Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-10-2013, 05:31 AM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(18-10-2013 04:55 AM)Colourcraze Wrote:  Also, I really wish I could hear this natural law argument. Maybe I'll research it later on my own, since this thread has apparently devolved into calling each other fucktards. Dodgy

Here and for a critique from a virtue based ethics perspective see here.
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, 05:36 AM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(18-10-2013 05:20 AM)Anudist Wrote:  
(18-10-2013 05:08 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Its not a great rebuttal because it fails to address the fact that if everyone became a heterosexual that would not be catastrophic. Your focusing on the wrong thing.

If everyone became male, that would be catastrophic. If everyone became female that would be catastrophic. Now compare that to sexuality. If everyone became homosexual, that would be catastrophic. If everyone became heterosexual, we wouldn't miss a beat.

Society cannot afford to do away with males....Society cannot afford to do away with females.....Society cannot afford to do away with heterosexuals.

However Society can afford to do away with homosexuals. I'm sorry but it is a cold hard fact of nature that homosexuality offers little to no value to society. It could disappear today....in an instant....and humanity would march on not missing a beat.

That cold hard fact of nature alone is enough to justify not placing homosexuality on the same level as heterosexuality.
So you're completely writing off artificial insemination of homosexual women who choose to procreate? Homosexuals can still contribute to the propogation of the species, and move the species forward, all while never having to do anything sexual with the opposite sex. Not a very solid argument to justify your bigotry.

Also, I'm still waiting for you to explain just what the hell you were talking about in your last reply to me.

Bigotry is intolerance of another's position. So unless you are tolerant of everyone else's position, you are bigot yourself.

It is too much of a stretch to believe that homosexual population has a fertility rate capable of sustaining the population. Such a claim does not compute....it doesn't pass the smell test.

But lets suppose it does....just for the sake of argument. Heterosexuality is still superior because its fertility isn't dependent on technology. We could have a dark ages and humanity continues as long as the vast majority of the population is heterosexual. But if the vast majority of the population is homosexual and tragedy struck which set us back to dark ages....we'd likely go extinct.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2013, 05:47 AM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
I didn't participate on the initial debate back on SD, but I'm going to give my opinion now. It won't be a popular opinion for my fellow catholics, but blame it on the circumstances Europeans as I live in...

I don't think we should legislate against homosexuality. Homosexual acts are sinful in the eyes of the Church, but...
  1. Traditional catholics are a minority, we can't realistically force our morals on others
  2. Even if we could, we can't go and check every bedroom
  3. Homosexual (civil) marriages are not (catholic) ecclesiastical marriages. Marriage as the Church understands it is a sacrament uniting a man and a woman. That is completely separate from civil marriages, which are more like a contract granting rights. In Europe, the two 'kinds' of marriage can't even be held at the same time, as seems to be the American custom.


Concerning the last argument, yes, I realize that this wasn't the case historically, with non-Ecclestiastical marriages being acknowledged as valid. But still, in those times, I don't think polygamy would have been acknowledged either, even though such marriages were legal in non-Christian countries.

My argument boils down to let's-just-don't-care, as long as religions aren't forced to change their definitions.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Othmar's post
18-10-2013, 06:12 AM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(18-10-2013 05:08 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  However Society can afford to do away with homosexuals. I'm sorry but it is a cold hard fact of nature that homosexuality offers little to no value to society. It could disappear today....in an instant....and humanity would march on not missing a beat.

So then. You are in favor of euthanizing the old, the infirm, and the sick ?
What "value" do they offer to society ? Yep. Do away with them all, I agree.
So Alexander the Great, da Vinci, Tchaikovsky, Aretina, Whitman, Samuel Butler, Oscar Wilde, Michelangelo, and Alan Turing, (the guy who invented the computer you drool on) offered nothing to society ? What "value" do you offer to society, Mr. Minus Eight ?
If you "did" away with every person on the planet who engaged in same-sex behavior today, STRAIGHT people, who produce homosexuals, would make you a new crop for your crematorium within nine months, so be sure and keep your ovens warmed up.

Weeping

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
18-10-2013, 06:27 AM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(18-10-2013 05:36 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Bigotry is intolerance of another's position. So unless you are tolerant of everyone else's position, you are bigot yourself.

It is too much of a stretch to believe that homosexual population has a fertility rate capable of sustaining the population. Such a claim does not compute....it doesn't pass the smell test.

But lets suppose it does....just for the sake of argument. Heterosexuality is still superior because its fertility isn't dependent on technology. We could have a dark ages and humanity continues as long as the vast majority of the population is heterosexual. But if the vast majority of the population is homosexual and tragedy struck which set us back to dark ages....we'd likely go extinct.
Frankly, I respect your right to have that opinion, but no I don't respect that opinion itself because I have no reason to believe it is correct. If you had compelling evidence to present that would suggest it were reasonable to be against equal treatment, I'd listen. I respect you as a person despite your feelings on the matter.

Your assumptions are pretty damn wild there, and working in the hypothetical they don't even make sense. Especially considering the advancements in science, actual fertility rates would remain exactly the same, some women can, some can not. Your chances of pregnancy do not go up when using "natural" or PIV methods over artificial insemination. The only thing that would potentially change is willingness of same sex couples to have children, since of course outlook can change depending on ones partner. And considering trends towards having children have more than doubled since 2000 for homosexual couples, mainly due to more liberal lawmaking and acceptance, I don't see why it wouldn't continue to go up should the trend toward acceptance continue.

Again, still waiting on.

"Good news, everyone!"
-Cody
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2013, 07:00 AM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(17-10-2013 09:17 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  I'd like to ask the members of TTA to be respectful and civilized during this discussion...

You can ask. Tongue

Reads like a bunch of mofos want their own version of shari'a, and that's just fucked up.

[Image: ZF1ZJ4M.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like houseofcantor's post
18-10-2013, 07:03 AM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(18-10-2013 05:47 AM)Othmar Wrote:  Homosexual acts are sinful in the eyes of the Church...

Sure.

But all humans are sinful. And all sins may be forgiven.

So what?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
18-10-2013, 07:40 AM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
This is a long one but it's what I posted on their website.

I've read several arguments and I would like to expand on them because I truly do not understand how the argument supports the conclusion that homosexuality is wrong, something to be condemned and that the behavior of other individuals must be controlled. Let me take each paraphrased point separately:

1) "Its against the laws of nature because the union cannot produce children." Okay then, why is it that infertile couples should be allowed to marry? Or elderly couples for which children cannot result? Or couples that simple do not want children. I am not making an argument from exception. I'm really not....what I'm trying to understand why the exceptions of infertile/elderly/barren by choice couples are acceptable exceptions and homosexual unions are not? Why is it okay for one exception, but not the other?

2) "If all people were homosexuals, our society would cease to exist." Okay. That is true. It is an argument called the Universalizability Argument. That is everyone does it, it would lead to this conclusion and therefore be bad. However, this argument is weak because it must apply universally. For example, is EVERYONE were a catholic priest or nun, there would be no society either. Just because we need some people to reproduce, doesn't mean we need everyone to reproduce. Just because we need some people to be doctors, doesn't mean we need everyone to be doctors. If everyone was a doctor, there would be no garbage collectors or auto mechanics, etc. Why is the priesthood an acceptable measure of genetic suicide, but homosexuality is not?

3) "Homosexual is not found in nature. They choose to be this way." I would like to ask every heterosexual person - if they believe that this is true - to tell me exactly when they decided to be a heterosexual. It must have been a big decision and one that you would remember. In fact, I think we can all acknowledge that we cannot control whom we are attracted to. I'm sure we can all relate to this. Has there ever been someone that you wish you weren't attracted to? Or, alternatively, did you ever meet someone that you wish you were attracted to. He/she has all the right qualities for your desired mate, that you wish you could want them because they are perfect for you, yet there is just no attraction or spark. So if we consider that homosexuals are born this way, why cannot that be part of god's plan? When God created you, if he is infallible, than he created you perfectly. Why aren't *they* just as perfect? Could it be that just like Limbo - the catholic church has gotten the stance on homosexuality wrong?


4) "It hurts society. They should keep it in the closet." I hear this argument a lot. I do not understand it. You may not have considered this, but heterosexuals, when they are out in public, "flaunt" their lifestyle. They hug, they kiss, they gaze adoringly at each other. And, if they are out with their kids, they are actively advertising that they are sexually active. Why is it not harmful for society to see heterosexuals flaunt their sexuality? Further, can we agree that marriage is not for every one? I would say that forcing a homosexual person to conform to desires of another actually hurts the stability of that marriage...more so than simply acknowledging that heterosexual marriages are not for everyone.

5) "It hurts the tradition of marriage" I do not understand this argument. Marriage - and the traditions of such - have changed considerably over time. And for the sake of scope, I am referring to western culture. We no longer sell women into marriage, stone people to death for divorce, force a woman to marry her rapist, etc., etc. Why were these changes considered acceptable, but not this one?

6) "It forces me to recognize something against my religion." Lets make the distinction between religious marriage and secular marriage. No one is forcing you to accept homosexuality in religious marriage. I support your right to personally refuse to recognize anything you don't agree with. The catholic church does not allow for remarriage after divorce. But secular marriage does. Why should the government have the right to recognize one that is against catholic church and not the other? Further, why should your religion dogma dictate the behavior of anyone else? You are not forced to observe sabbath per the jewish religions...why should any religion have the right to impose their beliefs on anyone?

7) "Homosexuality is risky because it spreads AIDS" Usually when someone considers homosexuality, they immediately picture male homosexuality, but we agree that there are many kinds. While some homosexuality is risky, some is not, the same as some heterosexual sex is risky, while others are not. AIDS and STDs are not caused by homosexuality. They are caused by a virus. A virus that can be spread in more ways than just simply homosexual male sex. And if safety were the only factor, lesbian sex would be safer than heterosexual sex in terms of the spread of the HIV virus. So if safety really is the issue, why not promote it across the board?

"the use of the organ is not what nature intended." This refers mainly to anal sex. And I happen to agree with this on its face, except that I still don't understand why it is okay for us to misuse some organs and not others? For example, your mouth has more than one use. It is used for eating, breathing, talking, drinking, etc. Why is wrong for homosexuals to misuse their mouth for kissing but not heterosexuals? Or why can heterosexuals misuse their mouth for oral sex but not homosexuals? Another example is your upper and lower GI. It is used for hydration and absorption of nutrition. Why drink alcohol, or diet soda? It is neither for nutrition, nor hydration, in fact, has the opposite effect, as it dehydrates and can be toxic to nourishment. So why is this misuse of your organs okay, but not for other misuses? Further - you understand that homosexuals do not have the corner on anal sex - many heterosexuals engage in sodomy (which includes oral sex) as well. Why is this okay for heterosexuals but not for homosexuals?

9) "it will make others be homosexual with their permissive and promiscuous lifestyles" Why do you think this? Completely heterosexual people give birth to homosexual children. Further, as we concluded that you are born this way, being homosexuals won't make another turn homosexual anymore than being around tall people will make a short person tall themselves. Therefore, how does promoting universal acceptance of diversity equal making way for a permissive or promiscuous lifestyle? Further, we can agree that not all homosexuals are promiscous and many have been in committed, monogamous, stable relationships longer than you yourself have been married. So homosexuality does not equal promiscuity anymore than heterosexuals equals fidelity.

10) "Its gross" Ok. Here I understand this. But how does not liking it, or thinking its gross, make it immoral for other people to do? I think putting contacts in your eyeballs is G.R.O.S.S. It makes me shiver and want to throw up. (contact lenses are also "unnatural" but why is putting contacts in your eyes and altering nature okay in one instances, and not for others?). Why should the "yuck factor" have any correlation to immorality in this instance when it doesn't in others?

11) "The Bible says its an abomination" Ok. I'm not going to argue this (So there is no need to quote anything). It does say that. However, a lot of things in the bible are considered abominations that we do not think twice about doing. Wearing blended fabric, eating pigs, working on saturdays, eating meat on fridays, etc. Why is okay to reject biblical teaches of these abominations and not the biblical teachings of homosexuality as an abomination also?


12) "Society cannot be permissive of all things. If we recognize homosexuals as ok, than murderers are okay too...[insert Ted Bundy quotes]" Well, I think this argument fails to make any kind of sense. First, there is no evidence that all homosexuals are murderers or that all murderers are homosexuals. Why are we grouping these particular biblical abominations together in the same category but not with other abominations like meat on friday's eaters or adulterers? I also find this difficult when you consider factor in the concept of absolute morality. Sometimes killing is the moral thing to do. Sometimes lying is the moral thing to do. Sometimes stealing is the moral thing to do and so on. If all murder is wrong, why is every US solider that has ever killed anyone in combat not destined for hell? So if murder itself it not immoral, could we merely be talking about the immorality of our *reasons* for the murder. Murder for fun = immoral. Murder for self defense = moral.
However, all of this aside...what does murder have to do with homosexuality anyway? Or are you just using a reductio ad absurdum argument? Either way, please explain this concept to me. I do not understand.


Could it be possible that the objection to homosexuality is merely just another way we try to distinquish ourselves from others? Let me explain.

Humans are social pack animals. We strive to constantly group ourselves into categories. The only time it becomes a problem is when your category that you identify with, creates an intolerance for others in a different category. "Us" vs "Them", "have" vs "have nots"

We blame this response on religion, especially on people who are downright hateful towards another group, but the reality is that the desire to group yourselves and maintain a pack mentality it is innate in all of us. Social class, political class, sports teams, education, intelligence, old fashioned, new age, race, sex, sexual orientation....it just goes on and on to the point where you also get groups within the groups. Lutheran, Mormon, JW, baptist, etc., are all examples of groups within groups. Even atheist's do this! So I am not bashing one group over another...I'm merely pointing out that if we weren't grouping ourselves based on religion, we'd be grouping ourselves based on wealth or something else.

We all want to feel like we belong to something and the only way to truly achieve the feeling of belonging, is for others to not belong. (It is one of the reasons why socialism never works because we are unable to distinguish ourselves from other people or groups, but I digress..)

Could it be that our objection to homosexuality is for exactly the same reasons as our once staunch objection to interracial relationships, or abolishment of the slave trade and therefore equally invalid?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 9 users Like Cathym112's post
18-10-2013, 07:46 AM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
Don't bother with blowme. He never addresses the actual issue, but does what I call a slight of hand argument. Don't take his bait.


He argued population sustainability using the universalizability argument.
I've shown him (and others) that not everyone needs or should reproduce. In fact, I've shown him facts from the WHO which shows we are overpopulated globally and can barely sustain the levels we have.

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Cathym112's post
18-10-2013, 08:30 AM (This post was last modified: 18-10-2013 07:26 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
"We believe that we have the right to legislate against homosexuality because such acts are sinful. All sins offend God and injure man."

1. The Declaration of Independence says all men are created equal. If Catholics expect to have their sexuality respected and accepted, then everyone has that right. This is not a theocracy. The first Americans came here specifically to escape religious imperialism.

2. What someone's religious beliefs are, are irrelevant as the basis for making law. Not all Catholics believe that homosexuality is a sin, and there is no way of knowing what they think, since there is no mechanism in place to determine what their "mystical body of Christ" (the church), actually thinks about any subject. The church is NOT synonymous with the hierarchy. There is no authentic authority model in place in that institution. The early church elected their leaders. The Bishop of Rome held no primacy, until much later.

3. A case can be made by scripture scholars, (and has), that the basis for the Biblical proscription against homosexual behavior was entirely cultural, and local. There is no evidence that the expression of homosexuality "injures" anyone. There is no evidence for any gods. Making laws on the basis of imaginary, non-existent beings, is insanity.






10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage is Wrong

01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed. My parents ran out and got divorced the minute they heard about a gay couple getting married in Vermont.

06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. yes, we really should base 21st Century social policies on a collection of Bronze Age myths from the Middle East, that were cobbled together during the Dark Ages.

09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 9 users Like Bucky Ball's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: