. . . and The RestDiscuss just about anything besides Politics and Religion! Discuss sports, pop culture, computers, videogames, welcome new members, wish someone a happy birthday. Or just chit chat!
All of which involve partners that can't consent and therefore are naturally coercive behaviors. Homosexuality occurs between consenting adults.
Thank you for completely missing the point, just like Mary Contrary did at the beginning of this thread. I'm not talking about behaviors. I'm talking about inclinations. What would you do if someone came to you, perhaps a family member of yours, and he said "I am inclined to rape women. I've never raped a woman. I'm not going to...but I am inclined to do so. I am inclined to rape." Would you treat that person differently?
Quote:
Let me make something very clear to you. The Catholic Church's official position is that homosexual behavior is sin, not homosexual attraction.
That's precisely what I just said. The Catholic position is that the homosexual behavior is sinful, whereas the homosexual attraction (whereas it is disordered) is not. That's why I'm making this distinction. I don't think that you should be discriminated against for an attraction, so long as you don't act on it. That is the Church's position:
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCC 2367-2359
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,140 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."141 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
Even as you continue to insult and slander me, I stand by what I said earlier: I love you as Christ commands me to, I feel called to care for you as a human being (as Levinas says I must), and even if you feel isolated from the rest of the world, you can consider me your friend.
"If you say the Rosary faithfully until death, I do assure you that, in spite of the gravity of your sins 'you shall receive a never fading crown of glory.' [2] Even if you are on the brink of damnation, even if you have one foot in Hell, even if you have sold your soul to the devil as sorcerers do who practise black magic, and even if you are a heretic as obstinate as a devil, sooner or later you will be converted and will amend your life and save your soul, if----and mark well what I say----if you say the Holy Rosary devoutly every day until death for the purpose of knowing the truth and obtaining contrition and pardon for your sins" (St. Louis Marie de Montfort, Secret of the Rosary, Red Rose).
Slogan/motto:
Even if there is merit to it, it's always best to understand why you believe something, rather than blindly following.
Reputation:
July 24th, 2009, 02:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Traditio
Thank you for completely missing the point, just like Mary Contrary did at the beginning of this thread. I'm not talking about behaviors. I'm talking about inclinations. What would you do if someone came to you, perhaps a family member of yours, and he said "I am inclined to rape women. I've never raped a woman. I'm not going to...but I am inclined to do so. I am inclined to rape." Would you treat that person differently.
Inclinations or behaviors, it doesn't matter! Coercion is wrong! Neither homosexual inclinations or behaviors involve coercions! Are you an idiot or just dense?
Quote:
That's precisely what I just said. The Catholic position is that the homosexual behavior is sinful, whereas the homosexual attraction (whereas it is disordered) is not. That's why I'm making this distinction. I don't think that you should be discriminated against for an attraction, so long as you don't act on it. That is the Church's position:
You have already argued that homosexuals should be separated from heterosexuals in several different situations. Don't even try to cover up your bigotry at this point.
Quote:
Even as you continue to insult and slander me, I stand by what I said earlier: I love you as Christ commands me to, I feel called to care for you as a human being (as Levinas says I must), and even if you feel isolated from the rest of the world, you can consider me your friend.
You are comparing homosexuality to rape! You are saying you love me while equating me to a rapist! Frankly, you are just a sick human being who doesn't know the first thing about compassion or friendship.
Inclinations or behaviors, it doesn't matter! Coercion is wrong! Neither homosexual inclinations or behaviors involve coercions! Are you an idiot or just dense?
Having an inclination to rape involves coercion? A simple inclination?
Quote:
You have already argued that homosexuals should separated from heterosexuals in several different situations. Don't even try to cover up your bigotry at this point.
Yeah, for entirely prudential reasons. People of the opposite sex don't share dressing rooms, bathrooms, and dormatoria. Why? Because it tends towards creating undue sexual tension, and making at least one party involved highly uncomfortable.
Homosexuals shouldn't be permitted to share dressing rooms, bathrooms, and dormatoria with their heterosexual counterparts of the same gender for precisely the same reason. It's entirely prudential.
Quote:
You are comparing homosexuality to rape! You are saying you love me while equating me to a rapist! Frankly, you are just a sick human being who doesn't know the first thing about compassion or friendship.
I am not comparing homosexuality to rape, nor am I equating you to a rapist. My point is simple, and if you for one single moment would stop having such a defensive, angry mindset, you might see it more clearly. There's a difference between inclinations and actions. Actions have moral significance, whereas inclinations do not. Mere inclinations are beyond our control.
The fact is, though, that you yourself are very likely to discriminate against people of certain inclinations. You are a hippocrit.
"If you say the Rosary faithfully until death, I do assure you that, in spite of the gravity of your sins 'you shall receive a never fading crown of glory.' [2] Even if you are on the brink of damnation, even if you have one foot in Hell, even if you have sold your soul to the devil as sorcerers do who practise black magic, and even if you are a heretic as obstinate as a devil, sooner or later you will be converted and will amend your life and save your soul, if----and mark well what I say----if you say the Holy Rosary devoutly every day until death for the purpose of knowing the truth and obtaining contrition and pardon for your sins" (St. Louis Marie de Montfort, Secret of the Rosary, Red Rose).
Slogan/motto:
Even if there is merit to it, it's always best to understand why you believe something, rather than blindly following.
Reputation:
July 24th, 2009, 02:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Traditio
Having an inclination to rape involves coercion?
Yes. Rape by definition requires no consent. So even just an inclination towards rape can be coercive. After all, inclination just means an "attitude". If you have an aggressive inclination, then even if you aren't being aggressive, you are still an aggressive person. If you have a coercive inclination, even you aren't being coercive, you are still a coercive person inside.
Quote:
Yeah, for entirely prudential reasons. People of the opposite sex don't share dressing rooms, bathrooms, and dormatoria. Why? Because it tends towards creating undue sexual tension, and making at least one party involved highly uncomfortable.
Homosexuals shouldn't be permitted to share dressing rooms, bathrooms, and dormatoria with their heterosexual counterparts of the same gender for precisely the same reason. It's entirely prudential.
How would you even know who is gay? Are you going to require additional facilities just for gay people?
Quote:
I am not comparing homosexuality to rape, nor am I equating you to a rapist. My point is simple, and if you for one single moment would stop having such a defensive, angry mindset, you might see it more clearly. There's a difference between inclinations and actions. Actions have moral significance, whereas inclinations do not. Mere inclinations are beyond our control.
True. A coercive person can choose not to act coercively. However, that doesn't provide any reason why a homosexual person should be treated differently or required not to engage in homosexual behavior.
Quote:
The fact is, though, that you yourself are very likely to discriminate against people of certain inclinations. You are a hippocrit.
You are trying to make the argument that I believe just because homosexuals have an inclination to homosexuality is reason they shouldn't be discriminated against. And then you are trying to argue that if that is my reasoning then I discriminate against rapist and such based on that ideal. However, I don't think homosexuals should be free from discrimination because they have an inclination to homosexuality. I think homosexuals should be free from discrimination because neither their behavior or inclinations harm anyone. You should probably actually find out what I believe before you try to construct arguments against it. Otherwise all you can do is rely on pathetic strawmans.
Yes. Rape by definition requires no consent. So even just an inclination towards rape can be coercive. After all, inclination just means an "attitude". If you have an aggressive inclination, then even if you aren't being aggressive, you are still an aggressive person. If you have a coercive inclination, even you aren't being coercive, you are still a coercive person inside.
No. By "inclination," I understand "predisposition to commit an act," or more commonly, "temptation." I mean it in the most general of senses. "I have felt a desire to commit this action, whether or not I have consented to the desire." For example...take cake. I like cake. I see a cake. I smell the cake. I go "mmm...cake." That's what I mean by inclination. I can then either eat the cake or not eat it. As you can see, having an inclination to eat the cake is in no way related to choosing to eat it or not eat it. One can be inclined to eat the cake and decide not to eat the cake.
Quote:
How would you even know who is gay? Are you going to require additional facilities just for gay people?
I have no idea. I should hope that homosexuals should have the sensibilities not to put themselves in that sort of situation. Say you're a really, really attractive gay guy. Do you really want to be put in a situation where you have to be naked around a bunch of heterosexual women?
Quote:
True. A coercive person can choose not to act coercively. However, that doesn't provide any reason why a homosexual person should be treated differently or required not to engage in homosexual behavior.
That's just it. I don't think that homosexuals should be treated any differently, except in those cases where mere prudence demands it. Just as one would not want to leave a pedophile alone with children otherwise unattended (even if he's never raped a child), just as you would never want to put a person predisposed towards bestiality (even if he's never raped an animal) around a bunch of animals, just as you'd never want to leave a rapist alone with an attractive woman, and just as you'd never want to let a necrophiliac anywhere near a cemetery unattended...well...I probably don't want to be put in a situation where I, as a decent looking straight guy, might be naked around a gay man.
Sure, I understand that he may or may not be attracted to me. I understand that gay men aren't attracted to every guy. Still, I might be just as uncomfortable being naked around a gay man just as much as you might be uncomfortable being naked around straight women.
Quote:
You are trying to make the argument that just I believe just because homosexuals have an inclination to homosexuality is reason they shouldn't be discriminated against. And then you are trying to argue that if that is my reasoning then I discriminate against rapist and such based on that ideal. However, I don't think homosexuals should be free from discrimination because they have an inclination to homosexuality. I think homosexuals should be free from discrimination because neither their behavior or inclinations harm anyone.
Well this is where I am making a very simple distinction. I don't think that inclination of any kind should be cause for other people to treat him in any way contrary to human dignity, immorality nonetheless remains immoral.
Mostly, I'm trying to clarify what I said earlier. I want to make it very clear that I don't want to cause you as a homosexual any sort of undue inconvenience/harm merely because you have an inclination. I want to make it very clear that I think you are owed respect, dignity, etc. I just don't think you should be having gay sex.
"If you say the Rosary faithfully until death, I do assure you that, in spite of the gravity of your sins 'you shall receive a never fading crown of glory.' [2] Even if you are on the brink of damnation, even if you have one foot in Hell, even if you have sold your soul to the devil as sorcerers do who practise black magic, and even if you are a heretic as obstinate as a devil, sooner or later you will be converted and will amend your life and save your soul, if----and mark well what I say----if you say the Holy Rosary devoutly every day until death for the purpose of knowing the truth and obtaining contrition and pardon for your sins" (St. Louis Marie de Montfort, Secret of the Rosary, Red Rose).
Slogan/motto:
Even if there is merit to it, it's always best to understand why you believe something, rather than blindly following.
Reputation:
July 24th, 2009, 02:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Traditio
I have no idea. I should hope that homosexuals should have the sensibilities not to put themselves in that sort of situation. Say you're a really, really attractive gay guy. Do you really want to be put in a situation where you have to be naked around a bunch of heterosexual women?
Wouldn't bother me any.
Quote:
That's just it. I don't think that homosexuals should be treated any differently, except in those cases where mere prudence demands it. Just as one would not want to leave a pedophile alone with children otherwise unattended (even if he's never raped a child), just as you would never want to put a person predisposed towards bestiality (even if he's never raped an animal) around a bunch of animals, just as you'd never want to leave a rapist alone with an attractive woman, and just as you'd never want to let a necrophiliac anywhere near a cemetery unattended...well...I probably don't want to be put in a situation where I, as a decent looking straight guy, might be naked around a gay man.
So how would "mere prudence" be used with homosexuals? You not going to allow gay men around other gay men?
Quote:
Sure, I understand that he may or may not be attracted to me. I understand that gay men aren't attracted to every guy. Still, I might be just as uncomfortable being naked around a gay man just as much as you might be uncomfortable being naked around straight women.
I'm sorry you feel uncomfortable. A lot of white people felt uncomfortable sitting on buses alongside black people.
Quote:
Mostly, I'm trying to clarify what I said earlier. I want to make it very clear that I don't want to cause you as a homosexual any sort of undue inconvenience/harm merely because you have an inclination. I want to make it very clear that I think you are owed respect, dignity, etc. I just don't think you should be having gay sex.
You might have better luck showing respect by not comparing homosexual inclinations to coercive inclinations. I'm also happy you are concerned about my sex life, but its my choice to live my life as I will as long as I'm not harming others in the process. You have no right to interfere in how I live my life as long as I'm not harming others.
I'm sorry you feel uncomfortable. A lot of white people felt uncomfortable sitting on buses alongside black people.
Man I feel Sheltered, I've lived in an extremly multiculturale city called Nottingham in the UK and no one is scared of sitting next to black people.
And I live in a not so multicultural but cosmopolitan city of Glasgow in the UK and still no great fear.
Also no fear of sexuality either.
What has a straight man to fear from a man looking at him in a shared shower ? really what would the fear actually be. I wouldn't be "Afraid" of a woman checking me out nor would I be afraid of a man checking me out either. I think the fear is they might like it. lol
Quote:
Originally Posted by Revelation
You might have better luck showing respect by not comparing homosexual inclinations to coercive inclinations.
Think of it this way Revelation, when they have no real reason to be morally outraged they'll just tag it to somthing else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Revelation
I'm also happy you are concerned about my sex life, but its my choice to live my life as I will as long as I'm not harming others in the process. You have no right to interfere in how I live my life as long as I'm not harming others.
It's strange that this truth needs spelling out at all in my opinion, that another human being has to be actually told this is a sad state of affairs indeed.
Slogan/motto:
Treat others the way you want to be treated.
Reputation:
July 24th, 2009, 06:26 AM
Traditio: This really comes down to 1 thing. I can prove that rape, necrophilia, beastiality and pedophilia are bad. And I can do that without citing the Bible. Can you do the same, regarding homosexuality? What makes it wrong?
Slogan/motto:
Don't look back; something may be gaining on you.
Reputation:
July 24th, 2009, 06:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Green Goblin
Traditio: This really comes down to 1 thing. I can prove that rape, necrophilia, beastiality and pedophilia are bad. And I can do that without citing the Bible. Can you do the same, regarding homosexuality? What makes it wrong?
....but you cannot do so without citing a standard of morality.....which makes your opinion just as subjective as his.
Destroy another fetus now, we don't like children anyhow, I've seen the future baby......... It is Murder.
~Leonard Cohen
To my mind it is wholly irresponsible to go into the world incapable of preventing violence, injury, crime, and death. How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness. How unnatural. How cheap. How cowardly. How pathetic.
~Ted Nugent
Slogan/motto:
"A day is as a thousand years" is about perspective. Two hours on the highway, to a five year old, seems like an eternity! To a 50 year old trucker, it's just the start of a good morning
Yeesh, you fundies seem to have awfully sensitive stomachs. I can listen to Fred Phelps proclaim the eternal doom of the world without feeling the least bit sick, while you guys can't handle listening to a polite and persuasive speaker who happens to be homosexual.
Fred makes me want to also!
♠
"So if I stand, let me stand on the promise that You will see me
through
And if i can't let me fall on the Grace that first brought me to you"
Slogan/motto:
"A day is as a thousand years" is about perspective. Two hours on the highway, to a five year old, seems like an eternity! To a 50 year old trucker, it's just the start of a good morning
Traditio: This really comes down to 1 thing. I can prove that rape, necrophilia, beastiality and pedophilia are bad. And I can do that without citing the Bible.
How? What is the standard of right and wrong? Natures standard is survival of the fittest. The strongest male dog rules the pack through dominance. Is that wrong?
Quote:
Can you do the same, regarding homosexuality? What makes it wrong?
♠
"So if I stand, let me stand on the promise that You will see me
through
And if i can't let me fall on the Grace that first brought me to you"
....but you cannot do so without citing a standard of morality.....which makes your opinion just as subjective as his. 
also!
Linear Mode
