Gay Cancer

[hyperdulia again]

[dairygirl4u2c]

i'm not sure why hot stuff is saying there's a difference between intrinsic desire and simple desire.
or what diff is from objective v intrinsic.

i wonder if these guys debating even know...

it'd help bunches if these terms were defined and the posistions clarified. i see no reason as of yet to draw a distinctoin between intriic and not.
and i don't know how it relates to whether we call them homosexuals.

and jaimie says that he is not saying the urge is not disordered to add to the confusion.

[Aloysius]

I'm starting to understand hot stuff's position a little more, with no help from him in terms of clarifying it, ... I'll try to explain it and he can let me know if this is what he's trying to say: "objectively disordered" means that the object of the desire is a disordered object, but that the desire itself is an ordered desire. What we'd be doing here is generalizing the "desire" to be merely talking about "the sex drive" in general; thus the object of the sex drive, the desire, can be disordered; and thus it becomes an "objectively disordered desire", ie disordered by the object of the desire and not the desire itself. the desire, then, must be defined as "the desire for sex" and nothing else; the desire for sex is not intrinsically disordered. "the desire for homosexual sex" then must be seen as a subset of the normal "desire for sex", ie the desire is directed at the wrong object, thus it is disordered in the object it is directed to and not in and of itself.

but you cannot say that "the homosexual desire is NOT intrinsically disordered", that's too messy, too ambiguous, too open to confusion, and the Church never said that. what it is trying to say by saying "the homosexual desire is objectively disordered" is that "the desire for sex is good, when it is homosexual it is directed at a disordered object"

again, I feel as if hot stuff could've done more to explain that rather than just continually claiming that the use of one term over the other in different places in Church documents spoke for itself; it clearly did not.

personally, I find this system hard for me to think in, simply because by my own experience, the homosexual sexual desire seems to be something wholly different from the regular sex drive... but that's just an obscurity in my ability to see beyond my personal experience, and I can see that it must be a disordered OBJECT that the sex drive directs itself at, and thus it is disordered in its object, but the desire itself as simply "the desire for sex"

in fact, looking at it this way, it can further emphasize the point that Apo and I were trying to emphasize: that the homosexual desire is not intrinsic to the person. In fact, to make a point, one might want to contest the use of the terminology of "homosexual desire" and say "sexual desire disordered towards the same sex"

See, the sexual desire in itself is intrinsically good. But if it is focused on self-gratification, or same-sex sexual acts, or fornication, its object is disordered. now, the object of simply the opposite sex, even outside matrimony, is a more ordered object than the object of self or the object of the same sex.

but if one actually wants to define "the homosexual desire" as something different than the general "desire for sex" (and really, from personal experience, I prefer to think of things in this way more, and one is free to think in this way I believe) then one would have to hold that "the homosexual desire" was "intrinsically disordered", ie disordered by its very nature. But it seems that the point being made, a perfectly valid point which I probably ought to acquiesce to because its ramifications seem to imply a greater hope for the re-ordering of the sex drive, is that "the homosexual desire" is nothing more than the "normal heterosexual sex drive focused on a disordered object, namely, the same sex"

[Apotheoun]

Homosexual desires are intrisically disordered, i.e., disordered [i]per se[/i], because the object of the desire in question is unnatural ([i]contra naturam[/i]).

[Aloysius]

Yet, the desire for sex in general is not intrinsically disordered, but can become objectively disordered if its object is disordered.

But yes, when you begin to use the terminology of "homosexual desires", you must hold that they are intrinsically disordered.

It's like how you refuse to label any human person as a "homosexual", it goes further to refuse to label any sexual desire a "homosexual desire". The true nature of the desire is that it is the desire for sex, that it is a heterosexual desire, but that it is ordered towards an improper object. I think this would be a proper interpretation wherein one could say that one does not have an intrinsically disordered desire, but an objectively disordered desire; in that the desire is in and of itself defines as nothing other than "the desire for sexual intimacy" which is intrinsically good, but its object is defined as "someone of the same sex" which makes the normal sexual desire objectively disordered.

[Jaime]

[quote]again, I feel as if hot stuff could've done more to explain that rather than just continually claiming that the use of one term over the other in different places in Church documents spoke for itself; it clearly did not.[/quote]

Ok some slack should be given here folks. I'm not evading the question but instantaneous gratification ain't gonna happen for several reasons.

1. Al's asked for cited sources and I haven't found any yet that directly goes to what I'm talking about. It just infers it

B. 4 hours of sleep and playing two masses cuts into research time

That being said I will share what I mean and continue to look for sources that back it up.

The way the Church has viewed intrinsic vs objective has become more defined (especially when it pertains to sexual ethics) over the past 40 or so years. John Ford, the author of humanae vitae (and others in recent years) have done much to fully define the difference. Here's what it boils down to

When the Church defines something has having intrinsic value, it is always a thing (ex the human person has intrinsic dignity) or an action (homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered). That which has intrinsic value has form and substance. It has action. Desires, thoughts and will does not fit this criteria. Hence it cannot have intrinsic value.

Also anything with intrinsic value, that value is unchangeable. An intrinsically disordered act is always intrinsically disordered.

So when someone is saying homosexual desire is intrinsically disordered, because the desire has no intrinsic value, you are saying that the person who has the homosexual desires has the intrinsic value. And since an intrinsic value is unchanging, you are saying there is no salvation for that person.

That then broadens out to all objectively disordered desires. And if objectively disordered desires are interchangeable for intrinsically disordered, there is literally no salvation for any of us who have dealt with the desire of lust, masturbation, etc. (which pretty much covers everyone)

[Jaime]

Also (and I know this ain't ever gonna happen)

Apotheoun owes me (and the Holy Father) an apology for stating that we are attempting to "normalize" homosexuality by referring to people with homosexual inclinations as "homosexual".


won't hold my breath

[Aloysius]

Don't mean to ask for you to write a dissertation or anything... just thought some of the earlier replies in the thread could've included more explanatory things rather than attempts to claim that the useages of different terms at different times in different documents spoke for themselves, that's all.

what you just said is what I've noticed in a lot of things: the attempt to arbitrarily re-define terms with no regard for their actual etymological meaning; I'd like to see a reason why "intrinsic" cannot refer to desires, rather than a just-so explanation that it cannot refer to desires.

an intrinsically disordered desire is always intrinsically disordered only in that that specific desire could not ever be considered ordered. therefore, while the homosexual's general desire for sex is not an intrinsically disordered desire, the specific desire for homosexual sex would be an intrinsically disordered desire, it is unchangeable only in the sense that the desire for homosexual sex can never be an ordered desire.

I do believe that desire can have intrinsic value, I'd really like to see evidence as to why "intrinsic" cannot be applied to a desire...

what I see in your post is the type of common arbitrary distinction between terminology which is used to colloquially make differentiations but is not, in fact, the most precise way of doing so while being faithful to the actual etymological definitions of words. you cannot absolutize these tools which are used merely to make a point of differentiation but which are not, in fact, necessary to the words; they are not, ironically, intrinsic definitions to the words but arbitrary models; like algorithms in math, which help facilitate understanding in a simpler matter but do not have value outside of that.

I would really suggest adopting the distinction that when you say the desire is not intrinsically disordered, you are only saying that the desire for sexual intimacy in general is not intrinsically disordered. Like I said, it's messy and misleading to say that "a homosexual desire is not intrinsically disordered"; you must specify that it is simply the sexual desire, in general, which is not intrinsically disordered. this distinction may also help to extend out and keep up this distinction which doesn't allow desires to have an intrinsic value; so long as you generalize desires enough and distinguish them from their objects, then yes a desire wouldn't have an intrinsic value.

the problem is that the term "homosexual desire" includes the disordered object, you have to generalize if you really want to talk about pure desires as not having intrinsic value. Actually, I'd be inclined to agree, citing Aquinas, that pure desires would not have an intrinsic value, as pure desires are always the desires for some good, but can only be distorted by focusing that desire on a false good.

[Jaime]

And yet, you can read through Church teachings and see (as I've demonstrated) that there is nothing arbitrary about how the Church uses these words. And how I have defined them is in line with how the Church uses them.

There are reasons that the Church chooses her words. If the definitions are arbitrary, it would be reflected in Church doctrine. It is not.

[Aloysius]

I edited my post while you were posting. I think it is simply the way in which you relate these definitions which becomes arbitrary, which begins to seem like a "just-so" explanation. To truly make the distinction that says that desires do not have intrinsic value, you must bring the desire down to its purest general form; if you are talking about specific desires like that, you begin to confuse the issue. to say "the homosexual desire is not intrinsically disordered" is to make it sound as if it is not disordered by the very nature of it being attracted to the to the wrong thing; it is indeed intrinsically objectively disordered. It is the sexual desire in general which is not intrinsically disordered.

Again, I do not feel as if your few examples of the use of different words at different times has reflected anything other than the Church saying different things about them; you haven't shown her making exclusionary statements towards the possibility of applying the word intrinsic to "homosexual desires", she was emphasizing that the desire is the sexual desire, the disorder is the object of that sexual desire.

[Jaime]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1402366' date='Oct 14 2007, 03:08 PM']I edited my post while you were posting. I think it is simply the way in which you relate these definitions which becomes arbitrary, which begins to seem like a "just-so" explanation. To truly make the distinction that says that desires do not have intrinsic value, you must bring the desire down to its purest general form; if you are talking about specific desires like that, you begin to confuse the issue. to say "the homosexual desire is not intrinsically disordered" is to make it sound as if it is not disordered by the very nature of it being attracted to the to the wrong thing; it is indeed intrinsically objectively disordered. It is the sexual desire in general which is not intrinsically disordered.[/quote]

Then why is that not ever reflected in Catholic teaching?

You can continue to say "same thing" but you cannot point to one church document that supports that.

And again, I've never ever said that homosexual desire is not disordered. The Church makes it clear that it is objectively disordered (again, objectively disordered meaning the desire does not lend itself to procreation)

Desires do not have intrinsic value.

[Aloysius]

I say that it is reflected in Church teaching, it is merely a different interpretation, just as valid, of those same examples you have offered from the Catechism and other documents. It is your interpretation and extrapolation of the usages of these terms in different areas which is part of the algorithm I am talking about... but I do not see how this is not perfectly in line with the usages of the terms as shown in every single citation of Catholic teaching throughout this thread. Moreover, this usage goes into an understanding of the actual meaning of the words chosen to be used by the Church; the Church did not choose to use those words for the reasons you imply she did, she chose to use those words because they were accurate based upon their etymological meanings, "intrinsically disordered" meaning "disordered by its very nature" and "objectively disordered" referring to "having an improper object"

the fact that you say "objectively disordered" refers to nothing other than frustrating the procreative act speaks volumes to what I am talking about with these algorithms of arbitrary definitions. the reason the Church uses "objectively disordered" to refer to things which frustrate the procreative act is because it is saying that they are focused on the wrong object, something especially poignant when discussing sexual acts but also applicable in any situation where the object of a desire is not its proper object.

I'm saying that we shouldn't just look at where the Church uses what terms, but at WHY the Church uses these terms in saying one thing rather than saying another thing; understanding the reasoning; they're not drawing arbitrary distinctions between the terms like your interpretation claims they are. They are using the real meanings of the real words for real reasons, and getting at the heart of why they use the terms is a much better way to understanding Church doctrines.

[Jaime]

[quote]the fact that you say "objectively disordered" refers to nothing other than frustrating the procreative act speaks volumes to what I am talking about with these algorithms of arbitrary definitions. the reason the Church uses "objectively disordered" to refer to things which frustrate the procreative act is because it is saying that they are focused on the wrong object, something especially poignant when discussing sexual acts but also applicable in any situation where the object of a desire is not its proper object.[/quote]

Well that should be easy enough to prove

What is an example where the Church teaches about a situation that is NOT sexual where they call it objectively disordered?

[Aloysius]

didn't say that She did use the term anywhere else, just said that that line of reasoning is a type of arbitrary terminological algorithm. it's not about where she's applied one term or the other, but why she applied one term as opposed to the other in a specific instance. it's about developing an in depth understanding of these terms and why the Church is using them, not just putting them into column a and column b based upon which situations the Church has applied them to.

just because the Church only applied that term to sexual desires does NOT mean that the Church has re-defined the terms for that exclusive purpose.

you are employing just-so explanations rather than getting to the heart of the definitions of the words and thus the reasons they are used.

[Jaime]

Ok I've made my statements. The teachings of the Church have given support to how I've laid out the definitions of intrinsic and objective disorders.

You say I'm wrong. But all you're offering is opinion and nothing to support it Al