4588686 Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/golden-instability/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theculturewarrior Posted December 12, 2012 Author Share Posted December 12, 2012 Right. Most people are straight so they excuse heterosexual sin. That says nothing about the dominate religious institutions in the west denouncing homosexuality as 'objectively disordered' not being a major cause of stigmatizing homosexuality. The Catholic Church considers masturbation objectively disordered and gravely sinful. It is the norm among prehensile animals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 The Catholic Church considers masturbation objectively disordered and gravely sinful. It is the norm among prehensile animals. So? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theculturewarrior Posted December 12, 2012 Author Share Posted December 12, 2012 So? So if the status quo, heteosexuals, identify homosexuality as the immorality that is plaguing society, when the overwhelming majority of heterosexual men and most heterosexual women do or have commited objectively disordered sins throughout the course of their lives, then the moral indignation is just hypocrisy. Morality is just a pretext to exclude and discriminate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 So if the status quo, heteosexuals, identify homosexuality as the immorality that is plaguing society, when the overwhelming majority of heterosexual men and most heterosexual women do or have commited objectively disordered sins throughout the course of their lives, then the moral indignation is just hypocrisy. Morality is just a pretext to exclude and discriminate. The fact that it is hypocritical doesn't change the fact that the moral claims surrounding homosexuality are the cause of the stigma. People excuse their own sins. But where does that idea that homosexuality is a sin or wrong or unnatural come from? Is it just religion? No. But if your denying that Christianity hasn't been a major force in shaping the negative view of homosexuality in the west then I don't think you have a serious position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theculturewarrior Posted December 12, 2012 Author Share Posted December 12, 2012 The fact that it is hypocritical doesn't change the fact that the moral claims surrounding homosexuality are the cause of the stigma. People excuse their own sins. But where does that idea that homosexuality is a sin or wrong or unnatural come from? Is it just religion? No. But if your denying that Christianity hasn't been a major force in shaping the negative view of homosexuality in the west then I don't think you have a serious position. I don't deny that Christianity has had a very sick role in this. Christianity has been used as a pretext to do some very terrible things throughout the past two thousand years. I disagree that it is a fundamentally doctrinal issue, and I think I have given a serious argument for that. I really don't see how I have been illogical at all. And as a disabled American, this is probably as important to me as it is to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 I don't deny that Christianity has had a very sick role in this. Christianity has been used as a pretext to do some very terrible things throughout the past two thousand years. I disagree that it is a fundamentally doctrinal issue, and I think I have given a serious argument for that. I really don't see how I have been illogical at all. And as a disabled American, this is probably as important to me as it is to you. I don't understand what your argument is beyond that disabled people are also viewed with contempt in some situations and contexts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theculturewarrior Posted December 12, 2012 Author Share Posted December 12, 2012 I don't understand what your argument is beyond that disabled people are also viewed with contempt in some situations and contexts. You are much too intelligent to actually mean that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arfink Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 I'll throw my 2 cents in the ring. As Catholics we need to be on the bandwagon 100 percent with the Church's teachings, otherwise we'll just have more people like dear old Hasan here telling us off for being hypocrites, and rightly so. However we also cannot simply refuse to aid the sinful, simply because we ourselves also sin. I have seen priests and lay people respond with the utmost charity and care for people with homosexual inclinations or any other kind of sinful inclination. This charity, as I have sen it, isn't the cruel condemnation to failure and rejection that so many in the past have experienced from the Church. I know many in the Church have done and said horrible things to sinners, especially those who struggle with sexual sins. But it doesn't need to be so. Sadly, America is a land still rich in the old Puritanical tradition of condemnation. The solution proposed by Hasan and those like him, of simply following a laissez-faire notion of sexuality, is attractive because it seems to remove all possibility of condemnation. I believe that such a solution would not only do a great disservice to all human beings by encouraging degrading and destructive behavior, but it would also likely fail to eliminate sexually-based condemnation. In a world with no sexual morality there will still be norms, fashions, and herd-preferences, and where those exist there will still be condemnation. I think it's a mistake to assume that condemnation of people with same-sex attraction is necessarily tied to our beliefs about what sex is for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 Please do not debate. Request denied. Even though I didn't read the OP and probably wouldn't debate, anyway because lazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 Any time someone says "You're too intelligent to believe ___________", they really mean that you're stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theculturewarrior Posted December 12, 2012 Author Share Posted December 12, 2012 Any time someone says "You're too intelligent to believe ___________", they really mean that you're stupid. I object to that. Hasan is very intelligent. He just kind of dismissed everything I said though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 I object to that. Hasan is very intelligent. He just kind of dismissed everything I said though. You're too intelligent to believe that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theculturewarrior Posted December 12, 2012 Author Share Posted December 12, 2012 I am too intelligent. That's why I believe that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 That makes no sense at all. 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