The new acceptance of sodomy

  • Thread starter Thread starter JimG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
PetraG said:
40.png
Wozza:
No. Of course not. I am not speaking as a Catholic. It’s the responsible rule of responsible people in a responsible society.
Click to expand...
Immediately after referring to freely available alcohol, legal marijuana and sex outside of marriage, you wrote, “Don’t restrict your children from what they can do. Just teach them responsibility so that whatever they do is done responsibly.”

I’d like you to find some secular sources who say it is OK to give minors free access to sex or to alcohol or any other mind-altering or addictive substance and just “teach them responsibility so that whatever they do is done responsibly.” That is terrible parenting advice, and a person doesn’t have to have any religious creed to think so.
Click to expand...
Who said minors? My children are in their thirties. When they were old enough to make responsible decisions on their own without me hovering around constantly, I made sure that they’d been taught about said responsibility. And made sure that they knew that the decisions they had to make in life were going to be theirs and theirs aloneand that those decisions had consequences.

Just be aware of what those consequences can be.

Personal responsibility. That’s what I’m advocating. Not ‘do this’ and ‘never do that’. No rules. But guidlines.
 
Thanks for posting Kippley’s article. Benedict XVI offered a similar analysis naming the sexual revolution of the 1960’s as a root cause. And the sodomites continue to push there agenda of normalizing sinful behavior onto all of society.

We see on this website the ongoing efforts by a cabal of posters who attempt with the same false arguments to normalize the unnatural act of sodomy. “Out of the closet” was not good enough. Now these poor souls are in our faces and in our children’s faces.

Of course, this thread will draw them like carrion to a carcass. But you also see them active on thread’s about free will (not responsible for my acts), transgender issues, LGBTQ??? issues, and, of course, atheism. They would all deny their sin; we acknowledge ours, ask for forgiveness and promise amendment. Pray for them.
 
o_mlly said:
Of course, this thread will draw them like carrion to a carcass.
Click to expand...
“Carrion” and “carcass” are the synonyms. 🙂 But if you meant “carrion eaters” to a “carcass”, then I will have to “thank you” for your kind and loving description of those “abominations”. Is that what we are called for?
 
I am not for sure this argument works. We use hair mainly for aesthetic purposes, we use lips for kissing, we use ears for piercings, etc. All of these are not the body parts’ main purpose. Yet are normally perfectly moral.
 
Emeraldlady said:
Among animals sodomy serves as a male power act. Milder but akin to two male beasts fighting to the death for leadership of a group. It serves the ‘survival of the fittest’ theme which is abominable to human beings.
Click to expand...
It doesn’t mean what I think you think it means.

I can’t kiss my wife?
 
Last edited:
I certainly agree with that. I was in no way arguing that sodomy is a natural or moral act. But was pointing out the general argument you made does not really support that, so we consider that there is something really special about sex.
 
Last edited:
No one suggests otherwise. As a matter of fact I would also consider several acts in sex to be unhealthy and inappropriate. (Any kind of violence, for example).

But the forum allows dissenting opinions, as long as they are expressed in a respectful manner. My post, from which you selected a few sentences was composed with respect, even if it exhibited a dissenting opinion. And yet, it was flagged so it is now hidden. There was a change in the flagging system, which was very welcome, but unfortunately mere disagreement is sufficient to strangle and stifle conversations, just because some members do not like it.

I was seriously contemplating not to push the submit button, and re-read the post several times to see if there was anything in it that violated the forum rules. But eventually I submitted, which - in retrospect - might have been a mistake.

I would really appreciate it, if someone would explain just WHAT was objectionable in that post.
 
alphonsus1 said:
Obviously, even secular society hates sodomistic abuse, by using the wicked principle of “consent.” If priests had chosen not to abuse children, but instead had done it consensually with adults, through fornication, sodomy, and masturbation, then only conservatives would be outraged by their behavior. Secular society would not be outraged. If priest abusers did not care about the morals of the Catholic Faith, or about their salvation and the Catholic Church’s reputation, then why on earth would a priest also attracted to adults choose to do a sin that is thought of as a crime by society? Do you think:
Click to expand...
Not quite.

Society in general thinks that if sex occurs between two individuals, one of whom is in a position of considerably greater power than the other, then something is wrong. Thus teachers should not have sexual relationships with pupils, even if they are of legal age. A manager should not have sexual relationships with his secretary. A doctor not with his patient, etc etc. Even if such individuals end up getting married, even in a catholic marriage, society looks on the relationship strangely and with suspicion.

So in this one respect, the sexual morals of sociaty are maybe even stricter and more restrictive than those of the church.

Using this pattern, a priest, by virtue of being a priest is a person of considerable power and influence and should not misuse that power for sexual ends.
 
Last edited:
Be real. If you don’t get it I can’t explain it to you.
[/quote]

I’m just showing the fatuousness of your argument. You only mean one thing but you couch it in terms that are applicable to everything. Lots of body parts are used for lots of reasons (in a sexual manner). And there’s no problem with that. You have a problem with just one, so can we please drop the ‘body parts have only one specific purpose’ argument?
 
Wozza said:
Who said minors? My children are in their thirties. When they were old enough to make responsible decisions on their own without me hovering around constantly, I made sure that they’d been taught about said responsibility. And made sure that they knew that the decisions they had to make in life were going to be theirs and theirs aloneand that those decisions had consequences.

Just be aware of what those consequences can be.

Personal responsibility. That’s what I’m advocating. Not ‘do this’ and ‘never do that’. No rules. But guidlines.
Click to expand...
You talked about restricting your children, lol. Who on earth imagines they can “restrict” what their 30 year old children do or make rules for them? You can make the rule that if they’re late for Sunday supper, there might not be any food left, but if you’re talking about setting boundaries for your children I would hope most people would take you to mean minor children.

If you give children real rules, they can make decisions without being hovered over constantly, and they can do it without being told all the time what terrible things will happen if they don’t. As for consequences, sometimes it is others who bear the consequences of our bad decision-making, not us. While it is good to let children know the “why” behind rules, it is a mistake to give them the impression that the goal of rules is simply to evade bad personal consequences. That leads to self-centered what’s-in-it-for-me decision-making that may suit the rest of the world but that is not the mindset of Christ. (And this is a forum that is assembled for that mindset.)
 
Last edited:
Remember kids, everything that happened in the past was terrible. We are now enlightened and can do no wrong.
 
The rational part is quite a difference, certainly enough such that comparison with animal activity becomes quite meaningless.

BTW, you argument about cannibalism being natural among Stone age humans is quite weak also. There is no indication that Stone age people practiced cannibalism any differently than it has been practiced in more modern times. That is a means of displaying ultimate dominance over enemies. Never considered natural, in the sense that people are their own friends and family. Indeeed, it was an unnatural act used as a means to dominate others, not too different than violent sex.
 
Last edited:
PetraG said:
40.png
Wozza:
Who said minors? My children are in their thirties. When they were old enough to make responsible decisions on their own without me hovering around constantly, I made sure that they’d been taught about said responsibility. And made sure that they knew that the decisions they had to make in life were going to be theirs and theirs aloneand that those decisions had consequences.

Just be aware of what those consequences can be.

Personal responsibility. That’s what I’m advocating. Not ‘do this’ and ‘never do that’. No rules. But guidlines.
Click to expand...
You talked about restricting your children, lol. Who on earth imagines they can “restrict” what their 30 year old children do or make rules for them?
Click to expand...
Yes, I was talking about my children. Whom I wouldn’t allow to do things I thought were unwise until they were old enough to make up their own minds. Hopefully using the guidance in regard to responsibility that I’d given them.

And things have turned out a lot better than any reasonable person might have hoped for. We are all close as a family and they both have loving partners. Two grand kids and more to come.

No rules when they’re old enough. Just guidance.
 
tafan2 said:
The rational part is quite a difference, certainly enough such that comparison with animal activity becomes quite meaningless.

BTW, you argument about cannibalism being natural among Stone age humans is quite weak also. There is no indication that Stone age people practiced cannibalism any differently than it has been practiced in more modern times. That is a means of displaying ultimate dominance over enemies. Never considered natural, in the sense that people are their own friends and family. Indeeed, it was an unnatural act used as a means to dominate others, not too different than violent sex.
Click to expand...
Not all humans are rational. No one is rational under the age of “reason”, which varies from person to person.

And cannibalism was just one way to get the necessary protein for survival.
 
Yes. Human beings are exceptional as rational animals. Animals act on “instinct” in reaction to natural stimuli.
Human beings have the power of reason. That confers responsibility on human beings to reason and act well, not just to react by animal instinct.
Hence morality, by which human beings can evaluate our acts as “good” or “evil”.

Reducing human beings to the level of instinctual animals robs humanity of dignity, and the result is human beings treating one another as animals.
 
Last edited:
  1. You say “I still don’t see any reason to accept that.” This is an erroneous way to view axioms and Truths, axioms do not have a “reason.” Otherwise they would not be the starting principle, forming the foundation, taken as given, for which everything else is built on top of with logic and reason. If every premise required a “reason,” a justification, and wasn’t just True in and of itself (not requiring any other justifications), then we’d require an infinite regress back of justifications to be able to “prove” anything at all. Either that, or we’d run into a loop at some point: A is because of B is because of A. That is circular logic. No more does the fact that the axioms do not personally resonate with you undermine their Truth value, or the logical consistency of my argument, than do the group of people that believe in “finiteness” (that infinity does not exist because they see no “reason” to accept the axioms of mathematics), undermine real analysis (the theory behind calculus), and force us to throw out math and science. If you were to reject the axioms of math, a mathematician would be unable to prove them with a “reason,” because those axioms are taken as given. They are are in no way demonstrated. Does this mean we should throw out math (and science that requires math), because thousands of people’s intuition disagrees with those Truths? No! The person would just be in error, even though we do not have “reasons.” In exactly the same way, I reply, no justifications are required to “prove” the axioms of morality. Disagreeing with them is just an error.
  2. You might say: if morality is indeed objective, and there are many moral systems thoughout the world, with many people having contradictory intuitions, how do we know which intuitions are right? I know which are True because if: (1) God exists, (2) He is all knowing, all powerful, and all good, (3) Jesus Christ is God, (4) He gave us apasolic succession through papal authority and the Magisterium of the Catholic Church to teach on Faith and Morals. Then if (1)-(4) are True (a different off topic discussion thread for another time), this implies God knows what axioms of morality are and are not Truth, he is all good so would not deceive us, and he gave us the Magisterium with a guarantee of no grave errors to deliver us these Truths.
  3. Next, you state that there is not a “proximate end” because of the intentions of the actor. This is erroneous, the actor’s intentions, insofar as they are more remote considerations, never allow us to deduce the moral object.
    Here is Veritatis Splendor n. 80.
    “These are the acts which, in the Church’s moral tradition, have been termed “intrinsically evil” ( intrinsece malum ): they are such always and per se, in other words, on account of their very object, and QUITE APART from the ulterior intentions of the one acting and the circumstances.”
  4. The Moral Object, Catechism 1751:
    “ The object chosen is a good toward which the will deliberately directs itself.” The fact that I cannot define every theological term in a 3200 word text does not make my arguments “circular.”
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top