Why are there "Gay Pride Parades" ?

[inocente]

Of course it does.

Homosexual sex is a DISORDERED use of sex.

Just like using one’s lips to try to smell if there were a natural gas leak in the room would be DISORDERED.

Just like eating one’s food and then throwing it up is…an eating DISORDER.

Just like someone storing batteries in one’s stomach is DISORDERED.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3533227/

All the examples in your previous post were physically or logically impossible, unlike throwing up or swallowing batteries. So that’s an improvement although you don’t seem very sure of your argument. But you’ll get better marks for effort.

You argument seems to be that people are components and fit together like Lego, and the Lego Police care naught for silly ideas like love and compassion and humanity but only whether the bits fit together in designated and approved manners.

Is that the drift, that Christ sacrificed himself for machine parts?

 

[PRmerger]

All the examples in your previous post were physically or logically impossible, unlike throwing up or swallowing batteries.

All are disordered uses.

Just like homosexual sex.

You argument seems to be that people are components and fit together like Lego, and the Lego Police care naught for silly ideas like love and compassion and humanity but only whether the bits fit together in designated and approved manners.

Is that the drift, that Christ sacrificed himself for machine parts?

It’s no more an argument that people are like Legos than your argument that homosexual sex is moral asserts that people are animals; animals have sex whenever the urge hits, so why can’t humans?

Is that the drift, that Christ sacrificed himself for animals so they can have sex whenever the urge hits, with whomever they want, whenever they want?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Pick ‘n’ mix. That’s all you do, criticize others when you do exactly the same, only you never give any justification.

No wonder so many American Catholics are in favor of gay marriage. Discernment, I think it’s called.

…Pilate again said to them, “Then what shall I do with the man whom you call the King of the Jews?” And they cried out again, “Crucify him.” And Pilate said to them, “Why, what evil has he done?” But they shouted all the more, “Crucify him.” So Pilate, wishing to satisfy the crowd, released for them Barab′bas; and having scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified.

Discernment, you think it’s called.

What was that you said about “Pick ‘n’ mix?”

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I certainly believe in an objective truth that should guide our morality. Where I take issue with many is in the discernment of that truth. Some things are very easy for us to identify as immoral (i.e. rape is wrong), but other things are more ambiguous. I think homosexuality lies in this “ambiguous” category and is not so “obvious” as so many are suggesting. I am very familiar with the natural law argument promoted by the Church, but the problem is I don’t find it very convincing. To me, it seems overly simplistic.

My husband and I have talked a lot about this issue, because we need to decide what we are going to teach our children. We are part of the younger generation and we have both known and have friends who are gay, which admittedly does change your perspective.

We are both very supportive of gay marriage and voted against Prop 8. One thing I don’t ever hear Catholics ever take into account when discussing this issue is the importance of free exercise of the will. We are talking of civil marriages after all.

All of this is spoken like a true Cafeteria Catholic.

You believe you are right and the Church is wrong. In what catechism class were you taught this?

Are you or are you not a loyal daughter of the Church?

When we switch our allegiance from the Church to liberal Modernism we are making a pact with the Devil. I’m sure it’s convenient to accommodate your homosexual friends. I hope they don’t get around to corrupting your heterosexual children.

We are supposed to protect our children, not throw them into a circle of perverts.

 

[Bradski]

When we switch our allegiance from the Church to liberal Modernism we are making a pact with the Devil. I’m sure it’s convenient to accommodate your homosexual friends. I hope they don’t get around to corrupting your heterosexual children.

I think that what Charles means, Sarah, is that any decision that you come to that does not correspond with that of the church’s is, a prori, wrong. If you want to be a Catholic you must do as you are told.

It’s all or nothing apparently. No Catholic Lite allowed. No provisional membership. Which is fair enough. It sounds entirely reasonable to me. But it does mean, let’s be honest, that there aren’t many Catholics around, what with all that contraceptive use and people (such as yourself and your family) ‘accommodating your homosexual friends’.

To be a real Catholic, according to Charles, you are going to have to make sure you keep your children away from your homosexual friends and, if they ask why, you have to explain to them that you don’t want them corrupted.

I’m sure that your friends, being perverts, will understand.

But then, I guess you could ask yourself: who would you rather invite to your house and introduce to your children? Your gay friends or someone like Charles?

 

[Peter_Plato]

All the examples in your previous post were physically or logically impossible, unlike throwing up or swallowing batteries. So that’s an improvement although you don’t seem very sure of your argument. But you’ll get better marks for effort.

You argument seems to be that people are components and fit together like Lego, and the Lego Police care naught for silly ideas like love and compassion and humanity but only whether the bits fit together in designated and approved manners.

Is that the drift, that Christ sacrificed himself for machine parts?

Actually, from my perspective, you invoking the Lego police seems to imply that you see no problem with the way the parts fit together, so it is you who seem to be claiming that people are like Lego blocks and can behave in any way they see fit because their behaviour is inconsequential - like fitting Lego blocks together, it makes no difference how people behave - just as it makes no difference how Lego blocks fit together.

So, why did Christ need to sacrifice himself if people are free to do as they will and no behaviour is any better or worse than any other? It seems to make whatever the need for Jesus’ sacrifice a mere token act on his part.

It seems to me that Christ sacrificing himself only makes sense if human choices and actions have real significance and are decidedly not like fitting Lego blocks together. Otherwise, the whole exercise is meaningless since behaviours and choices account for nothing because Christ will simply save everyone despite what they do or make themselves into.

Want to be holy? Great, you will be saved! Want to act like an animal? Great, you will be saved! Want to rape, plunder and steal? Great, you will be saved! Want to be blasphemous and treat the sacrilegious as holy? Great, you will be saved! It is all irrelevant so stop letting the “Lego police” tell you otherwise! You will be saved!

Perhaps that it makes Christianity entirely superfluous - as if the Christian claim is that what we do in this life is redundant, unnecessary and unimportant - is the problem with this POV?

 

[Winterwolf00]

Since humans will give you different, often directly opposed answers to what is moral, can morality actually exist within ONLY human context?

This means that there NEEDS to be a context outside human context to determine what is right and wrong.

Why does there need to be exactly?
Just because that would make determining what is moral easier doesn’t make it true.

And technically I originally said that morality comes from sentience as many other animals display signs of empathy and compassion same as humans.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Why does there need to be exactly?
Just because that would make determining what is moral easier doesn’t make it true.

And technically I originally said that morality comes from sentience as many other animals display signs of empathy and compassion same as humans.

Analogy:

Ricmat: Games need rules.

You: Just because rules would make games easier to play does not mean it is true that games need rules.

Have you ever tried playing games without rules? Or playing games where the rules are completely at the whim of any of the players? Absence of rules reduces the idea of “game” to a kind of “Remind me what we were talking about, again,” status.

A mere claim that morality “comes from sentience” is far from demonstrating that it does. Perhaps sentience is required for a sense of morality, but that does not show that sentience is sufficient for morality to exist. Look up the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions in your philosophy book.

Empathy and compassion are in no way equivalent to ethical awareness.

The determinably moral concept of justice, for example, is not dependent upon whether the agent feels any empathy or compassion. The traditional view of justice is “blind Justice,” that is, indifferent to sympathies and all vested empathy.

 

[Winterwolf00]

Analogy:

Ricmat: Games need rules.

You: Just because rules would make games easier to play does not mean it is true that games need rules.

Have you ever tried playing games without rules? Or playing games where the rules are completely at the whim of any of the players? Absence of rules reduces the idea of “game” to a kind of “Remind me what we were talking about, again,” status.

A mere claim that morality “comes from sentience” is far from demonstrating that it does. Perhaps sentience is required for a sense of morality, but that does not show that sentience is sufficient for morality to exist. Look up the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions in your philosophy book.

Empathy and compassion are in no way equivalent to ethical awareness.

The determinably moral concept of justice, for example, is not dependent upon whether the agent feels any empathy or compassion. The traditional view of justice is “blind Justice,” that is, indifferent to sympathies and all vested empathy.

Games like human morality are both the products of humanity.

And empathy tends to be the starting point for ethical behavior.

 

[Sarah_B_Good]

Firstly, welcome to the CAFs!

Now, to your points: the Church’s natural law argument is simple, but not simplistic.

And it’s quite true that having friends who are gay influences one’s POV. However, it is an emotional response, but not a moral response.

Finally, what do you mean by “when discussing this issue is the importance of free exercise of the will”? Do you mean that we all have free will so we ought to be able to make choices about our actions?

Thank you.

What I mean, is that when I go into the voting booth, I don’t just vote in my religious beliefs, I take into consideration the fact that the same freedom that allows me to choose Catholicism, also guarantees others the freedom to choose their own faith or no faith at all, and that if I’m going to vote to limit that freedom in some way, I better have a very good reason for doing so that goes beyond just my religious view. That’s why all of the Bible verses quoted seem completely inappropriate to me in a discussing the rights of someone who should have the freedom to not be bound by it.

And you’re right. I can’t deny that of course there is an emotional component when you have gay friends/family. But I think its unfair to just completely dismiss that as an emotional reaction. On the contrary, knowing gay people exposes me to evidence that refutes what I had been taught about gay people.

And I have to just say that there is a big difference between those Catholics who object to homosexuality, but do so while showing love, respect and compassion for gay people. And then there are those (unfortunately far more), who are consumed with homophobia (or anti-gay prejudice if you prefer) who speak with such vitriol and hatred. They always claim of course that they love the sinner, but hate the sin. It always makes me wonder how they would sound any different if they did hate the sinner too, because quite frankly if the way you “love” gay people is indistinguishable from the way others hate gay people, maybe that should be a clue that it’s really not love at all. I don’t see how the Church can really have any wider public influence on this issue until it addresses the rampant homophobia in the Church. I pray that our Holy Father is going to bring about this change.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Games like human morality are both the products of humanity.

See Genetic Fallacy or Fallacy of Irrelevance

 

[PRmerger]

Thank you.

What I mean, is that when I go into the voting booth, I don’t just vote in my religious beliefs, I take into consideration the fact that the same freedom that allows me to choose Catholicism, also guarantees others the freedom to choose their own faith or no faith at all, and that if I’m going to vote to limit that freedom in some way, I better have a very good reason for doing so that goes beyond just my religious view.

I agree.

But I don’t think anyone here has been arguing against homosexuality from a religious point of view.

At least, I know I haven’t. I haven’t quoted a single Bible verse to argue against gay pride.

And you’re right. I can’t deny that of course there is an emotional component when you have gay friends/family. But I think its unfair to just completely dismiss that as an emotional reaction. On the contrary, knowing gay people exposes me to evidence that refutes what I had been taught about gay people.

Let’s say your brother, whom you know in all other areas to be a loving person, beats his wife.

The fact that you know and love your brother, and are emotionally torn by your love for him, does not change this fact: it is wrong for him to beat his wife.

The emotional connection cannot refute this moral truth: he should not be beating his wife.

And I have to just say that there is a big difference between those Catholics who object to homosexuality, but do so while showing love, respect and compassion for gay people. And then there are those (unfortunately far more), who are consumed with homophobia (or anti-gay prejudice if you prefer) who speak with such vitriol and hatred. They always claim of course that they love the sinner, but hate the sin. It always makes me wonder how they would sound any different if they did hate the sinner too, because quite frankly if the way you “love” gay people is indistinguishable from the way others hate gay people, maybe that should be a clue that it’s really not love at all. I don’t see how the Church can really have any wider public influence on this issue until it addresses the rampant homophobia in the Church. I pray that our Holy Father is going to bring about this change.

Amen!

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I think that what Charles means, Sarah, is that any decision that you come to that does not correspond with that of the church’s is, a prori, wrong. If you want to be a Catholic you must do as you are told.

It’s all or nothing apparently. No Catholic Lite allowed. No provisional membership. Which is fair enough. It sounds entirely reasonable to me. But it does mean, let’s be honest, that there aren’t many Catholics around, what with all that contraceptive use and people (such as yourself and your family) ‘accommodating your homosexual friends’.

To be a real Catholic, according to Charles, you are going to have to make sure you keep your children away from your homosexual friends and, if they ask why, you have to explain to them that you don’t want them corrupted.

I’m sure that your friends, being perverts, will understand.

But then, I guess you could ask yourself: who would you rather invite to your house and introduce to your children? Your gay friends or someone like Charles?

Yes, and tell the gay friends to bring along their pedophile gay friends to meet her children.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Games like human morality are both the products of humanity.

And humanity is the product of?

Let me guess… Evolution, correct?

Which has also brought us such great “moral” innovations as male lions eating cubs, vultures eating the viscera of dead animals and, by extension, the modern world where some women show absolutely no empathy for their unborn children by freely having them chopped up and disposed of as so much refuse.

Are you certain you want to consistently pursue this line of thought?

 

[Peter_Plato]

I think that what Charles means, Sarah, is that any decision that you come to that does not correspond with that of the church’s is, a prori, wrong. If you want to be a Catholic you must do as you are told.

It’s all or nothing apparently. No Catholic Lite allowed. No provisional membership. Which is fair enough. It sounds entirely reasonable to me. But it does mean, let’s be honest, that there aren’t many Catholics around, what with all that contraceptive use and people (such as yourself and your family) ‘accommodating your homosexual friends’.

To be a real Catholic, according to Charles, you are going to have to make sure you keep your children away from your homosexual friends and, if they ask why, you have to explain to them that you don’t want them corrupted.

I’m sure that your friends, being perverts, will understand.

But then, I guess you could ask yourself: who would you rather invite to your house and introduce to your children? Your gay friends or someone like Charles?

You certainly know how to run a propaganda campaign, don’t you, Bradski?

Divide and conquer.

 

[Bradski]

You certainly know how to run a propaganda campaign, don’t you, Bradski?

Divide and conquer.

I think Charles is doing a great job of that all on his ownsome…

Yes, and tell the gay friends to bring along their pedophile gay friends to meet her children.

Can you hear that slapping sound in the background? If you listen hard you can just hear it. It’s Catholics face planting as they read comments like that. Charles is a poster boy for those wanting to change people’s views on matters such as gay marriage. I’d invite him to speak at every Gay Parade.

All that spittle flecked invective. How do you think it goes down with people like Sarah? Or maybe, excuse my rudeness, I should ask Sarah to tell us herself.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I think that what Charles means, Sarah, is that any decision that you come to that does not correspond with that of the church’s is, a prori, wrong. If you want to be a Catholic you must do as you are told.

It’s all or nothing apparently. No Catholic Lite allowed. No provisional membership. Which is fair enough. It sounds entirely reasonable to me. But it does mean, let’s be honest, that there aren’t many Catholics around, what with all that contraceptive use and people (such as yourself and your family) ‘accommodating your homosexual friends’.

To be a real Catholic, according to Charles, you are going to have to make sure you keep your children away from your homosexual friends and, if they ask why, you have to explain to them that you don’t want them corrupted.

I’m sure that your friends, being perverts, will understand.

But then, I guess you could ask yourself: who would you rather invite to your house and introduce to your children? Your gay friends or someone like Charles?

Let’s call a spade a spade, shall we Bradski?

What you are doing is capitalizing on sympathies.

Like a wolf holding a vulnerable lamb hostage and calling out to the other sheep, “What’s the matter don’t you “love” your little brother enough to come and be with him?”

Then, there’s the little “dare” tactic thrown in for good measure. “Are you scared? Don’t have the guts? Has your ‘phobia’ got the better of you?”

Yup, admittedly, the tactic has been successful with the weak, the vulnerable and easily compromised. We’ll see how far it goes when the shepherd decides the wolf is due for his comeuppance. Who’s that standing behind you, Bradski?

 

[Peter_Plato]

I think Charles is doing a great job of that all on his ownsome…

Can you hear that slapping sound in the background? If you listen hard you can just hear it. It’s Catholics face planting as they read comments like that. Charles is a poster boy for those wanting to change people’s views on matters such as gay marriage. I’d invite him to speak at every Gay Parade.

All that spittle flecked invective. How do you think it goes down with people like Sarah? Or maybe, excuse my rudeness, I should ask Sarah to tell us herself.

Divide and conquer deftly applied once more.

Yes, of course, I am reminded of the words of Jesus: “Be ye politically correct as your Heavenly Father is politically correct.”

 

[Bradski]

What you are doing is capitalizing on sympathies.

I prefer to call it pointing out bigotry.

Yup, admittedly, the tactic has been successful with the weak, the vulnerable and easily compromised. We’ll see how far it goes when the shepherd decides the wolf is due for his comeuppance. Who’s that standing behind you, Bradski?

Behind me? They’re all the people who think that your secular arguments are risible and your religious ones are irrelevant. I’m handing out popcorn whilst we wait for more incisive comments from Charles.

 

[Thorolfr]

I’m handing out popcorn whilst we wait for more incisive comments from Charles.