Oh Isn't It Wonderful - Elton John And His Husband

[Era Might]

Let's dispense with the nonsense about the acceptance of homosexuality being a reasoned, scientific acceptance. Men had lust for men, women had lust for women, and they wanted a society where they could have this lust openly, so they appealed to their gods (science, sociology, whatever) to reshape society to conform to their religious prejudice. The modern acceptance of homosexuality is a religious prejudice. Every society is built on religious prejudice. This particular religious prejudice of homosexuality is based on lust, not science. The appeals to science are just ways to justify the religious prejudice, just as Europeans appealed to religion to justify colonialism, etc. I think it's silly to argue whether homosexuality is "natural" or not, because that's not the reason why society has accepted homosexuality. Society has accepted homosexuality because "their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error" (Romans 1:26-27). Period. Catholic societies were built on religious prejudice. Protestant societies were built on religious prejudice. Hindu societies were built on religious prejudice. Islamic societies were built on religious prejudice. Ancient pagan societies were built on religious prejudice. And so is our society. It's just that our society's religion is so stupidly boring. I'd rather appeal to Zeus to justify homosexuality than science. At least Zeus is an interesting character, and he doesn't pretend to be anything other than what he's supposed to be: a god.

That modern "thinkers" laugh at religion is funny to me. I laugh at modern thinkers. They're so blind to their idolatry. They're like children in their ignorance, you almost have to pity them like sad puppies.

[quote]He who sits in the heavens laughs; the LORD has them in derision. Then he will speak to them in his wrath, and terrify them in his fury

--Psalm 2:4-5[/quote]

Edited December 31, 2010 by Era Might

[homeschoolmom]

Moving this over to debate...

[Socrates]

[quote name='Era Might' timestamp='1293800740' post='2195461']
Let's dispense with the nonsense about the acceptance of homosexuality being a reasoned, scientific acceptance. Men had lust for men, women had lust for women, and they wanted a society where they could have this lust openly, so they appealed to their gods (science, sociology, whatever) to reshape society to conform to their religious prejudice. The modern acceptance of homosexuality is a religious prejudice. Every society is built on religious prejudice. This particular religious prejudice of homosexuality is based on lust, not science. The appeals to science are just ways to justify the religious prejudice, just as Europeans appealed to religion to justify colonialism, etc. I think it's silly to argue whether homosexuality is "natural" or not, because that's not the reason why society has accepted homosexuality. Society has accepted homosexuality because "their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error" (Romans 1:26-27). Period. Catholic societies were built on religious prejudice. Protestant societies were built on religious prejudice. Hindu societies were built on religious prejudice. Islamic societies were built on religious prejudice. Ancient pagan societies were built on religious prejudice. And so is our society. It's just that our society's religion is so stupidly boring. I'd rather appeal to Zeus to justify homosexuality than science. At least Zeus is an interesting character, and he doesn't pretend to be anything other than what he's supposed to be: a god.

That modern "thinkers" laugh at religion is funny to me. I laugh at modern thinkers. They're so blind to their idolatry. They're like children in their ignorance, you almost have to pity them like sad puppies.
[/quote]
Good post.

[4588686]

[quote name='Era Might' timestamp='1293800740' post='2195461']
Let's dispense with the nonsense about the acceptance of homosexuality being a reasoned, scientific acceptanc[b]e. Men had lust for men, women had lust for women, and they wanted a society where they could have this lust openly, so they appealed to their gods (science, sociology, whatever) to reshape society to conform to their religious prejudice. The modern acceptance of homosexuality is a religious prejudice. Every society is built on religious prejudice.[/b] This particular religious prejudice of homosexuality is based on lust, not science. The appeals to science are just ways to justify the religious prejudice, just as Europeans appealed to religion to justify colonialism, etc. I think it's silly to argue whether homosexuality is "natural" or not, because that's not the reason why society has accepted homosexuality.[/QUOTE]

That's a empirical claim. Let's see you provide evidence for it.

I'm also unsure of how you are using the phrase 'religious prejudice'.

[QUOTE]Society has accepted homosexuality because "their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error" (Romans 1:26-27). Period.[/QUOTE]

Not to try to tell you how to construct an [i]ad hoc[/i] theo-sociological narrative but you might want to consider that whole independent-dependent variable relationship causality in general. The passage says nothing about either society accepting homosexuality or some causal relationship between God giving a group of individuals over to their lust and society accepting their 'shameless' actions. Homosexuality, here understood as lust for an individual of the same biological sex, has been a constant in human existence. Yet society's view of this sexual attraction has carried widely through the years and across different cultures. Obviously 'society' has not accepted homosexuality because of this existence of this 'unnatural exchange of desires' in itself.

[QUOTE]Catholic societies were built on religious prejudice. Protestant societies were built on religious prejudice. Hindu societies were built on religious prejudice. Islamic societies were built on religious prejudice. Ancient pagan societies were built on religious prejudice. And so is our society. It's just that our society's religion is so stupidly boring. I'd rather appeal to Zeus to justify homosexuality than science. At least Zeus is an interesting character, and he doesn't pretend to be anything other than what he's supposed to be: a god.[/QUOTE]

Science is a methodology. The appeals to permit homosexuals to live uninterrupted by social coercion are political in nature, though they often use scientific findings as evidence in the process of a political battle.

[QUOTE]That modern "thinkers" laugh at religion is funny to me. I laugh at modern thinkers. They're so blind to their idolatry. They're like children in their ignorance, you almost have to pity them like sad puppies.


[/quote]

I don't know why you laugh. As usual you have exchanged actual rigerous argument based on evidence with a pseudo-historical, one would say historical fiction, narrative. I don't know if you simply don't understand how argument works, don't understand the difference between social science and literature, or what. But I would struggle to think of a single argument you have seriously presented that hasn't evidenced a sloppy, literary approach to argument and investigation of social phenomena.

[4588686]

[quote name='MIkolbe' timestamp='1293797832' post='2195459']
Here is an interesting article regarding this... perhaps for a different thread..unsure..but found it relevant.


[/quote]


Interesting article. I'd be interested in seeing where it came from and if other scholars had commented on it.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='rachael' timestamp='1293758143' post='2195324']
[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1293756419' post='2195312']
[quote name='Brother Adam' timestamp='1293755261' post='2195304']
That is correct, people with certain types of mental illnesses should not attempt to raise children for their own good as well as the good of the child.

[/quote]
Which types? Schizophrenics? Bi-Polar? Anxiety Disorder?
[/quote]
Well, shoot. I have depression and anxiety.

<_<
[/quote]
That quote got up my nose as well. I have chronic and debilitating anxiety as well as depression. In my earlier life I was a candidate for either a mental institution or prison or suicide and I don't have time for the full story now but thought that I should not have children. But God had a different plan for me. My son is an engineer at the Australian synchrotron and my daughter reveals the face of Jesus to the terminally ill at the Royal Melbourne Hospitals oncology department.

The problem with much of the comments on this thread is that people are contaminating the many aspects of Eltons relationship with the sin of sodomy. There are women who live in a loving relationship and rear orphaned children without men and therefore incomplete family, they are call Nuns. What Elton and partner do in their bedroom as well as producing a child by surrogacy is for God to make a judgement about. Their ability or rite to raise children is an unrelated issue which should be judged on different aspects.
Calling adopted children pets is also overstepping the mark, it is an affront to both children and pets. Many 'normal' people treat their children with less dignity than animals and pets are often treated as well as could be expected for children.

Edited January 1, 2011 by Mark of the Cross

[StMichael]

What is present with the Nuns is most certainly not present in this home of Elton John. God.

Lets list the issues here:
- No God in the home
- A lifestyle of mortal sin around the child
- The "creation" of the child against God's law
- Their own personal want to "have" a child like some want a puppy.

Feel free to add more, as this is not simply just about sodomy.

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1293840293' post='2195587']
That quote got up my nose as well. I have chronic and debilitating anxiety as well as depression. In my earlier life I was a candidate for either a mental institution or prison or suicide and I don't have time for the full story now but thought that I should not have children. But God had a different plan for me. My son is an engineer at the Australian synchrotron and my daughter reveals the face of Jesus to the terminally ill at the Royal Melbourne Hospitals oncology department.

The problem with much of the comments on this thread is that people are contaminating the many aspects of Eltons relationship with the sin of sodomy. There are women who live in a loving relationship and rear orphaned children without men and therefore incomplete family, they are call Nuns. What Elton and partner do in their bedroom as well as producing a child by surrogacy is for God to make a judgement about. Their ability or rite to raise children is an unrelated issue which should be judged on different aspects.
Calling adopted children pets is also overstepping the mark, it is an affront to both children and pets. Many 'normal' people treat their children with less dignity than animals and pets are often treated as well as could be expected for children.
[/quote]

Edited January 1, 2011 by StMichael

[Semper Catholic]

[quote name='StMichael' timestamp='1293855103' post='2195643']
What is present with the Nuns is most certainly not present in this home of Elton John. God.

Lets list the issues here:
- No God in the home
- A lifestyle of mortal sin around the child
- The "creation" of the child against God's law
- Their own personal want to "have" a child like some want a puppy.

Feel free to add more, as this is not simply just about sodomy.


[/quote]

All of which can be found in thousands of heterosexual couples households. Should a female/male couple who are athiests, who want to have children and decide to use a surrogate (for whatever reason) not be allowed to have children?

Or is being allowed to have children strictly for the toe-the-line religious types?

[CatherineM]

It's not about toe the line religious, it's about having children in line with natural law, not as an experiment in Dr. Frankenstein's laboratory.

[4588686]

[quote name='CatherineM' timestamp='1293863381' post='2195656']
It's not about toe the line religious, it's about having children in line with natural law, not as an experiment in Dr. Frankenstein's laboratory.
[/quote]



I don't think that this qualifies as a Dr. Frankenstein level experiment. As far as I know, at root, we're still talking about an egg being fertilized by a sperm.

[thessalonian]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1293863726' post='2195657']
I don't think that this qualifies as a Dr. Frankenstein level experiment. As far as I know, at root, we're still talking about an egg being fertilized by a sperm.
[/quote]


Interesting in every discussion you get with a non-catholic they MUST elevated and justify their own thinking on things they really know little about from a psychological/physical/medical/familial/standpoint and say lets go with it. Frankenstein may be exagerated but it's all an experiment just as contraception, no fault divorce, abortion, etc. etc. have been and they have been failed experiments. Broken families, increased out of wedlock pregnancy, more poverty when there was supposed to be less and a host of other problems. When will people like you get it that you have no moral basis for your arguments and therefore they are doomed? They leave God out of the equation who is author of all and the greatest expert on all.

[CatherineM]

When I said Dr. Frankenstein, I was not trying to exaggerate. My bioethics class this semester scared the piddly out of me. There's more out there than IVF. There's GIFT, ZIFT, ICSI, IUI, TOT, LTOT, and some stuff that can't be boiled down to initials. ICSI is especially scary.

[Semper Catholic]

[quote name='CatherineM' timestamp='1293908239' post='2195725']
When I said Dr. Frankenstein, I was not trying to exaggerate. My bioethics class this semester scared the piddly out of me. There's more out there than IVF. There's GIFT, ZIFT, ICSI, IUI, TOT, LTOT, and some stuff that can't be boiled down to initials. ICSI is especially scary.
[/quote]

All of which aren't "illegal" for a heterosexual atheist couple, who would have no one questioning whether they were suitable for raising children.

[StMichael]

We are not discussing other deviant and sinful ways. Which they all have one thing in common, the attempt to subtract God and His law from the process.

[quote name='Semper Catholic' timestamp='1293862640' post='2195652']
All of which can be found in thousands of heterosexual couples households. Should a female/male couple who are athiests, who want to have children and decide to use a surrogate (for whatever reason) not be allowed to have children?

Or is being allowed to have children strictly for the toe-the-line religious types?
[/quote]

[StMichael]

Yes an egg is being fertilized by sperm. True. But it is being selected by man. Man is choosing what egg is used and what sperm is used. Man is isolating them. The man & woman are not present. They are not together. Parts of them are. Man is making the choice. Not God. And man is deciding without God involved in the process. And in this case, the child, motherless, is being given to home of absolute and unabashed mortal sin.

And this is against the teachings of the Church.

What makes this so hard to understand?

Man has no business doing this. None.

And the process does not target just one man made creation, but many as to see what takes. If many take, what becomes of those that are not used? They are destroyed. Has life now been destroyed to create a life? God did not do this, man did.

The story of Frankenstein is applicable to this, as Frankenstein wanted to create life. He did, fictionally, much to the peril of humanity. No, these man made unions of sperm and egg do not have bolts on their necks nor plod about destroying life, but the process is destroying our connection to God little by little. It also unleashes on humanity at large challenges that further complicate our connection to God. Instead of praying to God to bless a couple with a child, we can simply get to the doctor. We can decide, even if God might have already decided for us. Or wanted us to get closer to Him.

Not sure the best analogy, but if a gun was put to your head, you would more than likely be pleading to God. Begging him for His protection. But if I created a way that the bullet would not do you harm, maybe with a special coating, where you would not even feel a bit of pain, no injury, God would not be in your equation.

God presents us with challenges to bring us closer to him. Yet all we are doing is devising ways to be as far away as possible and avoiding those challenges. It is us who loses in the end.

Man can enjoy the fruits of God, but the minute we decide to mess with the genetics, by taking on a god like complex, like we have with food, you get unintended consequences. Which we can save for another discussion, professor.

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1293863726' post='2195657']
I don't think that this qualifies as a Dr. Frankenstein level experiment. As far as I know, at root, we're still talking about an egg being fertilized by a sperm.
[/quote]