P
Why can't homosexuals see that their behavior is an abomination?
- Status
and God bless you for your honesty.
R
RobbyS
Guest
The problem lies in the use of the term “values,” which really derives ultimately from economics, and sees all behavior as a matter of taste. Rorty asserted that is not such thing as intrinsically evil desires, which is a fancy way of saying this, which goes far beyond anything that Epicurus ever said. But where do you draw the line? How do you say, “Pork is Ok, but “long pig,” is not? The two meats may actually taste pretty much alike. The sensation of penetration of an anus may feel the same as that of the penetration of a vagina, but surely there ARE objective measures.
G
GraceSofia
Guest
Agreed.
Telling the truth is important. A big part of the homosexual “marriage” propaganda involves forcing people to say what they know is a lie. Do we refrain from labeling the drunken behaviour of an alcoholic as disgusting, damaging, and sinful? No. So why should we refrain from speaking the truth about homosexual acts? We do not do the person with SSA any favours by sugar-coating.
We do not do our young people any favours by romanticising the so-called gay lifestyle. We cause harm and may even be complicit in sin. People need to know the spritual, psychological, and physical risks involved in such a lifestyle. Perhaps some young person who is being influenced by the culture around him/her to try out homosexual acts will be saved by plain speaking.
We participate in the sins of others by praising the sin, consenting to the evil done by another, concealing a sin, by defending the evil done by another, and by silence.
G
GraceSofia
Guest
To get back to the original question of why (since we’ve spent pages hashing over pc language). I believe it is human nature to gloss over our own pet vices and sins. How often do alcoholics say they had no understanding of the destruction they were causing until after they got sober? Sin causes the darkening of the conscience so it becomes harder and harder to know right from wrong. Also, if we have committed some sin we seek to justify it unless we are prepared to admit it is a sin. I believe that one of the main reasons some people fight so hard FOR abortion is because they either had an abortion or were complicit in one and so they must justify it rather than face the fact that they murdered their own child. It all becomes a vicious spiral.
We all have to seek to form our consciences. This article on Conscience is helpful, and lists some causes of erroneous conscience:
Lack of care in forming our conscience or our powers of reason
Misunderstanding conscience
Damage caused by repeated and habitual sin
Following the bad example of others
Rejection of Church teaching
Ignorance of Christ and the Gospels
Neglecting the work of our conversion to Christ
Neglect of charity
Also the Catechism section on Moral Conscience is HERE.
B
Baelor
Guest
They follow directly. I would read my post until you understand.
Unfortunately, my commitment to the virtue of honesty does not permit me to do that, since you still have not actually said that the below quotation was completely irrelevant to the thread.
P
Petergee
Guest
yeah I tried that but sorry your post makes no sense.
Why should I say that? My statement there is very relevant to the thread and perfectly correct. If there is anything false or offensive in it, please point it out. If not then stop this absurd charade.
Admittedly my statement does not directly address the OP’s question, but then NONE of your statements here addresses it. All you’ve done is is gfalsely accuse me of attacking people with no basis for the accusation whatsoever. Come on, be a man like Mitex and apologise.
R
Regular_Atheist
Guest
Why would they if they’re not religious? They find it very appealing, regardless of what you think.
B
Baelor
Guest
Try again.
Okay. Then, as I stated earlier, “You were not fostering intelligent discussion (I know it when I see it, believe me), nor was anyone saying we should consider homosexuality as “positive and good.” Please do not throw your intellectual and moral baggage at those not meriting it.”
I have not falsely accused you of anything. You have done everything I accused you of doing, and you even just admitted it: “My statement there is very relevant to the thread.”
If not a single person on this thread was saying that homosexuality was “positive and good,” which you claim you did not assert, then in no way would your original statement be relevant to this thread, which you just claimed it was: “My statement there is very relevant to the thread.”
Again, you can choose between irrelevancy and the ending of the justification for your continued posting or a false accusation that results from your own baggage. Your choice.
That would be rather un-Catholic and abetting sinful behavior on the part of other posters.
Also, apologies are not limited to males.
P
Petergee
Guest
I don’t know why I’m even bothering to answer this absurdity, but for the sake of charity to one who appears to have difficulty with written communication:
In which post did I say "somebody here is saying we should consider homosexuality as “positive and good.” "?
As I clearly have never said, this, nor anything like it, why do you seem to continually imply that I did? Frankly your behaviour is quite bizarre.Please be specific in your answer and do not merely reply again with yet another generalised and confused accusation of “sinful behaviour”.
P
Petergee
Guest
Morality is independent of any religious beliefs which any person may or may not have. This is not a religious question.
The principles of morality are available (albeit more or less clouded by our fallen human nature) to every rational human being, including those who profess no religious belief whatsoever.
All temptations to sin are very appealing. And all sins are disgusting and abominable.
E
empantarhei
Guest
the temptation is appealing, but not the sin itself. Do I understand you correctly?
B
Baelor
Guest
I am a bit confused – do you not know what you post? Please consider post #104 and your reply in post #107. Then consider my post #115 and subsequent replies. Then think for some time, and then realize that you are not making sense.In which post did I say "somebody here is saying we should consider homosexuality as “positive and good.” "?
P
Petergee
Guest
I asked you to be specific. What exactly did I say that you seem to think is somehow offensive?
And puh-lease for goodness sake, “man” can mean both sexes and all ages. This PC nonsense is really quite tiresome and not helpful to intelligent discussions, which you claimed to be an expert on.
P
Petergee
Guest
Oh come on now. If a temptation to sin is appealing, it can only be because of the appeal of the sin itself. A temptation per se is just a feeling.
S
Scott_D
Guest
HA! I LOVE YOUR RESPONSE! I heard of a great way to talk to homosexuals from something Jimmy Akin said on the radio. He stated that heterosexuals also have standards of sexual behavior to live up to, why should homosexuals be exempt?
E
empantarhei
Guest
a simple yes would have sufficed. I did understand, was just making sure. No need to be nasty. Think I’ll go sin with that giant bowl of disgusting and abominable candy…
B
Baelor
Guest
First, it is worth noting that I did not actually accuse you of stating that someone viewed homosexuality as “positive and good” when you accused me of accusing that. So, if we are talking about false accusations, consider the beam before the speck…
Petergee:
Either this post is irrelevant to the thread or not. You claimed in #142 that it was, in fact, relevant to this thread.
How, then, is such a post relevant? It is clear that threads consists of posts, and posts are written by posters. Consequently, commenting on the content of the thread involves the posters who produce the content as well, i.e. a claim that a post ‘says’ something is actually stating that a poster said something.
Now, let us assume that you do not properly understand the definition of “relevance.” Perhaps you assert that the post in question is abstractly related to this thread, in the sense that often in such discussions the situation described is the case. Since that situation has not occurred, your post, responding to no one and without any caveat of being preemptive, is in fact irrelevant, making your claim to its relevance false and making its inclusion in the discussion bizarre, especially since no one was talking about threads in general and you made no attempt to contextualize your comment within the current thread.
If that is not the case, i.e. despite your inability to understand my clear statements you do understand the definition of “relevance,” then the full force of my original and sound accusation slam into you. The content of your post #107 is a specific retort to a particular line of reasoning, not an actual answer to the OP. It was also your reply to your continued involvement in a particular thread, namely this one. Therefore, unless you wish to assert that you make dangling and isolated posts that respond to no one and refer to no one in particular, it relates to a particular line of reasoning that is in this thread.
The remainder of the argument is obvious. If you are responding to a particular line of reasoning that is in this thread, then you must believe someone must fit the description that you put forward. That is, someone reacted negatively when you portrayed homosexuality as something other than “positive and good.” Unless you wish to assert a massive level of dissonance on the part of said poster, he presumably believes that homosexuality is “positive and good.”
Therefore, my point stands.
I was. Since you consistently do not understand my posts, let me lay it out in a different way.
Post #107.
Either this post is irrelevant to the thread or not. You claimed in #142 that it was, in fact, relevant to this thread.
How, then, is such a post relevant? It is clear that threads consists of posts, and posts are written by posters. Consequently, commenting on the content of the thread involves the posters who produce the content as well, i.e. a claim that a post ‘says’ something is actually stating that a poster said something.
Now, let us assume that you do not properly understand the definition of “relevance.” Perhaps you assert that the post in question is abstractly related to this thread, in the sense that often in such discussions the situation described is the case. Since that situation has not occurred, your post, responding to no one and without any caveat of being preemptive, is in fact irrelevant, making your claim to its relevance false and making its inclusion in the discussion bizarre, especially since no one was talking about threads in general and you made no attempt to contextualize your comment within the current thread.
If that is not the case, i.e. despite your inability to understand my clear statements you do understand the definition of “relevance,” then the full force of my original and sound accusation slam into you. The content of your post #107 is a specific retort to a particular line of reasoning, not an actual answer to the OP. It was also your reply to your continued involvement in a particular thread, namely this one. Therefore, unless you wish to assert that you make dangling and isolated posts that respond to no one and refer to no one in particular, it relates to a particular line of reasoning that is in this thread.
The remainder of the argument is obvious. If you are responding to a particular line of reasoning that is in this thread, then you must believe someone must fit the description that you put forward. That is, someone reacted negatively when you portrayed homosexuality as something other than “positive and good.” Unless you wish to assert a massive level of dissonance on the part of said poster, he presumably believes that homosexuality is “positive and good.”
Therefore, my point stands.
I never stated I was offended by your post, and I am surprised that you think I “seem” offended because I am not.
That is obviously wrong, and you know it. “Be a man” is not synonymous with “be a human” otherwise we would say “be a man” to women unironically. I have never heard that in my life. Have you?
Where?
P
Petergee
Guest
Sorry, I was getting frustrated with Baelor’s apperent deliberate failure to understand and distortion of the plain meaning my words, and I’m afraid I took part of that out on you in the tone of my response, as it seemed you too were trying to make something out of such a simple statement. Forgive me.
E
empantarhei
Guest
I am not surprised that you are saying that.
P
Petergee
Guest
Your first point directly contradicts your last point. Are you still accusing me of saying that or not?
Yet again let me repeat, I said that *"every time someone mentions homosexuality as something other than positive and good, intelligent discussion is drowned by a chorus of kneejerk PC mantras of “you’re attacking me/them!” * which obviously you and others have done.
I did NOT say “every time someone mentions homosexuality as something other than positive and good, someone has responded “homosexuality IS positive and good” and they have done so on this thread!”
Great, then you can stop this silly charade.
If you are in fact a woman (or a boy, girl, youth, hermaphrodite, etc.etc.) I apologise for any inadvertent offence. But there is nothing to indicate this on your profile. Your name seems masculine to me. So you can hardly blame me if I drew a false conclusion which was reasonably based on the information you provided.
Post 109:
- Status