Duck Dynasty Dis

[southern california guy]

She's not making it up. I'm not good at quoting the catechism (I think it's the catechism, anyway), but someone who is will post it soon, and if not, I will look for it all day if I have to.

 

I challenge you to find it.

[PhuturePriest]

I challenge you to find it.

 

Challenge accepted.

"Today, the Church... refuses to consider the person as a "heterosexual "or a "homosexual," and insists that every person has a fundamental identity: the creature of God, and by grace, His child and heir to eternal life." Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith no. 16

[Norseman82]

Please stop with the vagina vs vulva thing. Everyone calls it a vagina. It has linguistically evolved to mean all the lady parts. Calling it a vulva is pretentious.

 

OK, how many here all of a sudden want to watch "Kindergarten Cop"?

[Lil Red]

Two articles that I thought were interesting to read:

 

Audrey Assad's article

snippet:

To recap—what have we, the Church, been trying to tell the world in both word and deed? 

“Sex/sexuality isn’t just about rubbing body parts together. 

Sex/sexuality isn’t just about what feels good or what your urges are.

Sex/sexuality isn’t just about copulation.

Sex/sexuality isn’t just about what and/or whom you are attracted to.

Sex/sexuality doesn’t define you.”

I feel that Phil Robertson’s tone in commenting on these things unintentionally flies in the face of those tenets we have been fighting to communicate in love—against the respect of personhood the Church clings to so dearly—against the deep commitment we ought to have to protecting, upholding, and affirming each person’s equal dignity. Here’s why: Phil’s comments, and the tone in which they were uttered, effectively reduce people with same sex attraction to their sexual impulses. Any of us who has a homosexual friend, neighbor, or relative, probably knows that these comments are offensive not as much because of their eventual point (that homosexual sex is objectively immoral) but more because of the way that point is arrived at. Phil’s comments could be boiled down to this: “Dude sex is immoral and gross, because homosexual men like man butts more than they like lady parts, and that’s just weird and disgusting, kind of like sex with animals.”

and this article (which has one bad word, repeated):

snippet:

They want to avoid talk of sex acts at all costs. They want - they desire - for the conversation to be an attack on persons, not an attack on acts. The moment the conversation is 'It's the acts, not the person' and 'It's the sex, not the love', things get vastly more complicated for them. Keep this in mind, be attentive, and respond accordingly - if you're at all the sort of person given to debate.

[Norseman82]

You're right a Priest has to dance around issues like homosexuality.  In fact Priests have to dance around any issues of morality.  Divorce? Adultery?  Half of the congregation is divorced and remarried!  Homosexuality? Forty percent of the Catholic priests are homosexuals!  Abortion? Don't even touch that one!!!!!! Living together before marriage?  I've never heard that one mentioned from the pulpit.

 

Don't worry I'm not sinless.  But it's like lying -- just because we've all done it doesn't make it right.  And it would be ridiculous to worry about being "sensitive" when you criticize lying.

 

It cracks me up.  He went right to the heart of the issue.  Nobody dares to do that -- unless they are in a bar and have had few drinks, and are not worrying about what they're saying.  Everybody thinks it -- but nobody ever says it!!!  You're not supposed to be that candid.  You're probably supposed to say something like "Look at the lovely men... ohhh! And look at the lovely flowers outside.  Isn't it a lovely day!"

 

Jesus was a **** of a lot more candid, and look what happened to him.  I'm not careful enough myself when it comes to watching what I say.  Fortunately for me I was innocent enough that I didn't know what was going on half the time when I was in college.  For instance my wife is pregnant now and she is going through terrible morning sickness.  And I was recently horrified to realize that it reminds me of a girl that I knew back in college... who had a similar "problem"....which she suddenly got over... and which she later explained was "bulimia".   It was rumored that she had gotten an abortion, but I absolutely knew it wasn't true because she was one of the sweetest, most moral, "conservative", girls that I knew.

 

How much candor do we dare to use in discussing any issue that has to do with human sexuality, reproduction, and morality?  Is it the name that you use for a certain body part?  Is it the detail in which you discuss it?  Can it be openly discussed at all?  Maybe there are certain things that you just never talk about at all -- unless you are in a bar and drunk..  Fortunately for me I was innocent enough -- back in college -- that I didn't think twice about my friends "bulimia problem" -- and I never mentioned it even once.

 

 

But here's the thing: He could have even been as graphic as he was while still being respectful. When I think of profound and respectful statements, "I mean, come on, dudes!" is generally not in them.

 

This also goes into the issue that HisChildForever mentions about how he's just focusing on body parts and not treating people with homosexual tendencies like human beings.

 

SCG, congratulations on your wife's pregnancy.  Some of the stuff you just wrote deserves a "prop". 

 

I guess the only thing I would be concerned about regarding the explicit language used is out of concern for younger members of the audience.  That may also be why we don't hear about many of these issues (or they are tread upon very carefully) in homilies, since there are young children at Mass. 

[HisChildForever]

Where does the Catholic church teach that?  I have never read that anywhere.  I think that you are making that up.

 

I do indeed believe that the root of their problems is their sexual preferences and their "lifestyle".  Especially their "lifestyle"!

 

Okay this is annoying. Just because you're not aware of the teaching...I'm automatically making it up? Instead of "Gee, I've never heard of that, maybe I should Google" or "Hm, maybe she's mistaken, I've never heard of that" it's "I've never read this before...omggg lieface!!1111!!!1"

 

Since when does the Church define the human person by his sexual urges? 

 

That is my point exactly.  You can manipulate an argument with careful use of words that elicit certain emotions. You can use the word "love" and "romance" -- but the use of the word does not make it so.

 

Some rapists might argue that they were in "love" with the women that they raped -- and the rape was an act of "love".   Are you opposed to sex between a man and an underage girl -- even if the girl allows it to continue without reporting what is going on?  How about if she thinks she is in love with the man?  How about if she uses birth control and there is little risk of her getting pregnant?  Would you argue that certain "relationships" are not "healthy" ones????

 

First, please stop being so hysterical. Second, do I need remind you that I am a Catholic who abides by Church teaching? You don't need to convince me to believe the doctrine on homosexuality because I already believe it. Third, the examples you keep giving are ridiculous. You can't compare a sexual relationship between two consenting adults to a sexual relationship between an adult and a child.

[Norseman82]

 

 

First, please stop being so hysterical. Second, do I need remind you that I am a Catholic who abides by Church teaching? You don't need to convince me to believe the doctrine on homosexuality because I already believe it. Third, the examples you keep giving are ridiculous. You can't compare a sexual relationship between two consenting adults to a sexual relationship between an adult and a child.

 

I think that what SCG is trying to get at is to show a logical progression to other examples in a reductio ad absurdum, a concept which in and of itself is a legitimate tactic in a debate. 

 

One thing, though:  in my experience debating secular types in the same-sex marriage issue, the pro-same sex marriage side uses the "consenting adults" argument to advance their side, so please be careful that you don't fall for that line of reasoning. 

[HisChildForever]

I think that what SCG is trying to get at is to show a logical progression to other examples in a reductio ad absurdum, a concept which in and of itself is a legitimate tactic in a debate. 

 

One thing, though:  in my experience debating secular types in the same-sex marriage issue, the pro-same sex marriage side uses the "consenting adults" argument to advance their side, so please be careful that you don't fall for that line of reasoning. 

 

I understand and support the use of logical progression. However his initial attempt at doing so was all based on the faulty reasoning that correlation equates causation. 

 

I use the "consenting adults" argument within the context of his comparing an adult homosexual couple with an adult sexually abusing a child.

[southern california guy]

Challenge accepted.

"Today, the Church... refuses to consider the person as a "heterosexual "or a "homosexual," and insists that every person has a fundamental identity: the creature of God, and by grace, His child and heir to eternal life." Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith no. 16

 

I was going to argue that this means that you should show others respect -- and consider them -- not by some label but as a fellow Catholic.  But the more I think about it this sort of implies that a homosexual can go to heaven -- by the grace of God.  Is this consistent with what the bible teaches??  Can't we do things that separate us from God? 

 

Anyway this doesn't mean that we shouldn't relate certain behavior with bad consequences.  I mean I can be considerate to somebody who is a homosexual, and at the same time feel that the person is messing up their life with their behavior.  What you experience in life is very much "defined" by how you behave.  People definitely define themselves by their behavior -- good or bad..  Who knows if homosexuals who commit suicide, get aids, or live an unhappy life are going to go to heaven or not.

 

 

 

Correlation does not equate causation. 

 

You list people who either have mental illness, drug problems, severe psychological trauma, or all three. These people also happen to identify as homosexuals. Well guess what, I know scores of people with mental illness, drug problems, AND trauma who just so happen to identify as heterosexuals. Was it their sexual orientation that caused these issues or something else? Genetic propensity? Environment? Culture? Peer influence? Family problems? Predators?

 

I'm not even going to acknowledge the rapist because that's a completely different category.

 

The Catholic Church teaches us not to define peoples with homosexual inclinations by their sexual preference. But that's exactly what you're doing here. You're saying that the root of all their problems is their sexual preference.

 

 

Correlation doesn't have to equate to a single cause, but that's a pretty vague statement.  Take a look at homosexuality and you are going to find a group of people that have a lot of problems.  I know that you can argue that their problems are a result of how they are treated and viewed, but not all of us believe that is the case.

 

People definitely "define" themselves by their behavior.  Nobody absolutely knows how another person thinks or believes -- but you can get a bit of an idea by how they behave.  This doesn't mean that you should not treat other people with respect.  

 

However I still believe that homosexuality is the root of many problems.  This is a moral belief.  It's not about going out and pointing fingers at this person and that person.  But it is certainly an idea that you would want to teach your children.  I believe that homosexuals mess up their lives with their homosexual behavior.  I don't honestly believe that anybody is genetically born a "homosexual".  It's not a special type of person.  It's nothing more than a perversion.  People think all sorts of crazy things.  It is how you behave, whether you act on a stupid impulse, that determines whether you have problems in your life.  You can teach your children that there is no "black and white" in terms of morality -- and you will approve no matter how they chose to behave -- but that is just plain stupid and you are setting up your kids for disaster.  Instead you should teach them that you love them and want the best for them and that you don't want them to behave certain ways -- because you know what the consequences are and you don't want them to experience those bad consequences.

[PhuturePriest]

 

 

I was going to argue that this means that you should show others respect -- and consider them -- not by some label but as a fellow Catholic.  But the more I think about it this sort of implies that a homosexual can go to heaven -- by the grace of God.  Is this consistent with what the bible teaches??  Can't we do things that separate us from God? 

 

Anyway this doesn't mean that we shouldn't relate certain behavior with bad consequences.  I mean I can be considerate to somebody who is a homosexual, and at the same time feel that the person is messing up their life with their behavior.  What you experience in life is very much "defined" by how you behave.  People definitely define themselves by their behavior -- good or bad..  Who knows if homosexuals who commit suicide, get aids, or live an unhappy life are going to go to heaven or not.

 

 

Are you saying people with homosexual tendencies don't go to heaven? Do you mean people who act on those tendencies, or everyone with them regardless of the lives they lead?

[southern california guy]

Are you saying people with homosexual tendencies don't go to heaven? Do you mean people who act on those tendencies, or everyone with them regardless of the lives they lead?

 

 

Yes I meant people who act on those tendencies.  The story of Sodom and Gomorrah and its destruction in book of Genesis is pretty dramatic -- and even a bit disturbing.  I hesitate to quote any of it here.

 

I suppose that what bothers me is that the Catholic church says: "...the Church refuses to consider the person as a "heterosexual "or a "homosexual,".."  

 

Why can't they say instead: "Today the Church considers a person a "homosexual" if they commit the act sodomy with somebody of the same sex.  The Catholic church does not condone or support this behavior which it views as destructive and an abomination.  However the Catholic church considers all people creatures of god, and prays for the salvation of those leading a life contrary to the will of God."

[southern california guy]

I sort of wonder if Norseman and I are looking at this from a completely different perspective because we are from a different generation.  We're both in our late forties and the Catholic church was quite a bit different thirty - forty years ago, it was in the midst of changes -- which are now established doctrines of the Catholic church.

[PhuturePriest]

Yes I meant people who act on those tendencies.  The story of Sodom and Gomorrah and its destruction in book of Genesis is pretty dramatic -- and even a bit disturbing.  I hesitate to quote any of it here.

 

I suppose that what bothers me is that the Catholic church says: "...the Church refuses to consider the person as a "heterosexual "or a "homosexual,".."  

 

Why can't they say instead: "Today the Church considers a person a "homosexual" if they commit the act sodomy with somebody of the same sex.  The Catholic church does not condone or support this behavior which it views as destructive and an abomination.  However the Catholic church considers all people creatures of god, and prays for the salvation of those leading a life contrary to the will of God."

 

Because the Church doesn't label people. Labeling is harmful and destructive. You are not homosexual. You are not heterosexual. You are a human person who may have these tendencies or those tendencies, but that's not who you are or even what you are. Your sexuality doesn't define you.

[southern california guy]

Because the Church doesn't label people. Labeling is harmful and destructive. You are not homosexual. You are not heterosexual. You are a human person who may have these tendencies or those tendencies, but that's not who you are or even what you are. Your sexuality doesn't define you.

 

Yes, but we are talking about homosexuality in a vague sense.  It seems like the Catholic church has found a creative way to dodge the issue.  When asked about the Catholic churches moral position on homosexuality they act like you are talking about somebody specifically and they argue that they view all members with respect -- which was not the question.  It's like asking a politician a question.

 

Questioner:          Does the Catholic church view the homosexual lifestyle as sinful?

 

Catholic church:   The Catholic church refuses to consider the person as a "heterosexual "or a "homosexual," and insists that every person has a fundamental identity: the creature of God, and by grace, His child and heir to eternal life.

 

 

Or maybe I am paranoid and looking at this as if it came from a context that it didn't??

Edited December 23, 2013 by southern california guy

[PhuturePriest]

Yes, but we are talking about homosexuality in a vague sense.  It seems like the Catholic church has found a creative way to dodge the issue.  When asked about the Catholic churches moral position on homosexuality they act like you are talking about somebody specifically and they argue that they view all members with respect -- which was not the question.  It's like asking a politician a question.

 

Questioner:          Does the Catholic church view the homosexual lifestyle as sinful?

 

Catholic church:   The Catholic church refuses to consider the person as a "heterosexual "or a "homosexual," and insists that every person has a fundamental identity: the creature of God, and by grace, His child and heir to eternal life.

 

The Church also explicitly states this:
 

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,¹⁴¹ tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."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. 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.

[southern california guy]

The Church also explicitly states this:
 

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,¹⁴¹ tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."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. 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.

 

Then that is not bad at all.  In fact that is very good.

[PhuturePriest]

Then that is not bad at all.  In fact that is very good.

 

But the Church does refuse to label people at the same time.

[NotreDame]

[Clare Brigid]

Give me a break. You can't say the bigoted things he said without consequences. Sorry but it's called personal responsibility. For the record he also said things about black people that was just as disgusting.

The whole persona is a made up crock. Before they were famous they were a bunch of white bread golfing WASPS. Not hillbillies.

 

 

This is the truth.  I've seen the before and after photos.  And here they are:

 

The brothers, "before."

 

 

Willie and Korie, "before."

 

 

Jep and Jessica, "before."

 

 

Jase and Missy, "before."

 

 

And after $$$:

 

 

 

[southern california guy]

This is the truth.  I've seen the before and after photos.  And here they are:

 

The brothers, "before."

 

 

Willie and Korie, "before."

 

 

Jep and Jessica, "before."

 

 

Jase and Missy, "before."

 

 

And after $$$:

 

 

 

 

What happened?  Did he get a Harley?