God acting through “properly ordained human instruments” (post #976). The claim is therefore that those “properly ordained human instruments” being acted upon by God rather than their own free will, which is what might be called a novel theology - there’s a difference between saying someone is inspired by God and saying someone is God’s robot.
Interesting as these excursions might be, they remain off-topic.
C
CandideWest
Guest
Anyone who has read this thread. You can take a look for yourself if you like, it’s on post 945.Who, exactly, have you “shown”? The mouse in your pocket?
C
CandideWest
Guest
And as you yourself showed, chewing gum fails both the “purpose” and the “function” of the act of chewing (as you described them). So the argument still holds.
If you believe there is a genuine failing in the argument then by all means identify it. But don’t claim that the argument fails without giving a reason, that is just futile.
S
stewstew03
Guest
Please refer to post 953.
A
Acrossthedesert
Guest
There is nothing wrong with chewing gum. In any event, why is this analogy relevant to the subject of this thread?
Also, just because a Catholic makes a proposition, doesn’t necessarily make the proposition “a Catholic belief”. Read the Catholic Catechism and its references to understand the teaching.
**Catholic teaching cannot be had on the back of a bubble gum wrapper. **
That should be overtly obvious.
C
CandideWest
Guest
I was, that is the post where you showed that chewing gum fails both the “purpose” and the “function” of the act of chewing (as you described them).
S
stewstew03
Guest
Nope. Read it again. Then fill in the blanks:
The purpose of chewing food is _______________.
The function of chewing is ______________.
L
Lochias
Guest
I didn’t see anything enlightening in that post, I’m afraid.Anyone who has read this thread. You can take a look for yourself if you like, it’s on post 945.
Methinks you presume a tad too much.
C
CandideWest
Guest
It isn’t an analogy, it’s simply applying a logical argument (one which is used to argue that homosexuality is disordered and as such immoral) to a different act.
It’s relevance is that arguments were raised that homosexual sex is disordered and thus immoral. So I am exploring that argument.
I’m trying to understand the way Catholics on this forum understand / use the term “disordered”. Thus far it appears that both homosexual sex and chewing gum are “disordered”.
Who said anything to the contrary?
C
CandideWest
Guest
This is rather silly, you already wrote those things. Here I’ll quote it for you.
There, see?
It’s a pretty dodgy definition to be honest as the former is so vague as to be more or less worthless.
But even so the logic still holds because chewing gum (obviously) neither obtains sustenance nor breaks down food. Therefore chewing fails both the purpose and the function of chewing. Thus following the previous logic it is disordered and immoral.
- Status