Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-10-2013, 02:24 AM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(18-10-2013 12:23 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Given the disproportionately high rate of homosexuality in the catholic priesthood, and that most of them are or have been, no doubt, sexually active in one way or another, don't you think it's rather hypocritical of them to be preaching against homosexuality?

Yes it is hypocritical but it is besides the point of whether homosexuality is or isn't "immoral". It does not cost the Catholic advocate anything to concede that those priests are acting immorally. Even if it is conceded that 50% of clergy are homosexually oriented (teleiophiles, hebephiles and pedophiles) that has no bearing on whether that orientation is or isn't "immoral".

Quote:Given that so many of them are homosexual paedophiles, do you not also consider it to be hypocritical of catholics to preach against homosexuality between consenting adults?

I'm the atheist here and do I have to walk you through simple conceptual distinctions?

No it's not hypocritical because they are concerned with what ought to be the case not what is the case. That is what a moral arguments consists in. Your arguments is analogous to saying killing Jews must be ok because a whole lot of it went on during WWII.

Quote:Do you consider the rape of little children a lesser crime than sex between two consenting adults?

Again it is no loss of for the Catholic advocate to propose that they are equally "immoral".

If you disagree then present an argument with explicit premises and conclusion that shows us how the sexual orientation of clergy bears on the morality or otherwise of homosexuality. How are you making the jump from "Catholic Church has X homosexuals" to "Homosexuality is morally good".
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chippy's post
18-10-2013, 02:27 AM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(17-10-2013 10:30 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  I would agree that the cake shop has the right to provide service as it chooses. I don't want this thread to pursue that particular situation, though.

Good to know the catalyst, but I'm not sure it's the best foundation for any accomplishment here.

I open a local bar. I refuse service to black people.
Naturally I would be considered racist and promptly be sued for discrimination.

How is this any different?

Quote:Homosexual acts are something which the majority can abstain from and thus it is helpful to forbid them for the pleasure of God and the sake of public virtue.

1) Why should they?

2) That's easy for you to say Mr I'm Free To Get Married And Engage In Sexual Acts So To Tell Someone Else Not To Is A Non-Issue For Me.

3) God isn't real

Quote:We believe that we have the right to legislate against homosexuality because such acts are sinful.

1) why?

2) why aren't you protesting to bring back the stoning of people who have affairs?

3) why aren't you protesting to force rape victims to marry their rapists?

4) why do you subscribe to an organization that turned a blind eye to the holocaust?

5) why do you subscribe to an organization that hides and excuses pedophilia

6) why do you subscribe to an organization that has caused the deaths of literally countless lives all throughout history

7) why are you so fucking retarded?

8) why do you pick and choose what parts of the bible to actively ram down people's throats (ie: the whole gay thing) yet completely ignore the rest?

9) why are you so fucking retarded?

10) if man is created in Gods image and man has morally evolved from 2,000 years ago why do you assume that God hasn't?

11) why do you waste your time believing in an invisible man in the sky?

12) why are you so fucking retarded?

13) how old are you, what do you do for a living, are you married, were you raised Catholic, why are you so fucking retarded?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like earmuffs's post
18-10-2013, 02:36 AM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(18-10-2013 02:24 AM)Chippy Wrote:  
(18-10-2013 12:23 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Given the disproportionately high rate of homosexuality in the catholic priesthood, and that most of them are or have been, no doubt, sexually active in one way or another, don't you think it's rather hypocritical of them to be preaching against homosexuality?

Yes it is hypocritical but it is besides the point of whether homosexuality is or isn't "immoral". It does not cost the Catholic advocate anything to concede that those priests are acting immorally. Even if it is conceded that 50% of clergy are homosexually oriented (teleiophiles, hebephiles and pedophiles) that has no bearing on whether that orientation is or isn't "immoral".

Quote:Given that so many of them are homosexual paedophiles, do you not also consider it to be hypocritical of catholics to preach against homosexuality between consenting adults?

I'm the atheist here and do I have to walk you through simple conceptual distinctions?

No it's not hypocritical because they are concerned with what ought to be the case not what is the case. That is what a moral arguments consists in. Your arguments is analogous to saying killing Jews must be ok because a whole lot of it went on during WWII.

Quote:Do you consider the rape of little children a lesser crime than sex between two consenting adults?

Again it is no loss of for the Catholic advocate to propose that they are equally "immoral".

If you disagree then present an argument with explicit premises and conclusion that shows us how the sexual orientation of clergy bears on the morality or otherwise of homosexuality. How are you making the jump from "Catholic Church has X homosexuals" to "Homosexuality is morally good".

Hey chipster, I will respond to this...in time. I don't want to derail the thread right now. In the meantime, please go back and correct your grammar so everyone knows what you're trying to say.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
18-10-2013, 02:38 AM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(17-10-2013 11:16 PM)nmoerbeek Wrote:  "Why do we feel it is a moral right to legislate against homosexuality?"

We believe that we have the right to legislate against homosexuality because such acts are sinful. All sins offend God and injure man.

However, Catholics do not believe that every sin should be a law in government.

"Human law is framed for a number of human beings, the majority of whom are not perfect in virtue. Wherefore human laws do not forbid vices from which the virtuous abstain, but only the more grievous vices, from which it is possible for the majority to abstain, and chiefly those which are to the hurt of others, without the prohibition of which a human society could not be maintained: thus human law prohibits murder,
theft, and suchlike.” (S.T. I-II, p.96, a. 2)" St Thomas Aquinas

Homosexual acts are something which the majority can abstain from and thus it is helpful to forbid them for the pleasure of God and the sake of public virtue.

This was a question that was raised in the previous thread, why legislate against homosexual acts between two consenting adults, when it is not "to the hurt of others"? Especially, as some others have pointed out, when those doing said acts do not necessarily subscribe to a belief in God, let alone the God of the Catholic church.
Also, despite earmuffs not being exactly respectful, I would like to reiterate his questions about other sins which are not currently legislated against/debated. Why is what someone does in the privacy of his/her bedroom so much more important than any other seemingly immoral act?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Colourcraze's post
18-10-2013, 02:38 AM (This post was last modified: 18-10-2013 02:45 AM by Heywood Jahblome.)
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(17-10-2013 09:17 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  So then, catholics........why do you see it as a moral right to be able to legislate against homosexuality?

Assumption 1. The state has a right to legislate against immoral behavior.
Assumption 2. Some homosexual behavior such at sodomy is immoral.
Conclusion: Therefore the state has a right to legislate against sodomy.

Really we should be discussing why assumption 2 is true or isn't true. The question, "Why do you see it as a moral right to be able to legislate against homosexuality" is a bit ill conceived me thinks.

I don't believe Catholicism holds that it is actually a sin to be a homosexual. Two homosexual males could live with each, love each other, and as long as they didn't engage in homosexual sex acts....that would be okay under Catholicism.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2013, 02:43 AM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(18-10-2013 02:38 AM)Colourcraze Wrote:  
(17-10-2013 11:16 PM)nmoerbeek Wrote:  "Why do we feel it is a moral right to legislate against homosexuality?"

We believe that we have the right to legislate against homosexuality because such acts are sinful. All sins offend God and injure man.

However, Catholics do not believe that every sin should be a law in government.

"Human law is framed for a number of human beings, the majority of whom are not perfect in virtue. Wherefore human laws do not forbid vices from which the virtuous abstain, but only the more grievous vices, from which it is possible for the majority to abstain, and chiefly those which are to the hurt of others, without the prohibition of which a human society could not be maintained: thus human law prohibits murder,
theft, and suchlike.” (S.T. I-II, p.96, a. 2)" St Thomas Aquinas

Homosexual acts are something which the majority can abstain from and thus it is helpful to forbid them for the pleasure of God and the sake of public virtue.

This was a question that was raised in the previous thread, why legislate against homosexual acts between two consenting adults, when it is not "to the hurt of others"? Especially, as some others have pointed out, when those doing said acts do not necessarily subscribe to a belief in God, let alone the God of the Catholic church.
Also, despite earmuffs not being exactly respectful, I would like to reiterate his questions about other sins which are not currently legislated against/debated. Why is what someone does in the privacy of his/her bedroom so much more important than any other seemingly immoral act?

And why should I be respectful?
These people are prancing around claiming that gay's are second rate citizens.
This is not respect worthy actions. They deserved to be called out on their bullshit. They don't deserve respect.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes earmuffs's post
18-10-2013, 02:45 AM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(18-10-2013 02:27 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  I open a local bar. I refuse service to black people.
Naturally I would be considered racist and promptly be sued for discrimination.

A moral debate is about what ought to be the case not a reference to the law of the day in a given country. You are offering a circular argument, e.g. capital punishment is bad because it isn't mandated by the law; capital punishment isn't mandated by the law because it is bad.

In a libertarian society a private enterprise can serve whoever it chooses to serve because the product it sells is private property and the vendor has the privilege of deciding who (s)he enters into contract with.

Quote:How is this any different?

How is it relevant to whether homosexuality is or isn't "immoral"?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chippy's post
18-10-2013, 02:46 AM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(18-10-2013 02:43 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  And why should I be respectful?
These people are prancing around claiming that gay's are second rate citizens.
This is not respect worthy actions. They deserved to be called out on their bullshit. They don't deserve respect.

Do you have an argument?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2013, 02:50 AM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(18-10-2013 02:43 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  And why should I be respectful?
These people are prancing around claiming that gay's are second rate citizens.
This is not respect worthy actions. They deserved to be called out on their bullshit. They don't deserve respect.

Because an expressed point of this thread was to have a respectful discussion. Not to bash people you hate.

If you want to bash these people....go start a thread for that purpose. Stop hijacking this one as a vehicle to spew your hate.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2013, 02:51 AM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(18-10-2013 02:27 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  1) Why should they?

2) That's easy for you to say Mr I'm Free To Get Married And Engage In Sexual Acts So To Tell Someone Else Not To Is A Non-Issue For Me.

3) God isn't real

...

1) why?

2) why aren't you protesting to bring back the stoning of people who have affairs?

3) why aren't you protesting to force rape victims to marry their rapists?

4) why do you subscribe to an organization that turned a blind eye to the holocaust?

5) why do you subscribe to an organization that hides and excuses pedophilia

6) why do you subscribe to an organization that has caused the deaths of literally countless lives all throughout history

7) why are you so fucking retarded?

8) why do you pick and choose what parts of the bible to actively ram down people's throats (ie: the whole gay thing) yet completely ignore the rest?

9) why are you so fucking retarded?

10) if man is created in Gods image and man has morally evolved from 2,000 years ago why do you assume that God hasn't?

11) why do you waste your time believing in an invisible man in the sky?

12) why are you so fucking retarded?

13) how old are you, what do you do for a living, are you married, were you raised Catholic, why are you so fucking retarded?

All of the above is irrelevant to the point of whether homosexuality is or isn't immoral.

So are you suggesting that if the Catholic clergy was 100% celibate and it actively opposed Nazism it would be correct that homosexuality is a sin?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: