Gay Cancer

[hyperdulia again]

Well honey..look at some of my past posts...it's inconsequential though...I'm meek and obedient NOW.

[ardillacid]

[quote name='hyperdulia again' post='1403067' date='Oct 15 2007, 04:18 PM']Yes my good woman they are necessary insofar as I am what is being dissected and debated.[/quote]
You have gay cancer?

[hyperdulia again]

you caught me!

[Anthony]

[quote name='gilly-boo' post='1401223' date='Oct 12 2007, 11:32 AM']why are they disordered?? do explain!! has God himself come down from heaven and told you this?? NO he hasn't so until God tells me so, i choose to believe he created them for a purpose "GOD DOES'T MAKE JUNK"[/quote]

God did not make anyone homosexual. That would be contrary to scripture. He made them in His image and likeness. Do you think that they were created homosexual or that they were born gay. People are not born gay. They choose to be gay.

[hyperdulia again]

[quote name='Anthony' post='1403772' date='Oct 16 2007, 07:01 PM']God did not make anyone homosexual. That would be contrary to scripture. He made them in His image and likeness. Do you think that they were created homosexual or that they were born gay. People are not born gay. They choose to be gay.[/quote]

Are you sure you aren't Baptist?

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='hyperdulia again' post='1403773' date='Oct 16 2007, 07:03 PM']Are you sure you aren't Baptist?[/quote]
Nice.

[hyperdulia again]

(i love the incredibles)

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1403275' date='Oct 15 2007, 07:46 PM']While I'll let the "Church scholars" debate the deep theological meaning of "intrinsic" and "objective," I think the main point should be clear:
Homosexual desires/attactions ARE in themselves disordered (objectively disordered). They are by their very nature NOT rightly ordered, and to act on them in any way is sinful.

While one can quibble as to exactly [i]how[/i] it is disordered, the fact remains that the homosexual "orientation" is a disordered condition.
It cannot be truthfully maintained that homosexual desire/attraction is no less disordered than heterosexual desire/attraction. Yes, heterosexual desire can be made disordered and perverted by sin, the truth is that in itself "heterosexual" attraction (sexual desire of a man for a woman or woman for a man) is the right ordering of human sexuality. Homosexual attraction is not, and can never be rightly ordered.

If one does not act or wilfully indulge a disordered desire, he commits no sin, but this does not mean that the desire itself disordered.

On these points, I think every sound Catholic should be able to agree.

While only God can judge hot stuff's inner intents, given his history of posting on Phatmass, on which he almost always seems to come down on the "pro-gay" side of debates on the topic (i.e laws restricting "gay marriage," homosexuals in seminaries, etc.), it can at least be easy to see why some of us "old-timers" are suspicious of his intents in debate.
([url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=52632"]Here's an old thread on a similar topic[/url].)[/quote]
Well, you sometimes come of as a hateful anti-gay bigot. Of course, that doesn't mean you are one. But I take offense with your implication that he is somehow pro-gay to the point of opposing what the Church teaches. Perhaps he is pro-human dignity and refuses to treat those who suffer from same sex attraction like they are animals who need to be punished. Your lack of understanding of the human person does not mean he holds views contrary to the Church.

[hyperdulia again]

*Does not write a very long post about how much he agrees with FD*

Return to the arms of Holy Church FD.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1403251' date='Oct 15 2007, 07:10 PM']I mentioned the definitions because earlier I was told I was secularizing the definitions.

there is a difference between saying that a desire is intrinsic to a human person, and saying a desire is intrinsically something. the former speaks to the nature of the human person, the latter to the nature of the desire itself. as I began saying in this thread: the "homosexual desire" is not something intrinsic to the human person, no human is intrinsically a homosexual (Apotheoun emphasizes this by refusing to use the term "homosexual" to refer to such a person)

however, what Apotheoun has been doing is labeling the "homosexual desire" as "intrinsically disordered", with "intrinsic" referring to the nature of the homosexual desire, not the nature of the person. just for clarity's sake, that's an important thing to keep in mind. your response to Apo, Cam, says that a desire cannot be intrinsic TO something; there's a difference between that, and the desire being intrinsically something, referring to the nature of the desire.

this can put some obscurity into Apo's side, with "intrinsically" sounding like it might refer to the nature of the person... linguistically, from the phrase "the homosexual desire is intrinsically disordered", I could see that interpretation; but from the context of all of Apo's posts, it becomes clear that he does not mean this.[/quote]

It is a matter of context though. In that context, Appy is wrong. He is muddying the waters by not being precise and by not making the important distinctions. Perhaps he is, perhaps he is not, but by your own admission, he may not be using this in the proper context.

Al, a desire cannot be intrinsic. It cannot by, by defintion, secular or otherwise......it can be objective or subjective, but neither of those things is intrinsic. That is the important distinction to make. In other words, the desire does not have a nature, but rather the person who has the desire has a nature. That nature can be intrinsic, but the desire the person has cannot be. The desire can be objective however. That is the crux of the issue here.

[quote name=''Socrates'']While I'll let the "Church scholars" debate the deep theological meaning of "intrinsic" and "objective," I think the main point should be clear:
Homosexual desires/attactions ARE in themselves disordered (objectively disordered). They are by their very nature NOT rightly ordered, and to act on them in any way is sinful.

While one can quibble as to exactly how it is disordered, the fact remains that the homosexual "orientation" is a disordered condition.
It cannot be truthfully maintained that homosexual desire/attraction is no less disordered than heterosexual desire/attraction. Yes, heterosexual desire can be made disordered and perverted by sin, the truth is that in itself "heterosexual" attraction (sexual desire of a man for a woman or woman for a man) is the right ordering of human sexuality. Homosexual attraction is not, and can never be rightly ordered.

If one does not act or wilfully indulge a disordered desire, he commits no sin, but this does not mean that the desire itself disordered, intrinsically. It means that the desire is objectively disordered, as defined by CCC #2358 (which, btw, is more than a giant dictionary or reference guide....just a clarification so that some might be inclined (subjectively) to dismiss. LOL)

On these points, I think every sound Catholic should be able to agree.

While only God can judge hot stuff's inner intents, given his history of posting on Phatmass, on which he almost always seems to come down on the "pro-gay" side of debates on the topic (i.e laws restricting "gay marriage," homosexuals in seminaries, etc.), it can at least be easy to see why some of us "old-timers" are suspicious of his intents in debate.
(Here's an old thread on a similar topic.)[/quote]

Your initial point is absolutely correct and it is supported both by hot stuff's position and my own. Let us be perfectly clear about that. Thank you.

Next, your second point is also correct.

Next and again, you are correct.

Finally, I think that with your last point, you are just looking for a fight. That is bad form and it puts a horrible light on your very valid and correct points above. For that I am saddened, because I see where you were going. I have known hot stuff for a very, very long time and he always sides with the human person. He doesn't support the homosexual act nor does he support the homosexual desire. On the contrary, he is very clear in his first post on the thread that the homosexual desire is disordered. And he continues to support that position the whole way.

He does however, make a clear distinction between the person and the desire. Which, BTW, is just what you are getting at with your above post. Unless of course, you think that a chaste homosexual who practices disinterested friendships with others is still culpable for homosexual inclinations? I doubt that you do.

Please show me where, by clear statement, hot stuff is "pro-gay." Please show me where he is lax on the so-called "gay marriage" laws. I do not now, nor have I ever seen hot stuff come down on the side of defending an action that is contrary to Catholic teaching.

[Cam42]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1403803' date='Oct 16 2007, 05:45 PM']Well, you sometimes come of as a hateful anti-gay bigot. Of course, that doesn't mean you are one. But I take offense with your implication that he is somehow pro-gay to the point of opposing what the Church teaches. Perhaps he is pro-human dignity and refuses to treat those who suffer from same sex attraction like they are animals who need to be punished. Your lack of understanding of the human person does not mean he holds views contrary to the Church.[/quote]


Well said.

[Socrates]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1403803' date='Oct 16 2007, 06:45 PM']Well, you sometimes come of as a hateful anti-gay bigot. Of course, that doesn't mean you are one. But I take offense with your implication that he is somehow pro-gay to the point of opposing what the Church teaches. Perhaps he is pro-human dignity and refuses to treat those who suffer from same sex attraction like they are animals who need to be punished. Your lack of understanding of the human person does not mean he holds views contrary to the Church.[/quote]
You know what, I really don't care what I "come off" as to certain people. Speaking the plain truth is rarely a guarantee of popularity.

My issue is with the insinuation that homosexual inclinations are not in themselves disordered. Homosexual inclinations are a pathology; they are not "benign" or "neutral." To say otherwise is to deny the truth, and ultimately does no one a service.
I don't think homosexuals are animals who need to be punished; they are human beings with free will responsible for their own behavior, and if they choose to promote their perverted agenda, they are indeed deserving, as human beings, of punishment, as are all of us if we obstinately promote sin.

I indeed do hate the homosexual agenda, which aggressively demands that unnatural vice be accepted and rewarded by society at large. If that makes me a "hateful bigot" in the eyes of the politically correct, so be it. The pro-homosexual politically correct left routinely dismisses as a "hater" or "bigot" anyone who speaks the truth (including the Catholic Church), so I'll wear that epithet as a badge of honor.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Cam42' post='1403871' date='Oct 16 2007, 08:38 PM']It is a matter of context though. In that context, Appy is wrong. He is muddying the waters by not being precise and by not making the important distinctions. Perhaps he is, perhaps he is not, but by your own admission, he may not be using this in the proper context.

Al, a desire cannot be intrinsic. It cannot by, by defintion, secular or otherwise......it can be objective or subjective, but neither of those things is intrinsic. That is the important distinction to make. In other words, the desire does not have a nature, but rather the person who has the desire has a nature. That nature can be intrinsic, but the desire the person has cannot be. The desire can be objective however. That is the crux of the issue here.
Your initial point is absolutely correct and it is supported both by hot stuff's position and my own. Let us be perfectly clear about that. Thank you.

Next, your second point is also correct.

Next and again, you are correct.

Finally, I think that with your last point, you are just looking for a fight. That is bad form and it puts a horrible light on your very valid and correct points above. For that I am saddened, because I see where you were going. I have known hot stuff for a very, very long time and he always sides with the human person. He doesn't support the homosexual act nor does he support the homosexual desire. On the contrary, he is very clear in his first post on the thread that the homosexual desire is disordered. And he continues to support that position the whole way.

He does however, make a clear distinction between the person and the desire. Which, BTW, is just what you are getting at with your above post. Unless of course, you think that a chaste homosexual who practices disinterested friendships with others is still culpable for homosexual inclinations? I doubt that you do.

Please show me where, by clear statement, hot stuff is "pro-gay." Please show me where he is lax on the so-called "gay marriage" laws. I do not now, nor have I ever seen hot stuff come down on the side of defending an action that is contrary to Catholic teaching.[/quote]
hot stuff has argued vehemently against the idea that homosexual inclinations are intrinsically (in themselves) disordered, or that they are mentally disordered (see closed thread linked to), as well as for those with strong homosexual inclinations being allowed in the seminary, and against legislation opposing "gay marriage" (against the stated position of the USCCB, whom he usually follows slavishly). (I don't currently have time to dig up those threads.)
True, he never claims homosexual acts are not sinful, but it seems to me he always attempts some kind of linquistic ju-jitsu to consistantly land him in a socially p.c. position, and insisting that his is the Catholic position.

I don't care to rehash this whole debate, and I doubt anyone will change his position.
Much of my observations have already been stated quite eloquently by Todd here (who is well-versed in theology), and CMom also seems to agree, so I don't think this can be dismissed as simply my own personal paranoia.
Anyway, I'm through with this thread.

[hyperdulia again]

I posted this three years ago on a thread much more uncharitable than this:

Father, teach us to always move with your magnamity, aand may we show each other the mercy you have shown us.

Jesus, you are our salvation and our life, return to your Church for She needs you desperately. Come Lord! Our every moment is filled with the pain of your abscence and we don't realize it. We hunger for you and only for you, come back to us.

Have mercy on us Lord, we know not sometimes how like the Pharisees we are becoming. We are blind children wondering the world; we try to do your will, we try to discern your will, but in your abscence things have become muddled and confused.

Save us Lord!

Maranatha!

Holy Spirit, you are Lord and sanctifier, we are your temple remake our hearts, remake our minds, and infuse our speech with your truth.

Mary, sinless mother, I entrust myself, and my brothers and sisters, to your guidance and your good counsel. Pray for us always mother and teach us your silence. Amen.

Edited October 17, 2007 by hyperdulia again

[Jaime]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1403251' date='Oct 15 2007, 09:10 PM']I mentioned the definitions because earlier I was told I was secularizing the definitions.



however, what Apotheoun has been doing is labeling the "homosexual desire" as "intrinsically disordered", with "intrinsic" referring to the nature of the homosexual desire, not the nature of the person. just for clarity's sake, that's an important thing to keep in mind. your response to Apo, Cam, says that a desire cannot be intrinsic TO something; there's a difference between that, and the desire being intrinsically something, referring to the nature of the desire.

this can put some obscurity into Apo's side, with "intrinsically" sounding like it might refer to the nature of the person... linguistically, from the phrase "the homosexual desire is intrinsically disordered", I could see that interpretation; but from the context of all of Apo's posts, it becomes clear that he does not mean this.[/quote]

you were and are secularizing the terms. And if you want to end the debate, give some prove that desire can have intrinsic value. You and Todd have simply stated personal opinions.


[quote name='Socrates' post='1403919' date='Oct 16 2007, 10:24 PM']You know what, I really don't care what I "come off" as to certain people. Speaking the plain truth is rarely a guarantee of popularity.

My issue is with the insinuation that homosexual inclinations are not in themselves disordered. Homosexual inclinations are a pathology; they are not "benign" or "neutral." To say otherwise is to deny the truth, and ultimately does no one a service.
The pro-homosexual politically correct left routinely dismisses as a "hater" or "bigot" anyone who speaks the truth (including the Catholic Church), so I'll wear that epithet as a badge of honor.[/quote]

And conversely I don't give a rat's ass if you want to call me pro-gay. (For the record, I'm not. I'm holding onto my amateur status in hopes of competing in the 2008 Olympics) The Church calls for us to honor the (wait for the word) intrinsic dignity of all human beings. When people misspeak about what the Catholic Church teaches, I will speak up. If they misspeak about the teachings on homosexuality, I'll speak up. If they misspeak on the teachings of capital punishment, I'll speak up. (Perhaps I'm on death row as well?) If you can find one post that I've made that goes against Catholic teaching, post it. I won't hold my breath.

You're a bright guy Soc. I'll be the first to say it. But for the life of me I cannot figure out how you can come up with the idea that I've insinuated that homosexual inclinations aren't disordered. Being as bright as you are, the only conclusion that I can come up with is that you're just making stuff up. I've clarified ad nauseum that homosexual inclinations are objectively disordered and should not be called intrinsically disordered.

And the original point that I was making with that is that all of us, have objectively disordered desires. We are all in the same boat in that category. It isn't that some of us have objectively disordered desires and others have intrinsically disordered desires. We ALL have the same failings in this realm.

And Hyper, that is the reason that I'm obsessing about precise language. The point is when it comes to less than holy thoughts, we are all in the same boat.

[hyperdulia again]

"(For the record, I'm not. I'm holding onto my amateur status in hopes of competing in the 2008 Olympics)"

[Jaime]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1403803' date='Oct 16 2007, 07:45 PM']Well, you sometimes come of as a hateful anti-gay bigot. Of course, that doesn't mean you are one. But I take offense with your implication that he is somehow pro-gay to the point of opposing what the Church teaches. Perhaps he is pro-human dignity and refuses to treat those who suffer from same sex attraction like they are animals who need to be punished. Your lack of understanding of the human person does not mean he holds views contrary to the Church.[/quote]

Thanks man!

[Cam42]

Ok, in order to really grasp this understanding of intrinsic value, we must look at it from a philosophical point of view. I will try to explain this as clearly as possible, but philosophy can be a bit "muddy" if not properly understood.....

[quote name=''Brian Weatherson'']G. E. Moore (1903: §18) noted that we can make a distinction between things that are good in themselves, or possess intrinsic value, and those that are good as a means to other things.[/quote]

Ok, looking at this statement, what we can see is that in order for something to possess intrinsic value something must be good in and of itself. Desires or inclinations do not do this. At best, those desires must be acted upon and that simply allows for a moral judgment, which can be either done objectively or subjectively (but not both).

[quote name=''ibid.'']In On the Plurality of Worlds, David Lewis presents a quite different analysis of intrinsic properties. As with the combinatorial theory that he and Rae Langton defend, it heavily exploits the idea that some properties are more natural than others. In fact, it rests even more weight on it. Here is Lewis's statement of the theory:

[I]t can plausibly be said that all perfectly natural properties are intrinsic. Then we can say that two things are duplicates iff (1) they have exactly the same perfectly natural properties, and (2) their parts can be put into correspondence in such a way that corresponding parts have exactly the same perfectly natural properties, and stand in the same perfectly natural relations…Then we can go on to say that an intrinsic property is one that can never differ between duplicates. (Lewis 1986a: 61-2)[/quote]

What is being claimed is that the world is fully characterised by the intrinsic properties of its inhabitants and the perfectly natural relations between those inhabitants. This cannot be the case. The reason being that in order for something to have an intrinsic property it cannot differ, ever, from a duplicate issue. Now, when we think of desires, there are never two desires which are exactly the same. This is further proof that a desire cannot be intrinsic.

Here is a syllogistic way to look at this.....

1. Choco (a specific piece of Chocolate) is valuable (intrinsically or extrinsically).
2. There is some property—being made of chocolate, say—such that Choco
is made of chocolate, and it is good that there be things which are made of
chocolate. (from 1, by definition of “is valuable”)
3. For any properties F and G, if
(a) it is good that there be things which are F, and if
(b) there are things which are F iff there are things which are G,
then it is good that there be things which are G.
4. There are things which are made of chocolate iff there are things which are
such that something is made of chocolate.
5. It is good that there be things which are such that something is made of
chocolate. (from 3, 4)
6. Everything is such that something is made of chocolate. (from 2)
7. Therefore, everything is valuable (intrinsically or extrinsically). (from 5, 6,
by definition of “is valuable”)


What I am getting at is this, Choco (the chocolate piece) is a thing and insofar as the thing has intrinsic value or is intrinsically valuable. What is not intrinsically valuable is are the properties or the if we were to take it back to our terms, the desires of Choco are not intrinsically valuable, but rather Choco itself is.....

This is where the move is being convoluted by Appy. And this is where he is confusing the situation. It is not a desire that is intrinsic, but rather it is the person who is intrinsic and it is the properties which are not.

Hope that didn't confuse anyone too much, but it really does clarify a lot.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1403942' date='Oct 16 2007, 08:37 PM']hot stuff has argued vehemently against the idea that homosexual inclinations are intrinsically (in themselves) disordered, or that they are mentally disordered (see closed thread linked to), as well as for those with strong homosexual inclinations being allowed in the seminary, and against legislation opposing "gay marriage" (against the stated position of the USCCB, whom he usually follows slavishly). (I don't currently have time to dig up those threads.)
True, he never claims homosexual acts are not sinful, but it seems to me he always attempts some kind of linquistic ju-jitsu to consistantly land him in a socially p.c. position, and insisting that his is the Catholic position.

I don't care to rehash this whole debate, and I doubt anyone will change his position.
Much of my observations have already been stated quite eloquently by Todd here (who is well-versed in theology), and CMom also seems to agree, so I don't think this can be dismissed as simply my own personal paranoia.
Anyway, I'm through with this thread.[/quote]


Yes he has argued against that, because an inclination (ie. desire) cannot be intrinsic. You, yourself, are contradicting yourself by making this statment. A desire can be, as you state earlier, objectively disordered, but it cannot be intrinically so.

hot stuff has not, condoned anything that you have accused him of. Again, I ask you to cite direct statements from hot stuff supporting this.

Incidentally, hot stuff and I are also "well-versed" in theology, but that seems to have no bearing on you or your position. I suspect this is because we are at odds with you and what you want to perpetuate.

[Lil Red]

okay, i've read this thread. and i've read everyone's posts (especially hot stuff's, apotheoun's, socrates, and cam's) twice. and i'm still confused.