Duck Dynasty Dis

[Aloysius]

oh I wasn't referencing anyone in this thread, when I said "everyone" I was intending to reference all the pundits and organizations that rallied around Robertson... I guess I did not make that clear, I apologize, I have not been a part of this thread just threw in a comment at the end here.

 

ultimately I wish the Church would do a better job of policing against the whole "ick" factor people use when talking about homosexuality... it's those kinds of things that do lead to bullying and things like that.  if we view it as sinful because of the way it detaches one from the positives of reproduction and families and denies the value of chastity, that's one thing, but when people start talking all this nonsense about "come on, guys, what's wrong with you?  don't you see how gross this thing you're attracted to is?"... well then we're really just ignorant idiots who contribute to a disedifying and unhelpful discourse of shaming and bullying people with homosexual attractions.

 

the whole "ick" factor should not really be a part of it for that reason--"gross and sinful" instead of "gross therefore sinful" is still far too much ick factor, not enough theological or morality factor.  when you talk about how "gross" it is, you're not contributing anything worthwhile or useful... it's like trying to tell someone asparagus is immoral... doesn't matter if you tell them it's immoral because it's gross, or it's immoral and gross, the minute you throw in that subjective "grossness" factor that you viscerally or emotionally feel relating to it, you've lost credibility.  same with any appeal to the supposed "grossness" of homosexuality... sure, straight laced straight folk find thoughts of that gross, but that contributes absolutely nothing... unless you think there's someone out there who suddenly realized, based upon Phil Robertson's insightful comments, that vaginas were so much more attractive than anuses.

[NotreDame]

oh I wasn't referencing anyone in this thread, when I said "everyone" I was intending to reference all the pundits and organizations that rallied around Robertson... I guess I did not make that clear, I apologize, I have not been a part of this thread just threw in a comment at the end here.

 

Most of the pundits I follow seem to share my perspective.  They aren't so concerned about Phil (who was a millionaire before the show ever started) but about the broader implications of A&E's double-standard and it's use to fire someone for voicing their beliefs on morality. 

 

Is there an example where the Church is not policing the "ick" factor?  I can't think of one. 

 

The commonality of sexual sin isn't "ick", but shame and guilt that, without the proper spiritual remedy, usual leads to further sexual sin.  I would guess the further removed from the context of the proper sexual act, the greater the shame and guilt.
 

[add]

You are being funny right? I think that the statistic is something like 40 percent of Catholic priests (In the US) are homosexuals. Is that "prejudice" and "demeaning"?? Again I don't understand.

When we talk about "homosexuality" we are talking about the sin. It is vague, it's not about a particular person.

You are mistaken, brother.
. Any percentage of pedophile priests is unacceptable and reprehensible the vast majority of Roman Catholic clergy are celibate. A few are married, having entered the Catholic priesthood after having been ordained in another Christian group.
Very few are discretely engaged in sexual behavior with other single adults. There is general agreement that only a few percentage of the clergy actually abuse children sexually. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops released a national study in 2004-FEB. It concluded that about 4% of all U.S. priests since 1950 have been accused of sexual abuse of children.

4% not 40%, Edited December 30, 2013 by add

[southern california guy]

oh I wasn't referencing anyone in this thread, when I said "everyone" I was intending to reference all the pundits and organizations that rallied around Robertson... I guess I did not make that clear, I apologize, I have not been a part of this thread just threw in a comment at the end here.

ultimately I wish the Church would do a better job of policing against the whole "ick" factor people use when talking about homosexuality... it's those kinds of things that do lead to bullying and things like that. if we view it as sinful because of the way it detaches one from the positives of reproduction and families and denies the value of chastity, that's one thing, but when people start talking all this nonsense about "come on, guys, what's wrong with you? don't you see how gross this thing you're attracted to is?"... well then we're really just ignorant idiots who contribute to a disedifying and unhelpful discourse of shaming and bullying people with homosexual attractions.

the whole "ick" factor should not really be a part of it for that reason--"gross and sinful" instead of "gross therefore sinful" is still far too much ick factor, not enough theological or morality factor. when you talk about how "gross" it is, you're not contributing anything worthwhile or useful... it's like trying to tell someone asparagus is immoral... doesn't matter if you tell them it's immoral because it's gross, or it's immoral and gross, the minute you throw in that subjective "grossness" factor that you viscerally or emotionally feel relating to it, you've lost credibility. same with any appeal to the supposed "grossness" of homosexuality... sure, straight laced straight folk find thoughts of that gross, but that contributes absolutely nothing... unless you think there's someone out there who suddenly realized, based upon Phil Robertson's insightful comments, that vaginas were so much more attractive than anuses.

I disagree. The "gross" argument is not connected to morality. It is a valid criticism, but it is not a religious one. It is something that an atheist could agree with.

[Semper Catholic]

It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone but Phil has said incredibly stupid things before. It's now coming out that he recommends marriage to 15 and 16 year olds.
http://jezebel.com/phil-robertson-anus-obsessed-racist-also-recommends-c-1491772850

[Aloysius]

I disagree. The "gross" argument is not connected to morality. It is a valid criticism, but it is not a religious one. It is something that an atheist could agree with.

it is not a valid criticism, it is an ignorant one and using it makes one's entire opposition to the sins of homosexuality completely non credible and ultimately reinforces the idea that people are merely opposed to it out of homophobia, ignorance, and prejudice.  sure, we could try to get atheists to be ignorant homophobes towards totally yucky homosexuality that's full of cooties if we wanted to... but why would we want to?  much better to simply promote the Church's sexual ethics, how these prohibitions are actually meant to affirm the goodness of marriage, procreation, and family.

[add]

It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone but Phil has said incredibly stupid things before. It's now coming out that he recommends marriage to 15 and 16 year olds.
http://jezebel.com/phil-robertson-anus-obsessed-racist-also-recommends-c-1491772850

FYI: Fuzzy Phil met his lifelong bride to be when he was 18. They married two years later. The couples 50th wedding anniversary is next year.
Personally I think it's romantic to wed your childhood sweetheart, they also have four children

[add]

14 is way to young to start dating , I wouldn't allow my daughter to date at that tender age.
But you know how them mountain people are! It's not uncommon for hillbillies

[NotreDame]

I disagree. The "gross" argument is not connected to morality. It is a valid criticism, but it is not a religious one. It is something that an atheist could agree with.

 

 

it is not a valid criticism, it is an ignorant one and using it makes one's entire opposition to the sins of homosexuality completely non credible and ultimately reinforces the idea that people are merely opposed to it out of homophobia, ignorance, and prejudice.  sure, we could try to get atheists to be ignorant homophobes towards totally yucky homosexuality that's full of cooties if we wanted to... but why would we want to?  much better to simply promote the Church's sexual ethics, how these prohibitions are actually meant to affirm the goodness of marriage, procreation, and family.

 

Aloysius, this is a disingenuous response to SC Guy.   SC Guy already said the "ick factor" wasn't a religious or moral argument, so why disagree with him by trying to make it one?

 

"It's gross" is probably the visceral reaction of every straight guy towards the subject at hand and it would be one of the first secular arguments a guy uses on why he wouldn't ever wanna do it.  Is it a compelling argument outside of one's personal decisions?  Of course not, but it's not ignorant or homophobic if that's the context in which it is used.

[KnightofChrist]

it is not a valid criticism, it is an ignorant one and using it makes one's entire opposition to the sins of homosexuality completely non credible and ultimately reinforces the idea that people are merely opposed to it out of homophobia, ignorance, and prejudice.  sure, we could try to get atheists to be ignorant homophobes towards totally yucky homosexuality that's full of cooties if we wanted to... but why would we want to?  much better to simply promote the Church's sexual ethics, how these prohibitions are actually meant to affirm the goodness of marriage, procreation, and family.

 

I've hidden my response because it contains adult content.

 

[spoiler]I can agree it would be better to focus more on the goodness of marriage, procreation, and family. However, the act of sodomy (whether homosexual in nature or heterosexual) is vile (a grown up word for "iky"). Because it is vile, pointing that out it is indeed a valid criticism. Certainly there are very wrong ways to express the vileness of the act that would be homophobic. But to simply state that the act is vile and to teach others that the act is vile does not automatically conclude that the person is ignorant or homophobic. It can be simply be a statement of facts. The act is vile and it is right to call it vile because of what the act includes. The proper use of the anus and anal canal is the removal of fecal matter from the body. To use it as a vase for the male sexual organ is both unnatural and vile because the organ was not made to be used as vase for the male sexual organ and the anal canal will always have some trace amounts of fecal matter. To the best of my memory I have never agreed with anything SCG has stated, he's not exactly orthodox, but in this one case I believe he may be somewhat right. An atheist/non-christian who follows the natural law may indeed agree that the act of sodomy is vile, nasty, sick, or "icky" because the transfer of trace amounts of fecal matter from the anal canal to the male sexual organ during the sex act.[/spoiler]

[southern california guy]

It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone but Phil has said incredibly stupid things before. It's now coming out that he recommends marriage to 15 and 16 year olds.
http://jezebel.com/phil-robertson-anus-obsessed-racist-also-recommends-c-1491772850

I think that's got to be a joke.

[Aloysius]

You're free to pursue that line of logic, but I will say that trying to push that line of logic (basically all the garbage arguments relating how trace amounts of fecal matter proving how wrong homosexual sex is) is the reason why society generally is taking Catholic sexual morality relating to homosexuality less and less seriously... trust me, you're not convincing secular people with that, you're just not... those that rally around that reasoning are generally displaying a level of ignorance and homophobia rather than a legitimate understanding of the nature of homosexual activity and the sins surrounding it.  I won't go into the details of where you've gone wrong, because I think it really doesn't need to be said, I'm sure if you're really interested you could find some sexuality hygeine advice forum that could fill you in (wouldn't recommend that though lol, but if you want a deeper understanding for some strange reason be my guest), but I will say that it does not at all benefit us to misrepresent matters of health and hygeine just to score a point against homosexuality.

 

the other aspect of what you said is a variation on the basic plug and socket argument.... which is all well and good, I'm not disparaging that appeal to natural law that argues that these things aren't meant to go together... but it doesn't have to be connected to arguing it as "gross" or "vile"... doesn't it suffice to say unnatural or contrary to nature?  do you really think those sentiments about "vileness" and "grossness" are convincing to anyone, are spiritually helpful to anyone?  aren't they much more connotative of the ugly bullying that goes on surrounding this?  I mean, all sin is repugnant to God, sure, but that's because it's sin, not because there's fecal matter involved.  There's trace amounts of fecal matter on dollar bills too, but greed is repugnant to God not because of that, but because of its damaging effects on people.

 

I very much think any appeal to grossness or "vileness" is a wholly inappropriate and inaccurate approach that appeals to people who are against homosexuality for all the wrong reasons.  I'd much rather a random straight secular or atheistic person not be opposed to homosexuality at all than for them to be convinced to oppose it because of how "gross" or "vile" it is, because that's the type of attitude that is the basis of much hatred and bullying and it is not at all at the heart of any true understanding of Catholic sexual morality, nor will it help to save the souls of anyone who struggles with homosexual desires, IMHO.

[NotreDame]

You're free to pursue that line of logic, but I will say that trying to push that line of logic (basically all the garbage arguments relating how trace amounts of fecal matter proving how wrong homosexual sex is) is the reason why society generally is taking Catholic sexual morality relating to homosexuality less and less seriously... trust me, you're not convincing secular people with that, you're just not... those that rally around that reasoning are generally displaying a level of ignorance and homophobia rather than a legitimate understanding of the nature of homosexual activity and the sins surrounding it.  I won't go into the details of where you've gone wrong, because I think it really doesn't need to be said, I'm sure if you're really interested you could find some sexuality hygeine advice forum that could fill you in (wouldn't recommend that though lol, but if you want a deeper understanding for some strange reason be my guest), but I will say that it does not at all benefit us to misrepresent matters of health and hygeine just to score a point against homosexuality.

 

[two more paragraphs saying the same thing...]

 

Aloysius, let me explain how you can respond effectively without implying that anyone who disagrees with you is ignorant and homophobic:

 

"It's certainly an argument, but IMO a weak and unpersuasive argument.  With a secular audience I'd even say it's counterproductive."

 

See how easy that was? 

[Aloysius]

but that fails to get across how I feel the argument does indeed tap into homophobia and ignorance.  not necessarily on the part of the arguer themselves, of course, but it does tap into it.

[NotreDame]

but that fails to get across how I feel the argument does indeed tap into homophobia and ignorance.  not necessarily on the part of the arguer themselves, of course, but it does tap into it.

Let me rephrase this... try to make your argument without assuming those that disagree with you are homophobic (whatever this word means it's obviously pejorative) and ignorant. 

 

The implication is obvious.  If you don't intend it and you don't like my suggestion, then you could find another way to do it, but intended or not you are insulting the people you are currently disagreeing with, including people on this thread.