Spain's new cardinal says homosexuality a 'defect'

  • Thread starter Thread starter _Abyssinia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Joie_de_Vivre said:
Even if the etiology is biological in nature it can still be morally disordered.

Malthusians.

Old people do have a tendency to be less aware of modern science. The theology of this is not terribly complicated.
Giving advice in the confessional≠proper counseling
Click to expand...
Old people do have a tendency to be less aware of modern science. The theology of this is not terribly complicated.
Click to expand...
This has nothing to do with the Cardinal’s ability to understand the subject. It is stereotyping just as much as saying anything else.
Giving advice in the confessional≠proper counseling
Click to expand...
This can be true but it is foolish to discount experience on this matter. It is more than yours.
Francis has neither made negative comments regarding gay people nor has he suggested it is curable
Click to expand...
I believe that the pope has not made negative comments, so we are in agreement there. But many view his comments such as homosexuals adopting children to be child abuse and that homosexual marriage is demonic which he made as Cardinal to be negative. I just find them truthful.👍

I never asserted he said they were curable, nor even that he agrees with this Cardinal. But I think a prince of the Church who was just recently appointed should be listened to and respected. We also should weigh his comments more than some joe schmoe off the street. Pope Francis thought enough of this man to appoint him, he seems to think he has some sort of mental capacity to speak to this issue. Or perhaps the Pope does not understand modern science either because of his age.🤷
Click to expand...
 
Hoosier_Daddy said:
This has nothing to do with the Cardinal’s ability to understand the subject. It is stereotyping just as much as saying anything else.
Click to expand...
notice the word “tendency”
Hoosier_Daddy said:
This can be true but it is foolish to discount experience on this matter. It is more than yours.
Click to expand...
A fireman spends a lot of time in buildings and learns about things such as load bearing pipes, this doesn’t make him an engineer or architect.
Hoosier_Daddy said:
I believe that the pope has not made negative comments, so we are in agreement there. But many view his comments such as homosexuals adopting children to be child abuse and that homosexual marriage is demonic which he made as Cardinal to be negative. I just find them truthful.👍

I never asserted he said they were curable, nor even that he agrees with this Cardinal. But I think a prince of the Church who was just recently appointed should be listened to and respected. We also should weigh his comments more than some joe schmoe off the street. Pope Francis thought enough of this man to appoint him, he seems to think he has some sort of mental capacity to speak to this issue. Or perhaps the Pope does not understand modern science either because of his age.🤷
Click to expand...
He hasn’t said anything of the sort as Pope.

I agree he should be listened to and respected this is why I am waiting for the full quote and not just a soundbite. Maybe he was appointed over general theology and administrative ability as opposed to his capacity to speak on only homosexuality.
 
ringil said:
Francis has made no comment that homosexuality can be changed or corrected. This is not doctrine.
Click to expand...
He doesn’t have to, the Catechism is clear, homosexuality is not natural and by inference can change. Science has proven that as well, in spite of what the gay lobby tells us.
 
Are the ex’s people who, at one point in their lives, said, “I am gay,” and subsequently said, “I am no longer gay,” or are they people who had one or more same sex experiences at one point in their lives but never identified themselves as being gay? Because there is a big debate over what actually constitutes “gay.”

Whatever, I don’t really care much, just asking for curiosity’s sake and I like research.
 
on_the_hill said:
Are the ex’s people who, at one point in their lives, said, “I am gay,” and subsequently said, “I am no longer gay,” or are they people who had one or more same sex experiences at one point in their lives but never identified themselves as being gay? Because there is a big debate over what actually constitutes “gay.”

Whatever, I don’t really care much, just asking for curiosity’s sake and I like research.
Click to expand...
It is defined by sexual desire. It is a myth that homosexual desire cannot change. The gay lobby’s justification revolves around this one issue. That is why those who support it, even Catholics, will fight tooth and nail to do either minimize the importance or outright claim it has a biological genesis.
 
poker10 said:
Really? Then why is it observable in many other species of animals?
Click to expand...
That is never a good argument. My dog eats feces, hamsters eat their young. Should I eat my children? It is “natural” Animals can be disordered as well.
 
Catolico65 said:
He doesn’t have to, the Catechism is clear, homosexuality is not natural and by inference can change. Science has proven that as well, in spite of what the gay lobby tells us.
Click to expand...
That is a non sequitur
Catolico65 said:
By the very fact that it is not natural.
Click to expand...
define “natural”
Catolico65 said:
No problem, believe the scientific facts then - there are more ex homosexuals in existence than homosexuals. Homosexuality for most people is a temporary condition.

mygenes.co.nz/summary.htm
Click to expand...
studies show
no studies cited
Click to expand...
Hoosier_Daddy said:
That is never a good argument. My dog eats feces, hamsters eat their young. Should I eat my children? It is “natural” Animals can be disordered as well.
Click to expand...
That wasn’t an argument, merely an observation that claiming it is unnatural is dubious.
 
Joie_de_Vivre said:
Even if the etiology is biological in nature it can still be morally disordered.
Click to expand...
Of course, that’s very true. That’s kind of what I mean: if homosexual attraction were a biological/genetic condition, then it would be non-conducive to procreation and therefore the survival of the species. Consequently, a naturalist should, if consistent, regard it as disordered (with respect to “survival” as an end).
 
jonathan_hili said:
Of course, that’s very true. That’s kind of what I mean: if homosexual attraction were a biological/genetic condition, then it would be non-conducive to procreation and therefore the survival of the species. Consequently, a naturalist should, if consistent, regard it as disordered (with respect to “survival” as an end).
Click to expand...
Define “naturalism”
 
The poster did use the word “naturalist”, but you are asking them to define a word they did not use. :confused:
 
retire_early said:
The poster did use the word “naturalist”, but you are asking them to define a word they did not use. :confused:
Click to expand...
Because English.
-ist |əst; ist|
suffix forming personal nouns and some related adjectives:
1 denoting an adherent of a system of beliefs, principles, etc., expressed by nouns ending in - ism:: hedonist | Marxist.
Click to expand...
 
Hey! Where did you get that…a dictionary?

Probably could find a definition of naturalism and / or naturalist in there, too, as long as you have the book open…🙂
 
retire_early said:
Hey! Where did you get that…a dictionary?

Probably could find a definition of naturalism and / or naturalist in there, too, as long as you have the book open…🙂
Click to expand...
That is the issue, none of the entries make sense and wiki doesn’t really either.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top