SPLIT: Homosexuality immoral rather than evil?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Monster_Simpson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Monster_Simpson

Guest
sedonaman said:
So it is a generic term. What is behind this big switch to generic terms, anyway? I can’t say my “wife”; I have to say my “spouse”. I can’t say brothers and sisters; it’s “siblings”.

Why can’t we say “Mass” when we mean “Mass”, “etc.” when we mean “etc.” like we used to? I smell another liberal plot to control the language to let evil gain social acceptance [e.g., “spouse” could mean homosexual spouse], and refuse to be complicit. :sad_yes:
Click to expand...
I thought that Roman Catholics thought homosexuality was immoral rather than evil?
 
ConstantineTG said:
Of course it is an act. How can one be homosexual if one is not having sex with another of the same gender?
Click to expand...
:confused:

That’s a bit silly. How can one be heterosexual if one is not having sex with one of the other gender?
 
YoungTradCath said:
:confused:

That’s a bit silly. How can one be heterosexual if one is not having sex with one of the other gender?
Click to expand...
Being heterosexual is inherent in our nature, you do not need to act on it to be one. Homosexuality is not inherent in our nature, therefore you are not one unless you act like one.
 
ConstantineTG said:
Being heterosexual is inherent in our nature, you do not need to act on it to be one. Homosexuality is not inherent in our nature, therefore you are not one unless you act like one.
Click to expand...
Actually, the jury is still out on whether it’s inherent in our nature or not. Attraction doesn’t change based on lack of action.
 
ConstantineTG said:
Of course it is an act. How can one be homosexual if one is not having sex with another of the same gender?
Click to expand...
Constantine,

The heterosexual has opposite sex attraction.

The homosexual has same sex attraction.

Neither has to act other than to recongize the attraction.🙂
 
ConstantineTG said:
Being heterosexual is inherent in our nature, you do not need to act on it to be one. Homosexuality is not inherent in our nature, therefore you are not one unless you act like one.
Click to expand...
Constantine,

Heterosexual is inherent in our nature and no actions are necessary.

Homosexuality is not inherent in our nature and you are not acting as one unless you act on your attractions.

The homosexual wants to cause belief that homosexuality is as inherent in our nature as is heterosexuality. Those that say that homosexuality is possibly inherent in our nature may want to rethink this.
 
Seeker1961 said:
Actually, the jury is still out on whether it’s inherent in our nature or not. Attraction doesn’t change based on lack of action.
Click to expand...
Seeker,

There are therapists that take no position and others that do. This is from Dr. Nicolosi’s website…

josephnicolosi.com/what-is-homosexuality-reorient/
Some take the position that the condition is a developmental disorder–particularly, a gender-identity disorder–which leads to a romantic idealization and sexualization of the qualities that the individual experiences as deficient within himself.
Click to expand...
But other therapists disagree. Some prominent members–even some of our Scientific Advisory Committee members–refuse to take a position on the question of pathology.
Click to expand...
Some other therapists, including our Scientific Advisory Board member Dr. Mark Stern, take the position that homosexuality is not a disorder, but a missed potential–a closing off of a part of oneself and a “saying no” to generativity.
Click to expand...
Dr. Robert Spitzer, the psychiatrist known as the architect of the 1973 decision to remove homosexuality from the list of disorders, maintains that homosexuality was not “normalized” when it was removed from the DSM–only that it was no longer categorized as a disorder. At that time he referred to homosexuality as an “irregular” form of sexuality, and more recently, he agreed that when a person has no capacity for heterosexual arousal, “something is not working.”
Click to expand...
There is clearly room for practitioners of both persuasions within NARTH, all working together to defend the client’s right to pursue change.
Click to expand...
I myself take the view that homosexuality is a developmental disorder and is potentially preventable.
Click to expand...
 
Monster_Simpson said:
I thought that Roman Catholics thought homosexuality was immoral rather than evil?
Click to expand...
What do you consider the difference between immoral and evil? A person who knowingly commits immoral acts is doing evil. Homosexual attraction isn’t immoral itself.
 
Allegra said:
What do you consider the difference between immoral and evil? A person who knowingly commits immoral acts is doing evil. Homosexual attraction isn’t immoral itself.
Click to expand...
I define evil as am atrocious act against humanity and immorality as something frowned upon.
 
Monster_Simpson said:
I define evil as am atrocious act against humanity and immorality as something frowned upon.
Click to expand...
Monster,

God is good. The absence of God is evil.

Immoral is something that is in violoation of Morality. Now here is where the issue is defined by whomever calls what Moral or not. The secular view would be “ethical” as opposed to Moral.

On the CAF website the designation of Moral would be defined by the OHCAC.

Bad would probably fall into the designation of both Immoral and Evil.🙂
 
Monster_Simpson said:
I define evil as am atrocious act against humanity and immorality as something frowned upon.
Click to expand...
Got it. Using those definitions, it is very difficult to determine right from wrong because in order for something to be bad enough to decide not to do it, it must be an atrocious act against humanity. Sexual acts outside the procreative and unitive purposes of marriage are an harmful act against the dignity of oneself and one’s partner. They are also atrocious acts against God. Attempting to use the law to force those who cannot in good conscience acknowledge these acts as normal or moral into silence is an atrocious act against humanity.
 
Allegra said:
Got it. Using those definitions, it is very difficult to determine right from wrong because in order for something to be bad enough to decide not to do it, it must be an atrocious act against humanity. Sexual acts outside the procreative and unitive purposes of marriage are an harmful act against the dignity of oneself and one’s partner. They are also atrocious acts against God. Attempting to use the law to force those who cannot in good conscience acknowledge these acts as normal or moral into silence is an atrocious act against humanity.
Click to expand...
Sounds bad.
 
Seeker1961 said:
Actually, the jury is still out on whether it’s inherent in our nature or not. Attraction doesn’t change based on lack of action.
Click to expand...
True. Despite all the laws built on the assumption that some people are born homosexual, this simply is nothing but conjecture and theory.

In any case, both terms (evil, immoral) are true when properly use. Immoral, means counter to moral, or sinful. Sin is a spiritual evil, just as illness is a physical evil.
 
Monster_Simpson said:
I thought that Roman Catholics thought homosexuality was immoral rather than evil?
Click to expand...
Homosexual acts are a moral evil which in common speech means immoral. Homosexuality insofar as it is a desire for something that is immoral (id est homosexual acts) is objectively disordered. Same sex marriage is a most grave moral evil.
ConstantineTG said:
Being heterosexual is inherent in our nature, you do not need to act on it to be one. Homosexuality is not inherent in our nature, therefore you are not one unless you act like one.
Click to expand...
pnewton said:
True. Despite all the laws built on the assumption that some people are born homosexual, this simply is nothing but conjecture and theory.

In any case, both terms (evil, immoral) are true when properly use. Immoral, means counter to moral, or sinful. Sin is a spiritual evil, just as illness is a physical evil.
Click to expand...
As a result of the Fall physical evils have entered into this world such as people being born blind, deaf or mentally retarded. I do not understand why people persist in the assumption that it is impossible for the sexual faculties to be disordered. Indeed as this belief is built on the assumption that Original Sin did not taint human nature it is heretical as that is the heresy of Pelagianism.

Persisting in this belief according to canons 1364 and 2089 results in latae sententiae (automatic) excommunication and so I urge you my brothers and sisters in the faith to denounce this heresy and once more return to the glory of the faith.
 
Dakota_Roberts said:
Persisting in this belief according to canons 1364 and 2089 results in latae sententiae (automatic) excommunication and so I urge you my brothers and sisters in the faith to denounce this heresy and once more return to the glory of the faith.
Click to expand...
I do not see anyone here that has claimed original sin did *not *taint our nature. No pelagianist here. I think you are misunderstanding what is said and are thus a little free with the use of the word “heresy”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top