Gay Cancer

[Aloysius]

Cam, when you say "a desire cannot be intrinsic" you are saying something wholly different than "a desire cannot have intrinsic value" which is what it sounds like you intend to say in your statements. It really still seems as if you are still confusing that distinction.

[quote]you were and are secularizing the terms.[/quote]
I am using no different definition of "intrinsic" than cam is using.

I admit that at first, I went the wrong direction with "objective", I am no longer doing so. but I am not no longer doing so by thinking that the definition of "objective" is "frustrating the procreative act" because, well, that's not the definition of objective, even if it is an application of it. it means in this context, as I understand it, that the object to which the desire is focused is the wrong object, even though the desire itself (being the sexual desire in general) is good, it is focused on the incorrect object; in the case of masturbation, it would be focused on the self, in the case of fornication, it would be focused on someone other than the spouse, in the case of homosexuality, on someone of the same sex. of course, in fornication, it is still focused on the correct object in the most basic sense (someone of the opposite sex) so that is something of an entirely different nature than homosexual desires or masturbation impulses.

what you call secularizing the terms, I call attempting to understand them for their definitions rather than just rigidly (and blindly) following some system which says where I can and cannot apply them thinking that that is a substitute for understanding their meanings.

[Jaime]

[quote]what you call secularizing the terms, I call attempting to understand them for their definitions rather than just rigidly (and blindly) following some system which says where I can and cannot apply them thinking that that is a substitute for understanding their meanings.[/quote]

Ok well pray about that when you go to Sunday "A property of matter equal to the measure of an object's resistance to changes in either the speed or direction of its motion".

Also as you know you are required to "moving or able to move, operate, function, or take effect quickly; quick; swift; rapid" for at least one hour prior to going.

[Aloysius]

what secular definition am I using, then? I am defining "intrinsic" the same way Cam is (seems like he didn't even understand why I felt I had to make a point of that), I am looking at the meaning of the term "objective" and applying it. What, pre tell, is the definition I should be using? Are you honestly suggesting that the definition of "objective" is "frustrates the procreative act" and that there is no reason for the application of that word there? why does it not mean focused on the wrong object? that would make it perfectly applicable to acts which frustrate the procreative act, and would make sense with the use of the term "objective"

I'm not picking random dictionary definitions, I'm applying the meanings of words in their context.

[Jaime]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1404169' date='Oct 17 2007, 08:55 AM']what secular definition am I using, then? I am defining "intrinsic" the same way Cam is (seems like he didn't even understand why I felt I had to make a point of that), I am looking at the meaning of the term "objective" and applying it. What, pre tell, is the definition I should be using? Are you honestly suggesting that the definition of "objective" is "frustrates the procreative act" and that there is no reason for the application of that word there? why does it not mean focused on the wrong object? that would make it perfectly applicable to acts which frustrate the procreative act, and would make sense with the use of the term "objective"

I'm not picking random dictionary definitions, I'm applying the meanings of words in their context.[/quote]


Oh come on Al! That last post was at least a little funny!!And for the record, those weren't random definitions. Those were the most common.

I was using those to demonstrate that I wasn't being rigid in my interpretation. When the Church uses a particular word in a particular and consistent way, we have to pay attention to that. If the Church is using it to mean "focused on the wrong object" then it would use it in areas that don't deal with sexual ethics. You say you want to apply the meanings of words in their context, then you can't argue against the context of the phrase "objective disorder"

And you can't argue that objectively disordered and intrinsically disordered are interchangeable. Because that would be completely out of context.

[Aloysius]

I laughed, it just didn't reach my fingertips.

So what is your definition of "objectively disordered"? that it "frustrates the procreative act"... sorry, I just can't accept they'd invent such an arbitrary definition; it has to mean something related to the word. I'm not convinced it cannot be applied to anything other than things which are frustrating of the sex act, it seems to me that's where the Church found herself in need of the term to distinguish something, but that doesn't mean its application there must become its definition.

I never said they were interchangeable, I suggested that they might not be mutually exclusive. big difference.

Zac Efron!

[Jaime]

[quote]I never said they were interchangeable, I suggested that they might not be mutually exclusive. big difference.[/quote]

Not when you've repeatedly said "homosexual desires are intrinsically disordered" when the Church has pointedly never done that.

Thought, will and desire do not have intrinsic value

[Cam42]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1404161' date='Oct 17 2007, 06:23 AM']Cam, when you say "a desire cannot be intrinsic" you are saying something wholly different than "a desire cannot have intrinsic value" which is what it sounds like you intend to say in your statements. It really still seems as if you are still confusing that distinction.[/quote]

Nope not confusing anything here. Sorry if it seems that way.....I am making the same point I started with.

Secondly, there is no theological definition for intrinsic, so it must be handled on a philosphical and secular level. So, there is no issue on the defintion of intrinsic.

Finally, do you know why you are listing the names of male actors? If you are doing it simply to mimic hyper, I suggest you go back and read the reasoning, because it really seems as if you don't.....if you do, then ummmm........aaaaa........okay?

[Aloysius]

I do. It's complicated. I should stop. It might just be objectively disordered lol.

hot stuff, you're a little behind on my position.

cam, would it not be more precise to say "desires cannot have intrinsic value" than to say "desires cannot be intrinsic", the former seems to be what you want to say, the latter is also true (especially if we're talking about disordered desires) but it seems out of place from the context of what you're saying.

I still feel it is very messy to go around saying "the homosexual desire is not intrinsically disordered" because it makes it sound like it is not, in and of itself, disordered for one to be attracted to members of the same sex. I understand the distinction now, if you want to bring it down to the base of a "desire", but it really seems like too messy of a statement that leads directly to confusion. The big fuss in the whole debate was that hot stuff was making it sound as if it was not wrong, in and of itself, for one dude to be attracted to another dude. what he was really saying, if my interpretation is correct, is that the desire itself is merely a sexual desire, with no intrinsic value, but that its object was disordered because it was focused on an object which would not bring about procreation (which is the ordered purpose of the sexual desire)

hot stuff really should've nipped it in the bud when people started saying "then, could the homosexual desire ever be properly ordered?"... he should have said "no, the sexual desire can be properly ordered, but if we're defining something as the "homosexual desire", the "homosexual desire" can never be properly ordered"

because we are using the term "homosexual desire" it would seem that by the very nature of a desire for homosexuality, it would be disordered; the way to make the point that a desire cannot have intrinsic value is to define the desire in its most base terms, to define it merely as the "sexual desire" in order to make the point that it is a desire which could be properly ordered and thus does not have intrinsic disorder.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1404187' date='Oct 17 2007, 07:41 AM']I do. It's complicated. I should stop. It might just be objectively disordered lol.

hot stuff, you're a little behind on my position.

cam, would it not be more precise to say "desires cannot have intrinsic value" than to say "desires cannot be intrinsic", the former seems to be what you want to say, the latter is also true (especially if we're talking about disordered desires) but it seems out of place from the context of what you're saying.

I still feel it is very messy to go around saying "the homosexual desire is not intrinsically disordered" because it makes it sound like it is not, in and of itself, disordered for one to be attracted to members of the same sex. I understand the distinction now, if you want to bring it down to the base of a "desire", but it really seems like too messy of a statement that leads directly to confusion. The big fuss in the whole debate was that hot stuff was making it sound as if it was not wrong, in and of itself, for one dude to be attracted to another dude. what he was really saying, if my interpretation is correct, is that the desire itself is merely a sexual desire, with no intrinsic value, but that its object was disordered because it was focused on an object which would not bring about procreation (which is the ordered purpose of the sexual desire)

hot stuff really should've nipped it in the bud when people started saying "then, could the homosexual desire ever be properly ordered?"... he should have said "no, the sexual desire can be properly ordered, but if we're defining something as the "homosexual desire", the "homosexual desire" can never be properly ordered"

because we are using the term "homosexual desire" it would seem that by the very nature of a desire for homosexuality, it would be disordered; the way to make the point that a desire cannot have intrinsic value is to define the desire in its most base terms, to define it merely as the "sexual desire" in order to make the point that it is a desire which could be properly ordered and thus does not have intrinsic disorder.[/quote]


Yes, it is messy, but that is the reason for all the banter. Appy was wrong in his wording......when it is brought to the base, it is the case. No one has said that homosexual desires are ordered, but rather that it cannot be INTRINSICALLY disordered, becuase it is not possible for a desire to be intrinsic. A desire can objectively disordered, but that is not the same thing.

The reason I got involved is because it is so messy and the reason that I took it clear to the base. Looking at it from the base it is clear to see.....