Why Catholics will never "win" on homosexuality

[Publisher]

If that’s your belief, that’s your belief… but then similarly, you should be opposed to the idea of “falling in love”, as it’s not reasonable or logical either.

Actually the psycho chemical response of “falling in love” can be measured…the “after life” has no such measurment nor a biological psycho-chemical process where it can be measured.

 

[sw85]

“Never” is a long time.

Look, here’s the thing. “Cold abstractions” prevailed for basically all of human history until about five minutes ago. They will prevail again, when the very transient social madness that has overcome the West finishes its leisurely stroll across the stage of history and is swallowed by oblivion. People’s reactive disgust for perversion will reassert itself because it’s an integral part of human nature. It’s already reasserting itself in public schools.

Homosexual activism is a blip on the cultural and historical radar. For that matter, so is the made-up idea of “homosexuality,” an idea invented a century ago which no other culture in history has ever recognized.

Homosexual activism is a product of liberalism. Liberalism is an epiphenomenon of modernity. Modernity is unraveling. QED. The strength of liberalism has been its ability to convert otherwise sane people, but it is already running into diminishing returns on this. For one thing, there’s the fact that liberalism has made a total mess of the social order and people are beginning to turn away from it in disgust. For another, religiosity appears to inoculate people against the corrosive effects of liberalism, it is heritable, and it correlates very strongly with fertility (where liberalism does not). Simply put, liberals are not reproducing enough, partly for ideological reasons but mainly because their own sexual degeneracy is crippling their ability to pass on their ideas to future generations, which will be unable to find new converts in a society in which the battle lines are increasingly solidifying. The fertility gap between leftist atheists and religious traditionalists is not very large but it is large enough to compound enough over time that we will see effects within a few generations.

So within 1-2 centuries liberalism will be dead or nearly so, at least in America. I have no doubt institutional liberalism will see this coming and react, as it always has, with extraordinary violence. Pffffth. Who cares. We’ve waited out worse than this pathetic breed of underfed weenies.

This process is on an accelerated timeline in Europe, by the way, due to the Muslim immigration which leftists have been welcoming in their zeal to destroy the remnants of their own Christian identities. Within fifty years Muslim children will make up the majority of children in several European nations. Muslims are not integrating into European modernity. QED; within fifty years, we will be a generation away from Islamic cultural hegemony in broad swaths of Europe. Where “homosexuals” are celebrating their “marriages” on the steps of European courthouses today, a century hence they will be getting stoned to death there.

Before anyone starts accusing me of intolerance, bigotry, blah blah blah, I don’t like that outcome. Not one bit, and not in the least because devout Catholics will be getting stoned to death there too (or worse). If I am blessed with grandchildren, I know full well that they will probably be martyred. My ideal would not be for liberalism to be destroyed by its own incompetence and madness. My ideal would be for it to repent of its errors and turn back before it’s too late. I don’t think it will, but that doesn’t matter. Either way, it won’t last.

Nor will their “win” on “homosexuality.” To borrow a line from that one awful song, enjoy yourself – it’s later than you think.

 

[djames99]

I would love to have eternal life and happiness. I just don’t believe in it because logic and reason tells me otherwise.

So do something that is absolutely illogical, insane even by this world’s reasoning. Trust in a being just for the benefit of the doubt. Just take some time away in a peaceful location alone, maybe your favorite fishing spot, and simply talk to God and tell him your problems and ask for some help. Tell him you have problems in believing in him. You know what, the perfect person that will help I’m sure is St. Thomas. Ask him to help your doubt. If there is anyone who had this problem big time, he had it, to the point of annoying Jesus.

Throw in some actions that will show your on the level. Keep away from serious habits and show your going to try to change. The really cool thing is when you start to talk to Mary. Here she becomes delighted when you talk to her. She’s in good favor with her son, and will relay your intent. Another thing that happens is that your request stirs up the angels and the good news gets around pretty quick up there.

Now you may experience some dry period depending on the person’s disposition which would be expected so don’t give up. Your being checked out. This is because they don’t like giving holy gifts of grace from God if there going to be wasted. Sincerity counts and just letting go, allowing God to prepare a new path with your help.

 

[Havard]

Actually the psycho chemical response of “falling in love” can be measured…the “after life” has no such measurment nor a biological psycho-chemical process where it can be measured.

I don’t doubt one can measure the chemical response related to plenty of illogical thoughts… but the thoughts themselves are still illogical. So I fail to see what your comment has to do with mine.

 

[interestedman]

Okay, why does there being a victim make it wrong? Is there an objective moral code that you can use to make me believe this view?

I think the golden rule is a good one to live by. It is extremely simplified, but it works well. And Jesus didn’t invent it, in case you didn’t know.

 

[interestedman]

Wow! TWO sentences! Now I guess you’ve totally trashed that theory!

Seriously, learn about it then try and argue against. Making silly statements like this isn’t helping your case.

You were appealing to the fact that natural law had been used for 1,000 years, but during that 1,000 years I guarantee people used natural law to show the morality of slavery.

 

[interestedman]

Is moral truth determined by majority opinion?

Is the moral truth determined by the church? Why didn’t Paul condemn slavery in his letter to Philemon?

 

[interestedman]

If that’s your belief, that’s your belief… but then similarly, you should be opposed to the idea of “falling in love”, as it’s not reasonable or logical either.

Falling in love is quite reasonable and logical. It is actually testable by science as well in terms of brain scans.

 

[interestedman]

“Never” is a long time.

Look, here’s the thing. “Cold abstractions” prevailed for basically all of human history until about five minutes ago. They will prevail again, when the very transient social madness that has overcome the West finishes its leisurely stroll across the stage of history and is swallowed by oblivion. People’s reactive disgust for perversion will reassert itself because it’s an integral part of human nature. It’s already reasserting itself in public schools.

Homosexual activism is a blip on the cultural and historical radar. For that matter, so is the made-up idea of “homosexuality,” an idea invented a century ago which no other culture in history has ever recognized.

Homosexual activism is a product of liberalism. Liberalism is an epiphenomenon of modernity. Modernity is unraveling. QED. The strength of liberalism has been its ability to convert otherwise sane people, but it is already running into diminishing returns on this. For one thing, there’s the fact that liberalism has made a total mess of the social order and people are beginning to turn away from it in disgust. For another, religiosity appears to inoculate people against the corrosive effects of liberalism, it is heritable, and it correlates very strongly with fertility (where liberalism does not). Simply put, liberals are not reproducing enough, partly for ideological reasons but mainly because their own sexual degeneracy is crippling their ability to pass on their ideas to future generations, which will be unable to find new converts in a society in which the battle lines are increasingly solidifying. The fertility gap between leftist atheists and religious traditionalists is not very large but it is large enough to compound enough over time that we will see effects within a few generations.

So within 1-2 centuries liberalism will be dead or nearly so, at least in America. I have no doubt institutional liberalism will see this coming and react, as it always has, with extraordinary violence. Pffffth. Who cares. We’ve waited out worse than this pathetic breed of underfed weenies.

This process is on an accelerated timeline in Europe, by the way, due to the Muslim immigration which leftists have been welcoming in their zeal to destroy the remnants of their own Christian identities. Within fifty years Muslim children will make up the majority of children in several European nations. Muslims are not integrating into European modernity. QED; within fifty years, we will be a generation away from Islamic cultural hegemony in broad swaths of Europe. Where “homosexuals” are celebrating their “marriages” on the steps of European courthouses today, a century hence they will be getting stoned to death there.

Before anyone starts accusing me of intolerance, bigotry, blah blah blah, I don’t like that outcome. Not one bit, and not in the least because devout Catholics will be getting stoned to death there too (or worse). If I am blessed with grandchildren, I know full well that they will probably be martyred. My ideal would not be for liberalism to be destroyed by its own incompetence and madness. My ideal would be for it to repent of its errors and turn back before it’s too late. I don’t think it will, but that doesn’t matter. Either way, it won’t last.

Nor will their “win” on “homosexuality.” To borrow a line from that one awful song, enjoy yourself – it’s later than you think.

You are absolutely delusional. Everything you said is almost definitely not going to happen.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_of_same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States#Generational_differences

 

[Havard]

Falling in love is quite reasonable and logical. It is actually testable by science as well in terms of brain scans.

Please refer to post #108, it answers someone who made a similar response.

 

[april32010]

I doubt this was ever a matter of win or lose anyway! This from a highly revered Catholic priest and teacher (This level of consciousness looks like a “win” to me!)

what “revered” priest was this?

 

[Marc_Anthony]

You were appealing to the fact that natural law had been used for 1,000 years, but during that 1,000 years I guarantee people used natural law to show the morality of slavery.

Do you know what natural law actually is? Do you know how to apply it?

If it was applied to slavery (I’ve never heard anybody ever actually make a rational natural law argument for slavery) it was because people of other races were thought to be subhuman. Biology has proven this false.

I’m sorry, but stop with this ridiculousness. Stop criticizing a principle you know nothing about with silly pseudo-arguments.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I think the golden rule is a good one to live by. It is extremely simplified, but it works well. And Jesus didn’t invent it, in case you didn’t know.

1. Okay, I said Jesus invented the golden rule when…? Thanks for the history lesson…?

I already knew that completely irrelevant fact, thanks.

1. Cool. So you consider it an objective standard? Why?

 

[Marc_Anthony]

You were appealing to the fact that natural law had been used for 1,000 years, but during that 1,000 years I guarantee people used natural law to show the morality of slavery.

BTW, I was pointing out that since it was used for 1,000 years it’s intellectually dishonest to try and debunk it in one sentence. That’s ridiculous and speaks of a glaringly obvious double standard.

Slavery is not a philosophical system of deriving morality from basic logic. Bad comparison.

 

[JimG]

“Never” is a long time.

Look, here’s the thing. “Cold abstractions” prevailed for basically all of human history until about five minutes ago. They will prevail again, when the very transient social madness that has overcome the West finishes its leisurely stroll across the stage of history and is swallowed by oblivion. People’s reactive disgust for perversion will reassert itself because it’s an integral part of human nature. It’s already reasserting itself in public schools.

Homosexual activism is a blip on the cultural and historical radar. For that matter, so is the made-up idea of “homosexuality,” an idea invented a century ago which no other culture in history has ever recognized.

Homosexual activism is a product of liberalism. Liberalism is an epiphenomenon of modernity. Modernity is unraveling. QED. The strength of liberalism has been its ability to convert otherwise sane people, but it is already running into diminishing returns on this. For one thing, there’s the fact that liberalism has made a total mess of the social order and people are beginning to turn away from it in disgust. For another, religiosity appears to inoculate people against the corrosive effects of liberalism, it is heritable, and it correlates very strongly with fertility (where liberalism does not). Simply put, liberals are not reproducing enough, partly for ideological reasons but mainly because their own sexual degeneracy is crippling their ability to pass on their ideas to future generations, which will be unable to find new converts in a society in which the battle lines are increasingly solidifying. The fertility gap between leftist atheists and religious traditionalists is not very large but it is large enough to compound enough over time that we will see effects within a few generations.

So within 1-2 centuries liberalism will be dead or nearly so, at least in America. I have no doubt institutional liberalism will see this coming and react, as it always has, with extraordinary violence. Pffffth. Who cares. We’ve waited out worse than this pathetic breed of underfed weenies.

This process is on an accelerated timeline in Europe, by the way, due to the Muslim immigration which leftists have been welcoming in their zeal to destroy the remnants of their own Christian identities. Within fifty years Muslim children will make up the majority of children in several European nations. Muslims are not integrating into European modernity. QED; within fifty years, we will be a generation away from Islamic cultural hegemony in broad swaths of Europe. Where “homosexuals” are celebrating their “marriages” on the steps of European courthouses today, a century hence they will be getting stoned to death there.

Before anyone starts accusing me of intolerance, bigotry, blah blah blah, I don’t like that outcome. Not one bit, and not in the least because devout Catholics will be getting stoned to death there too (or worse). If I am blessed with grandchildren, I know full well that they will probably be martyred. My ideal would not be for liberalism to be destroyed by its own incompetence and madness. My ideal would be for it to repent of its errors and turn back before it’s too late. I don’t think it will, but that doesn’t matter. Either way, it won’t last.

Nor will their “win” on “homosexuality.” To borrow a line from that one awful song, enjoy yourself – it’s later than you think.

In the long run of history this will no doubt be the outcome. The current sexual degeneracy will result in liberalism’s end, but as you say, that outcome will be futiley fought be a dying liberalism with extraordinary violence. Christians will no doubt suffer martyrdom. The Cristero Wars in Mexico provide a mild preview. In the end, society will return to reason. We may suffer through a new dark age, but it is always the Church which is left to pick up the remnants and rebuild civilization.

 

[sw85]

You are absolutely delusional. Everything you said is almost definitely not going to happen.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_of_same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States#Generational_differences

Erm, you realize that everything I said is perfectly reconcilable with the fact that in the short term we will almost definitely be saddled with gay “marriage” because of the liberalism of the youth, right?

I am talking about trends stretching over several lifetimes.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Yeah…not so much. In my opinion philosophy can never really prove anything.

So… it is your tentative philosophy (opinion) that philosophy can never really prove anything [to you]. In other words you have used philosophy [albeit badly] to prove that philosophy can never really prove anything.

Roughly translated I take your position to mean that no matter what logically sound arguments supported by strong premises (evidence) anyone provides, these will never prove anything to you because your opinions are not based upon strong rational arguments (philosophy) but on something else that you have not yet devulged, but is more convincing to you than strong rational arguments.

You’ll get no argument from me to try to persuade you to change your opinion.

 

[Contarini]

You were appealing to the fact that natural law had been used for 1,000 years, but during that 1,000 years I guarantee people used natural law to show the morality of slavery.

Yes, with heavy qualifications, as the Catholic Encyclopedia points out:

From the beginning the Christian moralist did not condemn slavery as in se, or essentially, against the natural law or natural justice. The fact that slavery, tempered with many humane restrictions, was permitted under the Mosaic law would have sufficed to prevent the institution form being condemned by Christian teachers as absolutely immoral. They, following the example of St. Paul, implicitly accept slavery as not in itself incompatible with the Christian Law. The apostle counsels slaves to obey their masters, and to bear with their condition patiently. This estimate of slavery continued to prevail till it became fixed in the systematized ethical teaching of the schools; and so it remained without any conspicuous modification till towards the end of the eighteenth century. We may take as representative de Lugo’s statement of the chief argument offered in proof of the thesis that slavery, apart from all abuses, is not in itself contrary to the natural law. Slavery consists in this, that a man is obliged, for his whole life, to devoted his labour and services to a master. Now as anybody may justly bind himself, for the sake of some anticipated reward, to give his entire services to a master for a year, and he would in justice be bound to fulfil this contract, why may not he bind himself in like manner for a longer period, even for his entire lifetime, an obligation which would constitute slavery? (De Justitia et Jure, disp. VI, sec. 2. no. 14.) It must be observed that the defence of what may be termed theoretical slavery was by no means intended to be a justification of slavery as it existed historically, with all its attendant, and almost inevitably attendant, abuses, disregarding the natural rights of the slave and entailing pernicious consequences on the character of the slave-holding class, as well as on society in general. Concurrently with the affirmation that slavery is not against the natural law, the moralists specify what are the natural inviolable rights of the slave, and the corresponding duties of the owner. The gist of this teaching is summarized by Cardinal Gerdil (1718-1802):
Slavery is not to be understood as conferring on one man the same power over another that men have over cattle. Wherefore they erred who in former times refused to include slaves among persons; and believed that however barbarously the master treated his slave he did not violate any right of the slave. For slavery does not abolish the natural equality of men: hence by slavery one man is understood to become subject to the dominion of another to the extent that the master has a perpetual right to all those services which one man may justly perform for another; and subject to the condition that the master shall take due care of his slave and treat him humanely (Comp. Instit. Civil., L, vii). The master was judged to sin against justice if he treated his slave cruelly, if he overloaded him with labour, deprived him of adequate food and clothing, or if he separated husband from wife, or the mother from her young children. It may be said that the approved ethical view of slavery was that while, religiously speaking, it could not be condemned as against the natural law, and had on its side the jus gentium, it was looked upon with disfavour as at best merely tolerable, and when judged by its consequences, a positive evil.

Edwin

 

[Havard]

So… it is your tentative philosophy (opinion) that philosophy can never really prove anything [to you]. In other words you have used philosophy [albeit badly] to prove that philosophy can never really prove anything.

Roughly translated I take your position to mean that no matter what logically sound arguments supported by strong premises (evidence) anyone provides, these will never prove anything to you because your opinions are not based upon strong rational arguments (philosophy) but on something else that you have not yet devulged, but is more convincing to you than strong rational arguments.

You’ll get no argument from me to try to persuade you to change your opinion.

youtube.com/watch?v=XVCtkzIXYzQ&feature=fvst

 

[Peter_Plato]

Is the moral truth determined by the church? Why didn’t Paul condemn slavery in his letter to Philemon?

I suspect Paul had an enlightened understanding of human nature. He understood that all sin is addiction, and therefore slavery, to all kinds of passions and appetites (both natural and unnatural). Furthermore, he saw that slavery in the political/social sense could function, instrumentally, through this indentured obedience to something or someone external to an individual’s own ego as potentially salvific, i.e. to lift the “slave” out of their own sin enslaved ego, provided they had the right attitude and cooperate with grace. Think here, as an analogy, of an unfit couch potato who hires a personal trainer to “force” them to adhere to an external set of routines which is “beyond” their own ability in order to break out of their slavery to sloth and indolence. Their “slavery” to a personal trainer and regimen is the ticket to their freedom. Freedom after all, is “freedom from” something in order to fulfill a function or complete a goal. Freedom is not an abstract “good in itself.”

As Martin Luther said,

I am more afraid of my own heart than of the pope and all his cardinals. I have within me the great pope, Self.

Too bad he didn’t follow his own logic.

This was also Jesus’ teaching that to find your true self, you must lose or overcome the fallen self that is enslaved to sin.

Political slavery has its drawbacks, but Paul understood that compared to the slavery of sin, it’s a walk in the park. If you don’t see that, you haven’t met the Christ and darkness continues to cover the deep.