Homophobic

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='SoylentGreene' timestamp='1311438806' post='2274341']
I think the acceptance of homosexuality has done more harm to our society than anything else - after abortion.
[/quote]
I don't agree with this. I think protestantism has done far more damage (arguably even including leading to the popular thought of homosexuality as not sinful).

[SoylentGreene]

[Jaime]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1311381894' post='2274080']
I don't think so. Kujo's denial of the sinfulness of homosexual activity contradicts Scripture, which I think is a clear enough example of heresy.
I suppose I should have been more specific and said "I still believe that you hold heretical opinions", but I was being less formal at the time so I figured it would be understood. In any case, I will amend my statement to that if you think it better.
[/quote]

There is a huge difference between someone holding heretical views and someone being a heretic.

[fides' Jack]

[quote name='franciscanheart' timestamp='1311311932' post='2273639']
People?
[/quote]

I don't know what you're asking.

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1311316200' post='2273650']
This may surprise you, but the Catechism doesn't call it "objectively" disordered, rather "morally" disordered.You seem to be splitting hairs. What relevance does it have that you are focusing on the behavior and attitudes of homosexuals, rather than the homosexual themselves, maybe so it doesn't seem like you are discriminating against them?You are merely repeating doctrine, without even evidence that this is doctrine or dogma. This isn't evidence. Almost the whole of the scientific and medical communities refuses to call homosexuality a disorder or illness of any kind. So if the only people claiming it is disordered are religious because of doctrine, then it is a subjective accusation. Relevance? This is a doctrinal assessment, concerning norms, not how objectively that homosexuality is disordered.You haven't shown how it is inappropriate.Again, this is not evidence, it is doctrine, a subjective determination. One that flies in the face of the modern scientific and medical consensus on the matter.

So it seems the ONLY evidence for homosexuality being objectively disordered is a non-existent reference in the Catechism. Which is not objective and is not evidence. As someone accurately put it, its pulling the party line.
[/quote]

I don't have the time or place of mind to find a reference in the Catechism (which one, by the way?). I used to be that guy, who would get into online arguments and then go and find a whole bunch of text I could dump on the screen to make myself look smart. Find the reference yourself.

Still, the Catechism regards morality as objective, and breaks it down quite matter-of-factly. Therefore, "morally" disordered = objectively disordered. Also, I think another time it uses the term "intrinsically disordered." That also sounds very definitive to me, in an "objective" sort of way.

Stop playing word games and actually read the Catechism (and try to understand it), which, from a Catholic standpoint, ABSOLUTELY trumps any sort of "scientific study" or "scientific conclusion" that some people put together based on popular statistics.

As for my statement that homosexuality needs to be distinguished from homosexual - that's a very wide margin here. They are very different things. They're even different types of words. Homosexuality implies an action, where homosexual implies a type of person. Yes, it's a disorder, and when you act on it, it's called "homosexuality".

Nihil IS arguing for the Church in this case. The idea of romance exists to unite two people in sacramental marriage. Two heterosexual people can have such a relationship, in a holy way, but two homosexual people (of the same gender, mind you) cannot. Any attempt at romance between two homosexual persons of the same gender is sinful. "Hitting" on someone also needs to be defined. If you define it as inappropriate sexual advances, then yes, that's absolutely sinful. If you define it as appropriately asking someone to dinner, that's entirely fine.

Also, someone correct me if I'm wrong, here, but isn't it true that any person who holds an opinion contrary to Church teaching on a matter of Faith or Morals is a heretic? So, does the matter of heresy simply boil down to interpretation of Church teaching? That seems really lame to me. Is the teaching of the Church really so unclear that people are translating it for themselves, like the Protestants do with the Bible?

[revelations]

[img]http://www.funnyhub.com/content_images/4325_2163_homosexuals-are-gay.jpg[/img]

[fides' Jack]

I don't even know what that means...

[kujo]

[quote name='fides' Jack' timestamp='1311453974' post='2274453']

I don't have the time or place of mind to find a reference in the Catechism (which one, by the way?). I used to be that guy, who would get into online arguments and then go and find a whole bunch of text I could dump on the screen to make myself look smart. Find the reference yourself.[/quote]

"Proof? I don't need no stinkin' proof!!!"

[quote]Stop playing word games and actually read the Catechism (and try to understand it), which, from a Catholic standpoint, ABSOLUTELY trumps any sort of "scientific study" or "scientific conclusion" that some people put together based on popular statistics.[/quote]

Let's play a game.

How about we NOT cast doubt on "science" (by that, I mean rational statements that can be proven with empirical research)? Let's also not talk smack about "popular statistics," which, to be sure, has to be the lamest phrase ever uttered on Phatmass. What statistical measure or method would ever be "popular?"

[Jaime]

[quote]Also, someone correct me if I'm wrong, here, but isn't it true that any person who holds an opinion contrary to Church teaching on a matter of Faith or Morals is a heretic? So, does the matter of heresy simply boil down to interpretation of Church teaching? That seems really lame to me. Is the teaching of the Church really so unclear that people are translating it for themselves, like the Protestants do with the Bible?
[/quote]

I think that's a bit simplified. I don't have a problem with anyone stating (when it's true) that someone is holding a heretical position. But we don't declare people heretics, the Church does. And even then, the Church is will only do it as a last resort. If you're a heretic, you are excommunicated. You are outside the Church. No one on a Catholic forum should ever refer to another on the forum as a heretic.

[Lil Red]

[quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1311458433' post='2274493']
I think that's a bit simplified. I don't have a problem with anyone stating (when it's true) that someone is holding a heretical position. But we don't declare people heretics, the Church does. And even then, the Church is will only do it as a last resort. If you're a heretic, you are excommunicated. You are outside the Church. No one on a Catholic forum should ever refer to another on the forum as a heretic.
[/quote]
agreed.

[revelations]

*edit

Edited July 23, 2011 by revelations

[revelations]

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=2][b]Psalm 34:4
[/b]I sought the LORD, and He heard me, and delivered me from all my [b]fears[/b].[/size][/font]

[Deus te Amat]

Okay. Show me the scientific proof that homosexual behavior is a product of the natural environment. That is, how is it supported by evolution?

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1311458233' post='2274489']
"Proof? I don't need no stinkin' proof!!!"



Let's play a game.

How about we NOT cast doubt on "science" (by that, I mean rational statements that can be proven with empirical research)? Let's also not talk smack about "popular statistics," which, to be sure, has to be the lamest phrase ever uttered on Phatmass. What statistical measure or method would ever be "popular?"
[/quote]

[Socrates]

[quote name='fides' Jack' timestamp='1311453974' post='2274453']
I don't have the time or place of mind to find a reference in the Catechism (which one, by the way?). I used to be that guy, who would get into online arguments and then go and find a whole bunch of text I could dump on the screen to make myself look smart. Find the reference yourself.
[/quote]
Not that it will stop the atheist trolls, but here's the reference:
[quote]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. [b]Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."[/b]142 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. [b]This inclination, which is objectively disordered[/b], constitutes for most of them a trial.[/quote]

[Socrates]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1311458233' post='2274489']
"Proof? I don't need no stinkin' proof!!!"



Let's play a game.

How about we NOT cast doubt on "science" (by that, I mean rational statements that can be proven with empirical research)? Let's also not talk smack about "popular statistics," which, to be sure, has to be the lamest phrase ever uttered on Phatmass. What statistical measure or method would ever be "popular?"
[/quote]
Yes, we all know that objective morality, as taught by the Church, must now be replaced by "science." (Never mind the inconvenient fact that science, as such, can tell us absolutely nothing about the morality of an action, or what[i] ought[/i] to be done, or ought not be done.)

And now "science" need not be burdened by such tedious old-fashioned processes as the scientific method, but merely consists of democratically popular opinion of guys with PhDs. If enough people with academic letters after their name have the opinion that homosexuality is natural and moral, then it must be moral, dammit! To contradict such opinion would be "unscientific"!

[Socrates]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1311440323' post='2274353']
I don't agree with this. I think protestantism has done far more damage (arguably even including leading to the popular thought of homosexuality as not sinful).
[/quote]
I think by far the most damage was done by original sin.

[Socrates]

[quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1311396390' post='2274190']
You're entitled to your opinion Lillabett but its incorrect. People believe the conspiracy theory about "politics" but it wasn't true. I had several professors when I was getting my master's who were active in the contraversy as well. Homosexuals can function in our society and not be adversely affected.

I said it was based on their ability to function in society. yes psychopaths can be happy but they aren't functioning in society. But if a behavior can fit within the bell curve of a society, it is no longer considered a disorder. Women were diagnosed with hysteria on a regular basis simply because they had a hard time submitting to the will of their husbands. Hysteria was a female disorder. An offensive one but it still was a "legitimate" diagnosis.


Well its been a long time since I've gotten my masters and I don't have my DSM in front of me. You may be right that its not a personality disorder, but I do know that its permanence is on the same level. That's what got us in the mess with scandal. Psychologists were the ones who told bishops that therapy and moving the priest would resolve the problem. They were wrong. I will go back and look at my notes when I get home
[/quote]
Someone can have a seriously disordered sexuality and still "function in society." There are people with all kinds of perversions can "function in society" (or at least as long as they are able to keep their perversions hidden from the general public).

[quote]"But if a behavior can fit within the bell curve of a society, it is no longer considered a disorder."[/quote]
Thus, the more disordered society becomes, the more deviant behavior will be labeled "normal" and acceptable.

[Jaime]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1311478560' post='2274676']



Thus, the more disordered society becomes, the more deviant behavior will be labeled "normal" and acceptable.
[/quote]

You are exactly right.

I'm not arguing the morality of the behavior. Psychology (like every other science) has no business discerning what is moral and what is not.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1311478201' post='2274672']
I think by far the most damage was done by original sin.
[/quote]
You win this round.

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1311478139' post='2274670']
And now "science" need not be burdened by such tedious old-fashioned processes as the scientific method, but merely consists of democratically popular opinion of guys with PhDs. If enough people with academic letters after their name have the opinion that homosexuality is natural and moral, then it must be moral, dammit! To contradict such opinion would be "unscientific"!
[/quote]

It seems to be a growing trend in our society that educated people and scientists are viewed as "despised elites" and decried somehow as "politically biased", in order to somehow diminish their very real research, facts and life's work, when it is inconvenient, to serve that part of society's political bias.

not a fan.



besides, jaimie laid out why your statement is irrelevant.

Also, when you refer to Science as "science" with the quotation marks, its like advertising that you dropped out of school in grade 9 to pursue a career as a Wal Mart greeter.

Edited July 24, 2011 by Jesus_lol

[Deus te Amat]

[quote name='Deus_te_Amat' timestamp='1311470520' post='2274572']
Okay. Show me the scientific proof that homosexual behavior is a product of the natural environment. That is, how is it supported by evolution?


[/quote]

I'm majoring in mathematics. I've taken college physics, chemistry, and biology. I've taken courses in Philosophy of Science and Theology and Science.


I believe that I have enough scientific background to enter into serious discussion here. Now please, answer my question. How are homosexual tendencies supported in the biological, natural world? How are the behaviors justifiably "normal" in light of Natural Selection?