Evangelical Leader Quits Because Of Male Escort's Allegations

[kamiller42]

[quote name='KizlarAgha' post='1109997' date='Nov 3 2006, 03:08 PM']
Or maybe it just goes to show that homosexuality is perfectly normal and they should stop pathologizing it - then there wouldn't be any scandal.
[/quote]
Because someone partook of illicit activities makes the activity "normal" is an intellectually vacant statement.

Edited November 3, 2006 by kamiller42

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='kamiller42' post='1110001' date='Nov 3 2006, 04:13 PM']
Because someone partook of illicit activities makes the activity "normal" is an intellectually vapid statement.
[/quote]

There's nothing illicit about gay sex.

[kujo]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1109996' date='Nov 3 2006, 04:07 PM']
You live in Florida? What Diocese?
[/quote]

I go to UCF, so I am in the Orlando Diocese. But I grew up in South Florida, in the Archdiocese of Miami.

[kamiller42]

[quote name='KizlarAgha' post='1110002' date='Nov 3 2006, 03:13 PM']
There's nothing illicit about gay sex.
[/quote]
Your position is because some participated in an action, the action is therefore "normal." That's is ludicrous.

The mere occurrence of an event does not determine the rightness or wrongness of the event. By your rationale, there should be nothing declared unethical as to avoid scandal.

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='kamiller42' post='1110010' date='Nov 3 2006, 04:22 PM']
Your position is because some participated in an action, the action is therefore "normal." That's is ludicrous.

The mere occurrence of an event does not determine the rightness or wrongness of the event. By your rationale, there should be nothing declared unethical as to avoid scandal.
[/quote]

You said an illicit action is not made licit by the relative frequency of its occurrence. Logically, that's true, but it isn't the case in terms of actual practice. What is common behavior inevitably is either always considered legal or is legalized, or it is ignored by the judiciary to the extent that the proscribed punishments no longer hold. Secondly, gay sex is not illicit, that is to say, unlawful.

I should add, there are several proofs for my argument, the most famous being prohibition. Others include blue laws against public displays of affection or opening businesses on Sunday.

Edited November 3, 2006 by KizlarAgha

[RC_]

It goes against God's law, ergo it is illicit.

[kamiller42]

[quote name='KizlarAgha' post='1110011' date='Nov 3 2006, 03:26 PM']
You said an illicit action is not made licit by the relative frequency of its occurrence. Logically, that's true, but it isn't the case in terms of actual practice. What is common behavior inevitably is either always considered legal or is legalized, or it is ignored by the judiciary to the extent that the proscribed punishments no longer hold. Secondly, gay sex is not illicit, that is to say, unlawful.
[/quote]
I say illicit because that's my opinion of the action. I know it's not yours, but that wasn't the point of your original message. You called it "normal" implying the frequency of occurrence determines the ethics of an action. That is simply wrong.

You believe whatever lawful is ethically sound. Whatever is unlawful is unethical. Are you arguing civil law defines ethics?

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='kamiller42' post='1110016' date='Nov 3 2006, 04:31 PM']
I say illicit because that's my opinion of the action. I know it's not yours, but that wasn't the point of your original message. You called it "normal" implying the frequency of occurrence determines the ethics of an action. That is simply wrong.

You believe whatever lawful is ethically sound. Whatever is unlawful is unethical. Are you arguing civil law defines ethics?
[/quote]

No. I'm arguing civil law is defined by what the consenus of the nation believes to be normal behavior. Drinking alcohol is normal behavior, but that doesn't mean it is ethical or unethical, however it does mean that it's legal. I think we'll eventually go the way of Holland and legalize drugs or prostitution as well, but I'm not going to comment on the ethics of that. As to my statement, I said:

Or maybe it just goes to show that homosexuality is perfectly normal and they should stop pathologizing it - then there wouldn't be any scandal.

Pathologize means: to view or characterize as medically or psychologically abnormal

So I'm saying something that is normal should be viewed as something normal. Not that it should be viewed as something moral. That was simply your interpretation of my statement.

[Winchester]

I believe he mean morally illicit, which is a term common even in moral theology books where the audience can be assumed to be aimed in the same general direction.

[Katholikos]

[quote name='RC_' post='1110013' date='Nov 3 2006, 04:28 PM']
It goes against God's law, ergo it is illicit.
[/quote]The parts don't fit. Ergo, it was not intended by the Creator and is disordered.

===================
Blessed Father Damien, pray for us!

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='Katholikos' post='1110186' date='Nov 3 2006, 06:42 PM']
The parts don't fit. Ergo, it was not intended by the Creator and is disordered.
[/quote]

That's not true. Plenty of people have really messed up "parts" and they were born that way. Should they completely abstain from any and all sexual activity?

[kamiller42]

[quote name='KizlarAgha' post='1110019' date='Nov 3 2006, 03:35 PM']
No. I'm arguing civil law is defined by what the consenus of the nation believes to be normal behavior. Drinking alcohol is normal behavior, but that doesn't mean it is ethical or unethical, however it does mean that it's legal. I think we'll eventually go the way of Holland and legalize drugs or prostitution as well, but I'm not going to comment on the ethics of that.[/quote]
This proves New Life Church and Haggard are well within their right to discuss the ethics of homosexuality and conclude it's unethical even if it's legal.

Your definition of "normal" is loose. You base "normal" on the simple idea of "everybody's doing it", therefore, it's normal. If everybody began walking backwards, is that normal? If there was a wave of fathers molesting sons, is that normal?

Since we're quoting the dictionary:
Normal:
2 a : according with, constituting, or not deviating from a norm, [b]rule[/b], or [b]principle[/b] b : [b]conforming to a[/b] type, [b]standard[/b], or regular pattern.

[quote]As to my statement, I said:

Or maybe it just goes to show that homosexuality is perfectly normal and they should stop pathologizing it - then there wouldn't be any scandal.

Pathologize means: to view or characterize as medically or psychologically abnormal

So I'm saying something that is normal should be viewed as something normal. Not that it should be viewed as something moral. That was simply your interpretation of my statement.
[/quote]
If "this is what I meant to say" was to be your primary defense, it should have been your primary defense.

Your claim goes beyond even what the accuser, Jones, is saying. Jones' disagreement is with prohibiting homosexual marriage. He said nothing about the church defining homosexuality as an abnormal mental process. Could you provide links and quotes from New Life Church and Haggard stating this to support your accusation?

[KizlarAgha]

They're clearly pathologizing homosexuality. That's what calling it disordered is. All I'm saying is that this scandal wouldn't be nearly as big if he was simply boozing and taking drugs. Sex in America is a huge deal. Gay sex is a bigger deal.

As to your definition, I used the same definition as you, taking it to be a norm. I then used the following definition of norm:

3 : AVERAGE: as a : a set standard of development or achievement usually derived from the average or median achievement of a large group b : a pattern or trait taken to be typical in the behavior of a social group c : a widespread or usual practice, procedure, or custom

I nowhere said they didn't have a right to discuss ethics. You really need to stop putting words in my mouth and deliberately misinterpreting what I say. You've done it on multiple threads now.

[kamiller42]

[quote name='KizlarAgha' post='1110223' date='Nov 3 2006, 06:35 PM']
[b]They're clearly pathologizing homosexuality. [/b] That's what calling it disordered is. All I'm saying is that this scandal wouldn't be nearly as big if he was simply boozing and taking drugs. Sex in America is a huge deal. Gay sex is a bigger deal.[/quote]
I look forward to your references from New Hope Church.

Like our discussion on the definition of normal, you need to understand what the Catholic Church means when it says homosexuality is a "disordered behavior." Calling behavior "disordered" requires context. The context the Catholic Church uses is God's will. It's not a statement on mental or physical abilities or lack of. It doesn't mean a homosexual should wear a straight jacket. It a statement about behavior not ordered to God's will.

[quote]As to your definition, I used the same definition as you, taking it to be a norm. I then used the following definition of norm:[/quote]
I didn't say you were not using a correct definition of normal. I said you're using a loose definition, one that allows for broad conclusions. I highly doubt New Hope Church uses your definition of normal. Although I am a novice, I feel confident in saying the Catholic Church does subscribe to your selected definition.

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='kamiller42' post='1110270' date='Nov 3 2006, 08:47 PM']
I look forward to your references from New Hope Church.

Like our discussion on the definition of normal, you need to understand what the Catholic Church means when it says homosexuality is a "disordered behavior." Calling behavior "disordered" requires context. The context the Catholic Church uses is God's will. It's not a statement on mental or physical abilities or lack of. It doesn't mean a homosexual should wear a straight jacket. It a statement about behavior not ordered to God's will.
I didn't say you were not using a correct definition of normal. I said you're using a loose definition, one that allows for broad conclusions. I highly doubt New Hope Church uses your definition of normal. Although I am a novice, I feel confident in saying the Catholic Church does subscribe to your selected definition.
[/quote]

There's nothing loose about properly using the English language.

As to what New Hope Church believes - they believe that the bible is literally true and free from all error. Since they read the bible literally, they hold that homosexuality is an abomination.

Edited November 4, 2006 by KizlarAgha