Gay Cancer

[Aloysius]

hot stuff, are you saying that the desire is not disordered by its very nature? Unless you are saying that, then the desire is intrinsically disordered.

The fact that the Church uses the two different terms does NOT mean the Church makes a distinction based upon the terminology, the whole phrases and situations are described for the purposes of distinguishing, but the Church is not saying "objectively disordered" is not also "intrinsically disordered", she uses the term "objectively" to specify that this particular intrinsically disordered thing is intrinsically disordered in the objective sense. She's not saying "it's not intrinsically disordered, it's objectively disordered", her reasoning can be summarized better as "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered, and in the objective sense the desire for homosexual acts is intrinsically disordered; however, the person who experiences those desires is not intrinsically disordered."

anyway, I feel like I'm being ignored. posts too long (i'll cut this one short)? or am I on ignore? ah well...

[hyperdulia again]

ahem

Brad Pitt!
Hugh Grant!
Tom Cruise!
Jon Rhys-Meyers!
Jude Law!

[Jaime]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1402162' date='Oct 14 2007, 01:37 AM']hot stuff, are you saying that the desire is not disordered by its very nature? Unless you are saying that, then the desire is intrinsically disordered.

The fact that the Church uses the two different terms does NOT mean the Church makes a distinction based upon the terminology, the whole phrases and situations are described for the purposes of distinguishing, but the Church is not saying "objectively disordered" is not also "intrinsically disordered", she uses the term "objectively" to specify that this particular intrinsically disordered thing is intrinsically disordered in the objective sense. She's not saying "it's not intrinsically disordered, it's objectively disordered", her reasoning can be summarized better as "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered, and in the objective sense the desire for homosexual acts is intrinsically disordered; however, the person who experiences those desires is not intrinsically disordered."

anyway, I feel like I'm being ignored. posts too long (i'll cut this one short)? or am I on ignore? ah well...[/quote]

Al

you're secularizing the terms

Its not "in the objective sense"

objectively disordered deals with the prevention of procreation. That's how it is used.

And as to the rest of it. No disrespect but that's your guess. Its not fact. And in fact its wrong.

[hyperdulia again]

Ben Affleck!
Matt Damon!

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1402161' date='Oct 13 2007, 11:37 PM']And Todd

Are you accusing the Holy Father of the same thing that you accuse me?

You never responded[/quote]
No, I am not accusing the pope of anything, but I am saying that you are not taking into account the difference between desires that are intrinsically disordered (i.e., desires contrary to nature) and desires that are accidentally disordered (i.e., natural desires that are not governed by right reason with the intention of acquiring the proper measure of virtue).

[mortify]

Sorry to step in folks, but for laymen like myself, mind explaining what the difference between an "objective evil" versus an "intrinsic" one is. Ty

Edited October 14, 2007 by mortify

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='hyperdulia again' post='1402155' date='Oct 13 2007, 11:31 PM']Apo I think your use of the term pathological is misguided.

Anywho...I think the thread should be one dedicated to commiserating with me over the fact that I can't watch Brad Pitt movies. This is a tragedy.[/quote]
Complain to the CDF, because I was referring to a quotation from one of their documents.

[XIX]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1402162' date='Oct 14 2007, 02:37 AM']hot stuff, are you saying that the desire is not disordered by its very nature? Unless you are saying that, then the desire is intrinsically disordered.

The fact that the Church uses the two different terms does NOT mean the Church makes a distinction based upon the terminology, the whole phrases and situations are described for the purposes of distinguishing, but the Church is not saying "objectively disordered" is not also "intrinsically disordered", she uses the term "objectively" to specify that this particular intrinsically disordered thing is intrinsically disordered in the objective sense. She's not saying "it's not intrinsically disordered, it's objectively disordered", her reasoning can be summarized better as "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered, and in the objective sense the desire for homosexual acts is intrinsically disordered; however, the person who experiences those desires is not intrinsically disordered."

anyway, I feel like I'm being ignored. posts too long (i'll cut this one short)? or am I on ignore? ah well...[/quote]
You might be right, the problem is that Apontheon has been so ridiculous that it is making your position look bad. I haven't shut the door on the possibility that the desire can be both objectively and intrinsically disordered. I think the Church would have clarified that, however, if that was the case. I think the Church means for us to assume that it is one and not the other.

[Jaime]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1402175' date='Oct 14 2007, 01:50 AM']No, I am not accusing the pope of anything, but I am saying that you are not taking into account the difference between desires that are intrinsically disordered (i.e., desires contrary to nature) and desires that are accidentally disordered (i.e., natural desires that are not governed by right reason with the intention of acquiring the proper measure of virtue).[/quote]


You said that because I referred to some as being homosexual I was attempting to normalize it

I showed you how the Holy Father did the same

so...

[hyperdulia again]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1402179' date='Oct 14 2007, 01:53 AM']Complain to the CDF, because I was referring to a quotation from one of their documents.[/quote]


Firstly the CDF is not an infallible organ. Secondly I think you've misunderstood the CDF. Thirdly it's ok with me that you disagree, if you are right I'd like to come to believe as you do, but I have only ever heard homosexuality referred to as (always?) pathological by you and a few psychiatrists before the 70's.

God Bless (and unlike when you say it to poor hot stuff, I mean it)

[hyperdulia again]

And we should all be in bed. Missing Mass because you were up late fighting with other Catholics is DEFINITELY a mortal sin.

Edited October 14, 2007 by hyperdulia again

[Aloysius]

hot stuff, could you please provide me with a definition of "intrinsic" and "objective" from the standpoint of moral theology, with a citation. I have been known to extend more philosophical definitions of words to doctrinal/theological matters, and am often resistant to some more restrictive definitions of them that seem to place arbitrary distinctions that do not flow from the definitions of the words.

Also, a simple question just to help me understand your position: do you believe that the homosexual desire is intrinsic to the person who has it? It seems that your system might necessitate that.

[hyperdulia again]

George Clooney!

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='hyperdulia again' post='1402185' date='Oct 14 2007, 03:02 AM']And we should all be in bed. Missing Mass because you were up late fighting with other Catholics is DEFINITELY a mortal sin.[/quote]

Edited October 14, 2007 by Mateo el Feo

[IcePrincessKRS]

[quote name='hyperdulia again' post='1402155' date='Oct 14 2007, 01:31 AM']Anywho...I think the thread should be one dedicated to commiserating with me over the fact that I can't watch Brad Pitt movies. This is a tragedy.[/quote]

I'd offer to quit watching movies out of loyalty to you, but given all the names you've begun listing.... I'd never watch any thing again. Granted, my movie-going is severely limited since I've got 3 kids.... but I can rent darn it, and I fully intend to continue renting.

[hyperdulia again]

[dairygirl4u2c]

i'm not sure why hot stuff is saying there's a difference between intrinsic desire and simple desire.
or what diff is from objective v intrinsic.

i wonder if these guys debating even know...

it'd help bunches if these terms were defined and the posistions clarified. i see no reason as of yet to draw a distinctoin between intriic and not.
and i don't know how it relates to whether we call them homosexuals.

and jaimie says that he is not saying the urge is not disordered to add to the confusion.

[Aloysius]

I'm starting to understand hot stuff's position a little more, with no help from him in terms of clarifying it, ... I'll try to explain it and he can let me know if this is what he's trying to say: "objectively disordered" means that the object of the desire is a disordered object, but that the desire itself is an ordered desire. What we'd be doing here is generalizing the "desire" to be merely talking about "the sex drive" in general; thus the object of the sex drive, the desire, can be disordered; and thus it becomes an "objectively disordered desire", ie disordered by the object of the desire and not the desire itself. the desire, then, must be defined as "the desire for sex" and nothing else; the desire for sex is not intrinsically disordered. "the desire for homosexual sex" then must be seen as a subset of the normal "desire for sex", ie the desire is directed at the wrong object, thus it is disordered in the object it is directed to and not in and of itself.

but you cannot say that "the homosexual desire is NOT intrinsically disordered", that's too messy, too ambiguous, too open to confusion, and the Church never said that. what it is trying to say by saying "the homosexual desire is objectively disordered" is that "the desire for sex is good, when it is homosexual it is directed at a disordered object"

again, I feel as if hot stuff could've done more to explain that rather than just continually claiming that the use of one term over the other in different places in Church documents spoke for itself; it clearly did not.

personally, I find this system hard for me to think in, simply because by my own experience, the homosexual sexual desire seems to be something wholly different from the regular sex drive... but that's just an obscurity in my ability to see beyond my personal experience, and I can see that it must be a disordered OBJECT that the sex drive directs itself at, and thus it is disordered in its object, but the desire itself as simply "the desire for sex"

in fact, looking at it this way, it can further emphasize the point that Apo and I were trying to emphasize: that the homosexual desire is not intrinsic to the person. In fact, to make a point, one might want to contest the use of the terminology of "homosexual desire" and say "sexual desire disordered towards the same sex"

See, the sexual desire in itself is intrinsically good. But if it is focused on self-gratification, or same-sex sexual acts, or fornication, its object is disordered. now, the object of simply the opposite sex, even outside matrimony, is a more ordered object than the object of self or the object of the same sex.

but if one actually wants to define "the homosexual desire" as something different than the general "desire for sex" (and really, from personal experience, I prefer to think of things in this way more, and one is free to think in this way I believe) then one would have to hold that "the homosexual desire" was "intrinsically disordered", ie disordered by its very nature. But it seems that the point being made, a perfectly valid point which I probably ought to acquiesce to because its ramifications seem to imply a greater hope for the re-ordering of the sex drive, is that "the homosexual desire" is nothing more than the "normal heterosexual sex drive focused on a disordered object, namely, the same sex"

[Apotheoun]

Homosexual desires are intrisically disordered, i.e., disordered [i]per se[/i], because the object of the desire in question is unnatural ([i]contra naturam[/i]).

[Aloysius]

Yet, the desire for sex in general is not intrinsically disordered, but can become objectively disordered if its object is disordered.

But yes, when you begin to use the terminology of "homosexual desires", you must hold that they are intrinsically disordered.

It's like how you refuse to label any human person as a "homosexual", it goes further to refuse to label any sexual desire a "homosexual desire". The true nature of the desire is that it is the desire for sex, that it is a heterosexual desire, but that it is ordered towards an improper object. I think this would be a proper interpretation wherein one could say that one does not have an intrinsically disordered desire, but an objectively disordered desire; in that the desire is in and of itself defines as nothing other than "the desire for sexual intimacy" which is intrinsically good, but its object is defined as "someone of the same sex" which makes the normal sexual desire objectively disordered.