Socrates Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 I find all of these debates silly, because I am not confident that natural law is naturally anti-homosexual. So many people throw down natural law as a gauntlet and somehow think that is where the debate ends on human sexuality. If memory serves me, St. Aquinas once asked if walking on one's hands is sinful, because that is not their teleological purpose. St. Aquinas responds in the negative. I have never been convinced of the argument that in the case of the emission of semen, or the sex act in general, natural law demands that it always and everywhere be open to procreation. It appears to be a very narrow and simplistic understanding of natural law. I do not have to reject the idea of reason in nature (natural law) to come to this conclusion. Ironic that you attempt (weakly) to use a Doctor of the Church to promote your views, when you don't believe the teachings of that Church. St. Thomas also taught that sodomy is gravely sinful and contrary to nature. I reject the idea that what I wrote is armchair philosophizing. I reject your rejection of the idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhuturePriest Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 This banter is amusing for the time being. Continue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Ryan Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 (edited) I reject your rejection of the idea. In what sense, then, can it be called armchair philosophizing? If anything, a bunch of celibate bishops philosophizing about sexuality is armchair. Edited June 18, 2014 by John Ryan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norseman82 Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 Norseman you're very confused. Someone who is homosexual is likely unable to contract a valid and binding sacramental marriage, period, because of the difficulties involved in their emotional and sex lives. And secondly even if they do have the right under canon law to attempt such a marriage, it's ludicrous to think a gay man in a heterosexual marriage will obtain the same satisfaction as a heterosexual man in a heterosexual marriage. Duh. Difficult <> impossible. Just ask the wife of NYC mayor Bill deBlasio. She was a lesbian, yet she married someone of the opposite gender and now they have children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norseman82 Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 In what sense, then, can it be called armchair philosophizing? If anything, a bunch of celibate bishops philosophizing about sexuality is armchair. Just like celibate Jesus saying that divorce and remarriage to someone else = adultery is "armchair"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 I like how armchair is an adjective now. You are so armchair! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 In what sense, then, can it be called armchair philosophizing? If anything, a bunch of celibate bishops philosophizing about sexuality is armchair. So basically what you're trying to get at is "don't knock it if you haven't tried it." That's pretty deep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 Just like celibate Jesus saying that divorce and remarriage to someone else = adultery is "armchair"? I suppose people who never steal have no right to pontificate on the immorality of theft, either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmaD2006 Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 moving to debate table. This has definitely turned debate like. A reminder -- personal attacks are not allowed on phatmass, even on debate table. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Ryan Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 (edited) Just like celibate Jesus saying that divorce and remarriage to someone else = adultery is "armchair"? So basically what you're trying to get at is "don't knock it if you haven't tried it." That's pretty deep. I suppose people who never steal have no right to pontificate on the immorality of theft, either. I am not saying anything of the sort. I was accused of "armchair philosophizing". I am merely working through the implications of what that charge meant. Let us not confuse the two here. I am not saying there is anything wrong with philosophizing about the topic. And I love how everybody is jumping up to condemn my words, but that nobody has yet to actually write a reasoned reaction against it. Edited June 18, 2014 by John Ryan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Credo in Deum Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 (edited) PAGE 10! Woot woot! Edit: darn I was hoping it would be the next page. Whaaaaaaaa! Edited June 18, 2014 by Credo in Deum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhuturePriest Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 PAGE 10! Woot woot! Edit: darn I was hoping it would be the next page. Whaaaaaaaa! Failure of epic proportions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Credo in Deum Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 Not as big as a failure as your new avatar! Ain't that right, St. JPII? JPII responds: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 (edited) I am not saying anything of the sort. I was accused of "armchair philosophizing". I am merely working through the implications of what that charge meant. Let us not confuse the two here. I am not saying there is anything wrong with philosophizing about the topic. And I love how everybody is jumping up to condemn my words, but that nobody has yet to actually write a reasoned reaction against it. Your words gave my reason an allergic reaction. I would give a serious reply but why add another 9 or 10 pages when we can just jump to the end? Your views are not shared by the Church and are in error. Edited June 18, 2014 by KnightofChrist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Ryan Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 Your words gave my reason an allergic reaction. I would give a serious reply but why add another 9 or 10 pages when we can just jump to the end? Your views are not shared by the Church and are in error. How about you kindly explain how my words are anti-reason and I will not reply? You can have the last word. That sounds fair. 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