KnightofChrist Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 (edited) dp... Edited May 30, 2012 by KnightofChrist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 [quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1338369562' post='2437711'] I don't think that I have said anything rude to you. [/quote] Not to me perhaps but you were rude in a mocking manner to Soc, with the hero nonsense. Look it really doesn't matter to me it's just nonsense to jump on one individual for his rudeness but not others when they are also rude or lack Christian charity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amory Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 [quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1338360866' post='2437690'] So which job(s) is it okay for homosexuals to have? [/quote] Ideally, all employers would choose not to hire those who publicize that they habitually engage in homosexual acts, or at least employers would favor other candidates above them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kia ora Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 [quote name='Amory' timestamp='1338371895' post='2437716'] The purpose of government is to advance the common good--a good which is not just material but moral, as well. In pursuit of the commonweal, a rightly constituted government ought--while avoiding any semblance of tyranny--to encourage virtue and discourage vice. It would be impractical (particularly for public officials), oppressive (at least to many Americans), and unconstitutional (says the Supreme Court) for the government to police certain sexual acts of ordinary citizens. Nevertheless, the government exercises a much more direct control over members of the military and is able more rigorously to regulate their behavior without risk of falling into authoritarianism. It would be unfeasible for the government to prevent mere fornicators from being enlisted due to the abundance of this particular sin in most (if not all) human societies, including ours. However, same-sex intercourse is habitually committed by an almost exponentially smaller segment of the population and is thus easier to stigmatize. Because of the negligible number of practicing homosexuals (at least compared to the total number of enlisted men) and because of the egregious nature of homosexual acts (at least compared to fornication), it is expedient for the government not to tolerate in the ranks of its military those who openly commit homosexual acts. [/quote] Maybe you should just ban the military altogether. That would work quite well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kujo Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 [quote name='Amory' timestamp='1338372729' post='2437719'] Ideally, all employers would choose not to hire those who publicize that they habitually engage in homosexual acts, or at least employers would favor other candidates above them. [/quote] Wow.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kujo Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 [quote name='EmilyAnn' timestamp='1338366969' post='2437706'] That's pop psychology and has like no hard evidence to support it. [/quote] I didn't even know it was "pop psychology." I was just trying to turn a phrase and give Socrates a hard time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kujo Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 [quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1338366750' post='2437703'] Yes, Soc should have chosen his words better, indeed, no doubt. But lets not pretend the other side has been all suger and honey. Hassan, Kujo, USAirways, and Appax have offered up numerous rude, condescending and mocking comments against those that do not agree with their ideas. [/quote] Rude, condescending, mocking... Why, if I'm not mistaken, that it the Socratic method, am I right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anomaly Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 [quote name='Amory' timestamp='1338371895' post='2437716'] The purpose of government is to advance the common good--a good which is not just material but moral, as well. In pursuit of the commonweal, a rightly constituted government ought--while avoiding any semblance of tyranny--to encourage virtue and discourage vice. It would be impractical (particularly for public officials), oppressive (at least to many Americans), and unconstitutional (says the Supreme Court) for the government to police certain sexual acts of ordinary citizens. Nevertheless, the government exercises a much more direct control over members of the military and is able more rigorously to regulate their behavior without risk of falling into authoritarianism. It would be unfeasible for the government to prevent mere fornicators from being enlisted due to the abundance of this particular sin in most (if not all) human societies, including ours. However, same-sex intercourse is habitually committed by an almost exponentially smaller segment of the population and is thus easier to stigmatize. Because of the negligible number of practicing homosexuals (at least compared to the total number of enlisted men) and because of the egregious nature of homosexual acts (at least compared to fornication), it is expedient for the government not to tolerate in the ranks of its military those who openly commit homosexual acts. [/quote]Pretty good post. Butthatery aside, the Military is necessarily more regulated than general society, but is influenced by and influences societal mores of behavior in general. There is a difference between being 'gay' and being actively and openly homosexual. There is a point at which 'tolerance' becomes 'protected behavior'. In a regulated society, such as the Military, the behaviors are regulated by Codes of Conduct. It would be great if sexual behavior wasn't an issue. If homosexual behavior is openly acknowledged (tolerated) in official form by the Military, does it then move from being a strictly private matter to becoming a public matter and then being legally protected behavior? We don't allow public urination, public sexual activity (hetero or homo). We seperate bathrooms by gender. The Military doesn't provide legal protection to unfaithful spouses. The Military provides death benefits to widows (or widowers) and their children. If homosexuality becomes legally acknowledged and protected behavior in the Military, how could they deny benefits to thier 'significant others' if they restrict recognizing married couples only people who prefer the oppisite sex? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dairygirl4u2c Posted May 30, 2012 Author Share Posted May 30, 2012 [quote name='kujo' timestamp='1338347157' post='2437618'] There are a precious few things that cause me to laugh harder than whenever Socrates gets pulled into a discussion on homosexuality. It's like a moth to a flame, a bee to honey, a fat kid to a piece of devil's food cake! I mean, could there be anything more ironic--and hilarious-- than a man having a stick up his butt about gayness? You know, they say that we rebel hardest against the things that we secretly hate about ourselves. And if the litany of evidence, strewn across hundreds of threads pertaining to various homosexual topics over the years and years that Socrates has been an active participant on Phatmass are to be believed, it would seem that Good Ole Soc might have some 'splainin' to do. [/quote] lol that is all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatherineM Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 I did have one thought on the Swiss Guard thing. Isn't one of the requirements to be in the Swiss Guard is that you be a Catholic in good standing? If that is the case, that would be incompatible with an active homosexual lifestyle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIKolbe Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 [quote name='CatherineM' timestamp='1338392444' post='2437806'] I did have one thought on the Swiss Guard thing. Isn't one of the requirements to be in the Swiss Guard is that you be a Catholic in good standing? If that is the case, that would be incompatible with an active homosexual lifestyle. [/quote] So would a masturbator fall under the same 'incompatibility'? And since when is a 'lifestyle' a sin? I was always under the impression that SSA is not sinful, only the ACT of homosexuality is sinful. People with SSA can live chaste lives, can they not? And being chaste is perfectly compatible with catholicism.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kujo Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 [quote name='MIkolbe' timestamp='1338392859' post='2437807'] So would a masturbator fall under the same 'incompatibility'? And since when is a 'lifestyle' a sin? I was always under the impression that SSA is not sinful, only the ACT of homosexuality is sinful. People with SSA can live chaste lives, can they not? And being chaste is perfectly compatible with catholicism.... [/quote] And further, would telling everyone "Hey, I'm gay...and I'm chaste..." constitute a homosexual who is "open" about his/her lifestyle, and, therefore, not fit for military duty? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmilyAnn Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 [quote name='MIkolbe' timestamp='1338392859' post='2437807'] So would a masturbator fall under the same 'incompatibility'? And since when is a 'lifestyle' a sin? I was always under the impression that SSA is not sinful, only the ACT of homosexuality is sinful. People with SSA can live chaste lives, can they not? And being chaste is perfectly compatible with catholicism.... [/quote] She wasn't talking about people with SSA who live chastely though. She referred specifically to [b]active homosexuals[/b]. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kujo Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 (edited) [size=3][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Let's just go ahead and define the 3 ter[color=#333333]ms that see[/color][color=#333333]mingly get used interchangeably around here, and thereby contribute to the continued confusion surrounding nearly every debate on any issue dealing with ho[/color][color=#333333]mosexuality:[/color][/font][/size][list] [*][size=3][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif][color=#333333]Homosexual- a person who is gay. Not that this ter[/color][color=#333333]m doesn't i[/color][color=#333333]mply or infer public knowledge or participation in ho[/color][color=#333333]mosexual acts.[/color][/font][/size] [*][size=3][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif][color=#333333]Open ho[/color][color=#333333]mosexual- a gay person who has infor[/color][color=#333333]med his/her fa[/color][color=#333333]mily that he/she is gay, and [/color][color=#333333]makes no effort to conceal their lifestyle choice. Note that this doesn't i[/color][color=#333333]mply that he or she does or doesn't engage in any ho[/color][color=#333333]mosexual acts.[/color][/font][/size] [*][size=3][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif][color=#333333]Active ho[/color][color=#333333]mosexual- a gay person who engages in ho[/color][color=#333333]mosexual acts. Note that this doesn't i[/color][color=#333333]mply that he or she has or hasn't infor[/color][color=#333333]med their fa[/color][color=#333333]mily and friends of their ho[/color][color=#333333]mosexuality.[/color][/font][/size] [/list] [left][size=3][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif][color=#333333]​[/color][/font][/size][/left] [left][size=3][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif][color=#333333]Can we all agree on these definitions? [/color][/font][/size][/left] Edited May 30, 2012 by kujo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIKolbe Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 [quote name='EmilyAnn' timestamp='1338394024' post='2437811'] She wasn't talking about people with SSA who live chastely though. She referred specifically to [b]active homosexuals[/b]. [/quote] Am I an active heterosexual? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now