The Current Political Climate & The Gay Identity

[Dakota_Roberts]

snip
The problem here is the assumptions visible above. If you could somehow demonstrate that homosexual relationships are inherently harmful. That someone cannot be have a happy and fulfilled homosexual lifestyle, etc. And do so without assuming the conclusion (ie without assuming as true your belief that people have immortal souls which are harmed by such “sins”), then you might have an argument for trying to direct people towards heterosexuality. But even then it wouldn’t be ok to try to teach children to stigmatise or otherwise discriminate against homosexuality.

Take a happily married, monogamous lesbian couple who are deeply in love. Do you have any evidence that somehow what they are doing is harmful to them. Note I am not referring to things like “they’re harming their immortal souls”. I appreciate that may be your religious belief, but if they don’t share your belief, why should they obey the rules of your beliefs? I am guessing you don’t wear a burka, correct?
snip

as long as they aren’t masturbating each other, engaging in sex and other things of that sort they aren’t actually doing anything wrong. I can’t find anywhere in Church teachings where loving someone of the same sex was wrong if it is chaste, in fact here Fr. Vincent Serpa says

Theoretically a person with homosexual tendencies may live with a life-long partner in a celibate relationship. I say “theoretically” because practically this may very difficult to achieve, especially if the individuals are young. The mere physical proximity to each other could be a continual occasion of sin. However, if they center themselves on the Lord and avoid whatever would lead them to sin, it is possible for them live a holy life. I know of some such older couples who do. Of course, these don’t make the headlines. With grace, all things are possible.

 

[Candide_West]

as long as they aren’t masturbating each other, engaging in sex and other things of that sort they aren’t actually doing anything wrong. I can’t find anywhere in Church teachings where loving someone of the same sex was wrong if it is chaste, in fact here Fr. Vincent Serpa says

Ok, that’s a good starter. My point though was rather different. The fact that it’s your belief that their having a physical relationship is wrong does not make it wrong for them to do so.

Just like the fact that many Muslims believe it’s wrong for a woman to go out without a burka doesn’t make it wrong for Annie to do so.

Of course you can say that your beliefs are “objectively correct” just as the Muslims mentioned above will do so about their beliefs.

Ultimately the point is that the beliefs of one group of people are not and should not be considered binding to those who do not share those beliefs.

 

[The_Reginator]

No, this view ignores reality. First of all, it ignores the reality that the end of the sexual act is procreation. If you look at the Guttenberg Institute’s statistics on abortion, you would be amazed at how many women are seeking an abortion who report using birth control properly. You can’t just wish that away in a search for “bonding, intinacy” etc.*

I have been reading a book, Oh Oh Canada by William D. Gairdner, with a chapter that finally puts into words some of the ideas that have been bothering me.

I was able to find the appropriate essay on line here.

Re homosexuals and sex:

“Sex” is a biological term, and biologists and life-scientists all over the world use the words “sex,” or “sexual” only with reference to plant or animal behaviour that has reproductive potential. To use such words in connection with the behaviour of entities for whom or for which reproduction together is impossible, is either a dumb, sloppy, or is an intentionally political usage (or all of these at once).

There are lots of animals and humans, and maybe some plants that indulge in mock sexual behaviour, or play sex, or pretend sex. Children do that. Puppies do that. But real sex, the only kind of sex that we should call sex, is always behaviour that has in principle and by natural design a reproductive potential and capacity, no matter how that intent, capacity, or consequence may be avoided, postponed, or foiled. To use the word for anything else is to obscure the underlying reality, and hence the debate.

Accordingly, we ought to begin by agreeing that homosexuals by definition cannot “have sex,” any more than an individual can “have sex” with himself, or herself, or a bull can “have sex” with another bull. It’s impossible. Homosexuals can have lots of other things, like self-administered or mutual sensual pleasure. No problem. But don’t call it sex, when it can only be mock, or pretend sex.

We are all sinners. People suffering with same sex attraction have an extra burden to carry. I feel that it is important to watch the words we use so as not to confuse important issues.

(To anyone struggling with same sex attraction: I could use your prayers at this time in my life. Things are not going well in my family. I feel that by carrying your burden you can offer up strong prayers that our Lord will hear. - Reg.)

 

[St_Francis]

Hey Annie, sorry about the delay in replying, I didn’t see your message till today.

No problem–we all have real lives to take care of!

Actually there is a lot of evidence that those who become serial killers, *rapists etc are specifically people who have had their imaginations “disciplined” (either externally or internally imposed). Have a read up on psychological profiles of serial rapists, mass murderers or serial killers and you’ll generally find obvious signs of repressed sexuality.

I am not at all sure that I understand what you mean here. Are you referring to a totally unproven hypothesis that viewing pornography and going to strip clubs is the result of a so-called repressed sexuality, and then extrapolating that people who act out more than that are therefore even more sexually repressed?

Because if you are talking about children who are raised too strictly… well, from the Catholic point of view, this would mean the child was disciplined out of proportion to the situation, and the Church would say that was wrong. Which is one of the wonderful things about the Church, in which it is recognized that moderation is the key–that one can do too much or too little of something and each would be incorrect.

This is the most widely supported explanation for the cooling off period between attacks for such people. Their sexual desires are repressed for long periods and then lash out when the pressure becomes too great…

Do you have a link to something fairly short that you have read about this? I don’t want to respond without understanding your point better.

…I agree, I just look a little further into the causes of such things. Generally if someone is fulfilled and happy in their life and has a sense of purpose and achievement, they won’t go off the rails and fall into “vice”.*

I’m not sure, but I think in this paragraph and the next taken together that you are saying the happy and fulfilled life come first, and this leads to living virtuously. I would propose the opposite, but will not go into that until you have replied, in case I am wrong about what you are saying

So I’d rather we try to make people happy in their lives and thus the short term benefits of “vice” are unattractive. Rather than simply telling people off for falling into “vice” and stigmatising against them while not fixing the cause which inevitably pushes them deeper.

You seem to be saying that we should set up society so that people will sort of fall into virtue because it is easier or more attractive than vice?

And that for those who fall into vice, the environment needs firther modification rather than punishing the person?

The problem with that is that at some point a person must be responsible for his actions. By removing all responsibility for one’s actions, society really messes with reality and puts individuals in a horribly icky situation of perpetual childhood.

You see, the system in which a person is in a situation conducive to virtue, with attendant training in virtue already exists. It is called childhood.

When a person reaches adulthood, having been suitably trained, he becomes responsible for his own actions, with attendant rewards and punishments.*

The system is not perfect, due to humanity’s fallen state, or deficiences and imperfections. Some children are not raised with environments conducive to virtue. Consequences of adult actions are not always related to the virtue or vice displayed. And so on.

True enough, of course they didn’t try to “modify” me, I’m glad to say. It was rather simply a question of leading by example.

Some people are born with more natural virtue than others: I have 4 children and they do each need some basic things in common and a few personalized adaptations It is not always the same case as yours seems to have been.

Exactly my point. People fall into such behaviour when they are not fulfilled. I’d rather treat the cause, not stigmatise the symptom.

I wrote: *I am sure you have run across people of little virtue, substance abusers, adulterers, and the like. If they are happy and at their best in this lifestyle, it is usually only temporary. *

I don’t really see how you get that they weren’t fulfilled so they fell into bad behavior out of my comment. Some people seem to have it all: nice house, nice family, etc, and yet start committing adultery or abusing drugs. This is why I propose that when one works on one’s own virtue, life will become fulfilling rather than that a fulfilling life is having the right “stuff” which leads to virtue, which is what I read from what you are saying.

Continued…

 

[St_Francis]

…continued
*

Well, there indeed I would say we do have a problem. We all teach kids that sex is important and they shouldn’t do it frivolously. But then the media constantly bombards them and everyone else with sex related imagery. I find it childish myself, but as I’m sure you know, sex sells. So the media, inescapably, is saturated with it.

So yes, young people receive mixed messages. On the one hand parents and teachers tell them continuously to wait etc, while the media bombards them with images of sexually active adults. The result is that sex is seen as being in itself a grown up thing to do, so young people wanting to be grown ups, naturally want to do it. Conversely the advice of parents and teachers is seen as being childish as it is only directed at and thus only to be listened to by children. A sort “do as we say not as we do” situation.*

The problem is that even what you say, to not be frivolous about starting to have sex, is dangerous and can lead to all sorts of problems. That non-frivolous criteria is very vague.

But marriage as a criteria is very specific and shelters people from many dangers.

Unfortunate but unsurprising then that people now have sex younger. Again if this is to change then it must be our culture which changes. However, the sexual revolution has happened and reversing it would require something extreme.

Our culture is made up of individuals and the decisions they make, including those decisions they make in favor of and against cultural mores.*

Curious where you get your stats here? When was this time when there were less “troubled” people around? Looking back over the last 50 odd years there always seem to have been major social problems of one form or another. I’m not sure I’d say things are definitely better now, but can’t think of anything compelling to say it’s worse either.*

Teen suicide statistics alone reveal that in the past 50 years things have gone waaaay downhill, at least here in the US. Don’t know about the UK.

That said I’ll grant that we now have more media sensationalism which tell us we’re all doomed etc (fear sells papers too). Despite the much lower crime rates than say 30 years ago.*

Crime rates did peak and go down, and other criteria related to rates of dysfunction have also gone down in the past few years.

Around 10 or 15 years ago, I read several articles about what was seen as a potential teen movement of “waiting til marriage.” A substantial number of teens were deciding not to date until they were older. (Oddly enough, this was seen as a bad thing by the adults who were writing about it.) The functioning of virtue is in the realm of natural knowledge, and people, even young people, are picking up on it.

 

[Mudgely]

Support for homosexuality is an inevitable result of the split between Church and state, and also the removal of the idea that sexual education is the responsibility of the parents and not the state.

Wrong track of thinking entirely. The women’s movement sought to eliminate distinctions of gender role in society, in the workplace, in marriage, in every aspect of life. It succeeded. Prior to the women’s rights movement, there was a legal distinction in life which differentiated genders. In marriage, each gender had specific obligations, which if not met were grounds for divorce. There is no longer a gender distinction in marriage under the law. Therefore, there is no reason to discriminate between genders under the law. In fact, it would be contrary to legal standards to do so. That is the kernel of the legal status. It has nothing to do with “the church” or with sexual education and parents.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Wrong track of thinking entirely. The women’s movement sought to eliminate distinctions of gender role in society, in the workplace, in marriage, in every aspect of life. It succeeded. Prior to the women’s rights movement, there was a legal distinction in life which differentiated genders. In marriage, each gender had specific obligations, which if not met were grounds for divorce. There is no longer a gender distinction in marriage under the law. Therefore, there is no reason to discriminate between genders under the law.** In fact, it would be contrary to legal standards to do so.**

So you agree with me that there is a split between what justifies church ethics and what justifies circular ethics; which is the inevitable result of their being a split between church and state.

First of all; the Evolution from a Church driven ethics and culture in the legal system to a purely circular one with no religious assumptions, is irrelevant to the fact that the proceeding events of how law is decided is only possible given the split between church and state.

**
Secondly**; You have not demonstrated that “womens rights” is something contrary to church doctrine. I am not aware of an infallible statement by the church saying that a women should not get equal pay. While negative attitudes towards women may have been culturally prevalent in Christian societies and thus wrongly expressed through the legal system; i am unaware aware that this attitude is anything more than a cultural interpretation of a womens place in society perhaps based on a flawed religious understanding.

I am not saying that all laws where correct in the catholic state. But i am not wrong in saying that ideas such as gay couples adopting kids and teaching the gay agenda in schools would not be possible if the legal system was defined according to Catholic teaching.

 

[St_Francis]

Ok, that’s a good starter. My point though was rather different. The fact that it’s your belief that their having a physical relationship is wrong does not make it wrong for them to do so.*

Just like the fact that many Muslims believe it’s wrong for a woman to go out without a burka doesn’t make it wrong for Annie to do so.*

Of course you can say that your beliefs are “objectively correct” just as the Muslims mentioned above will do so about their beliefs.

The group of people to which you seem to belong rejects things which cannot be measured scientifically (for which limitation there is no scientific basis). To us religious folks, they are like blind people who say: prove that the sky exists withoit reference to anything related to sight, because we do not believe in sight, having had no expereince of it.

So we see that limiting the types of proof that will be accepted can lead to the ridiculous. We must not limit our astronomical discussions to that which can be proven without the use of sight, nor can we limit our considerations of morality to that which can scientifically measured.

Moreover, we cannot limit ourselves to what happens to the individual, because individuals vary too much, but more importantly because individuals do not live in isolation and their actions reverberate in the society in which they live.

To explain to a non-Christian that homosexuality is wrong and that this can be known through natural knowledge, I can bring only philosophical evidence, *non-measurable evidence related to natural knowledge: we see that those who study the workings of virtue find that sexual activity without the limits of some form of marriage leads to vice, and that healthy societies of all kinds reject homosexual activity even more than they reject sexual activity outside the bonds of marriage of some form.

It may be that individual members of society can enter into this lifestyle and not decrease in virtue and grow in vice, but the overall effect on society of the acceptance of homosexual behavior is even more corrosive than the acceptance of sexual activity outside marriage, as we can see historically, and the reasons for that relate to the growth in vice which I mentioned before.

Ultimately the point is that the beliefs of one group of people are not and should not be considered binding to those who do not share those beliefs.

Do you really want to go there? Do you know that there are pedophiles who think that your beliefs should not bind them?

 

[michelleds]

To anyone struggling with same sex attraction: I could use your prayers at this time in my life. Things are not going well in my family. I feel that by carrying your burden you can offer up strong prayers that our Lord will hear. - Reg.)

prayer sent, brother.

 

[The_Reginator]

prayer sent, brother.

Thank-you.
God bless you.

• Reg.

I had to edit this post right away.
As the system was dealing with it I sent up an Ave Maria for you michelleds!

 

[Candide_West]

I am not at all sure that I understand what you mean here. Are you referring to a totally unproven hypothesis that…

No, not at all. My point here is that you identified serial killers and rapists etc as people who have NOT had their imaginations “disciplined” my response was that having read a couple books on psychological profiles of serial killers and serial rapists, the vast majority of them have had their imagination “disciplined”.*

So these examples you provided as reasons why we should “discipline” peoples imaginations actually runs against your point.

*Do you have a link to something fairly short that you have read about this? I don’t want to respond without understanding your point better.

Unfortunately not, my information cones from books, not the Internet. I can poke around and see if I can find some online material if you like, but hopefully my explanation above should make things clearer anyway.

*I’m not sure, but I think in this paragraph and the next taken together that you are saying the happy and fulfilled life come first,…

Not quite, more like that being unhappy and unfulfilled comes first and leads to a life of “vice”.

*You seem to be saying that we should set up society so that people will sort of fall into virtue because it is easier or more attractive than vice?

Sounds pretty sensible to me. If we as a society aren’t trying to make it as easy as possible to be virtuous then we clearly don’t think much of virtues.

*And that for those who fall into vice, the environment needs firther modification rather than punishing the person?

Not necessarily changing society as a whole, ultimately you have to accept that some proportion of the population will always fall into “vice”. As you said, no system is perfect. However we can and should try to make that proportion as small as possible.*

As for punishing the person, what good does it do to punish someone for being a drug addict? Does it really help them reform? Or are we better to try to help them? To give them lives which are fulfilling to them?*

*The problem with that is that at some point a person must be responsible for his actions…

Ah, no we can’t remove a persons responsibility for their actions. But neither can we deny our own responsibility. If we help build a society which encourages discrimination, or refuse to build a society which discourages it. Then we are partially responsible for those who act out that discrimination with violence etc.

I view prisons etc as a necessary evil and their primary purposes to me are, to prevent a person causing harm and to provide an environment conducive to reform.*

If instead the objective of prisons was just to punish people, then a torture chamber would deliver that result much more quickly, effectively and with less cost to the state.*

*You see, the system in which a person is in a situation conducive to virtue, with attendant training in virtue already exists. It is called childhood.

…

All fair enough.*

I don’t really see how you get that they weren’t fulfilled so they fell into bad behavior out of my comment. Some people seem to have it all…

I think the number of people who are genuinely fulfilled and happy in their lives who fall into drug addiction etc is very small. Granted there are some cases where someone appears to have it all and goes bad, but I think this is pretty rare and usually in such cases there are other factors at work.

The problem is that even what you say, to not be frivolous about starting to have sex, is dangerous and can lead to all sorts of problems. That non-frivolous criteria is very vague.

But marriage as a criteria is very specific and shelters people from many dangers.

I’ll grant you it’s very specific, but I don’t think it’s a lack of clarity that has young people ignoring the message. They aren’t stupid. But they are under a lot of social pressure due to the unending media deluge.*

Besides, the reality is that having sex without being married is very often not a problem, virtually everyone I know has and very few regret that fact or seem to have suffered ill effect from it. Having sex frivolously on the other hand… I know a few people who’ve done so and a couple of them do indeed regret it.*

*Our culture is made up of individuals and the decisions they make, including those decisions they make in favor of and against cultural mores.

Indeed, but as I said the kind of change you are talking about here would be massive, so I suspect unlikely in the short term unless there is some major social upheaval.

*Teen suicide statistics alone reveal that in the past 50 years things have gone waaaay downhill, at least here in the US. Don’t know about the UK.

Can’t help you there, although not surprising. As i said we put young people under absurd amounts of pressure. Incidentally, do you have a source?*

*Crime rates did peak and go down, and other criteria related to rates of dysfunction have also gone down in the past few years.

Yep, and given that the rise to peak was partially due to increased reporting of crime, and better tracking of statistics, things generally look pretty good on this front.*

*Around 10 or 15 years ago, I read several articles about what was seen as a potential teen movement of “waiting til marriage.”…

Fair enough did anything come out of that movement? Has it happened?

 

[Candide_West]

The group of people to which you seem to belong rejects things which cannot be measured scientifically (for which limitation there is no scientific basis).*

Indeed I am, as of course are you and everyone else. You presumably don’t believe in Thor, Russel’s Teapot, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Santa Claus, invisible pink unicorns or the Matrix. There is exactly no evidence against any of these propositions, nor an infinite number of other propositions we could invent. However, you, me, and the vast majority of the population do not believe these things exist, because there is no evidence FOR them either.*

You believe in God, that’s fine, just please appreciate that not everyone shares your beliefs, so expecting everyone to behave as if they do is irrational.*

*To us religious folks, they are like blind people who say: prove that the sky exists withoit reference to anything related to sight, because we do not believe in sight, having had no expereince of it.

And to us non-religious folks theists are sometimes like people saying “there’s an elephant in the room, of course you can’t see it because it’s invisible… You can’t feel it either because it’s not physical… In fact you can’t detect it at all because it’s immaterial… But it’s there, I KNOW it is there, just trust me ok, it’s there, honest. Now, obey this set of rules which come from the elephant.”.

(Hopefully, that comes across as tongue in cheek as it was intended and presumably as your comparison of atheism to blindness was.)

*So we see that limiting the types of proof that will be accepted can lead to the ridiculous. We must not limit our astronomical discussions to that which can be proven without the use of sight, nor can we limit our considerations of morality to that which can scientifically measured.

And indeed we don’t, but neither should we limit ourselves to the beliefs of those people who adhere to a particular religion.*

Again, if you could demonstrate that people are in fact suffering from being homosexual, that (for example) somehow a woman who is in a happy monogamous marriage with another woman is damaging herself and others while a woman who is in a happy monogamous marriage with a man is not.*

Then you might have a justification for trying to steer people away from homosexuality (but still not for permitting discrimination). But I at least have never heard of such evidence. If you have such evidence I’d be very interested to hear it.*

*Moreover, we cannot limit ourselves to what happens to the individual, because individuals vary too much, but more importantly because individuals do not live in isolation and their actions reverberate in the society in which they live.

Absolutely, that was my point about why we should discourage discrimination. Maybe you discriminate against homosexuals but don’t go and beat them up, but your discrimination provides a more permissive environment for others who DO go and physically attack them.*

*To explain to a non-Christian that homosexuality is wrong and that this can be known through natural knowledge, I can bring only philosophical evidence, *non-measurable evidence related to natural knowledge…

Well, there you run into a problem because different cultures at different times have different ideas of what is moral from “natural knowledge” many things which were once considered to be moral are now considered to be reprehensible.*

Torture under the inquisition, witch burnings, the crusades and slavery are all things which were considered to be morally fine under Christianity at various points in history, looking elsewhere we see what we would now call paedophillia, human sacrifice, rape, and genocide all considered to be morally acceptable…*

So “natural knowledge” doesn’t seem like a very reliable way to determine morality. Perhaps we could use something more reliably detectable, like whether harm is caused?*

*It may be that individual members of society can enter into this lifestyle and not decrease in virtue and grow in vice, but the overall effect on society of the acceptance of homosexual behavior is even more corrosive than the acceptance of sexual activity outside marriage, as we can see historically, and the reasons for that relate to the growth in vice which I mentioned before.

Ok, this sounds like something of substance, by all means, present these historical examples.*

Do you really want to go there?

Yes. Indeed I’m glad to say that our entire society has “gone there”. That’s why non-Halal food is still legal, women are allowed to leave the house without a burka, it’s not against the law to eat a steak… Etc. It’s difficult to even imagine a functional society where any belief that someone holds is considered binding for everyone else.

*Do you know that there are pedophiles who think that your beliefs should not bind them?

Obviously it’s rather silly to compare actions which are against the law because they inflict massive suffering on innocents and actions between two consenting adults which cause no demonstrable harm to anyone (but which are against your personal religious beliefs).

Really it’s no less silly to compare your decision to leave the house without a burka to paedophillia.*