Gay Cancer

[hyperdulia again]

"(For the record, I'm not. I'm holding onto my amateur status in hopes of competing in the 2008 Olympics)"

[Jaime]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1403803' date='Oct 16 2007, 07:45 PM']Well, you sometimes come of as a hateful anti-gay bigot. Of course, that doesn't mean you are one. But I take offense with your implication that he is somehow pro-gay to the point of opposing what the Church teaches. Perhaps he is pro-human dignity and refuses to treat those who suffer from same sex attraction like they are animals who need to be punished. Your lack of understanding of the human person does not mean he holds views contrary to the Church.[/quote]

Thanks man!

[Cam42]

Ok, in order to really grasp this understanding of intrinsic value, we must look at it from a philosophical point of view. I will try to explain this as clearly as possible, but philosophy can be a bit "muddy" if not properly understood.....

[quote name=''Brian Weatherson'']G. E. Moore (1903: §18) noted that we can make a distinction between things that are good in themselves, or possess intrinsic value, and those that are good as a means to other things.[/quote]

Ok, looking at this statement, what we can see is that in order for something to possess intrinsic value something must be good in and of itself. Desires or inclinations do not do this. At best, those desires must be acted upon and that simply allows for a moral judgment, which can be either done objectively or subjectively (but not both).

[quote name=''ibid.'']In On the Plurality of Worlds, David Lewis presents a quite different analysis of intrinsic properties. As with the combinatorial theory that he and Rae Langton defend, it heavily exploits the idea that some properties are more natural than others. In fact, it rests even more weight on it. Here is Lewis's statement of the theory:

[I]t can plausibly be said that all perfectly natural properties are intrinsic. Then we can say that two things are duplicates iff (1) they have exactly the same perfectly natural properties, and (2) their parts can be put into correspondence in such a way that corresponding parts have exactly the same perfectly natural properties, and stand in the same perfectly natural relations…Then we can go on to say that an intrinsic property is one that can never differ between duplicates. (Lewis 1986a: 61-2)[/quote]

What is being claimed is that the world is fully characterised by the intrinsic properties of its inhabitants and the perfectly natural relations between those inhabitants. This cannot be the case. The reason being that in order for something to have an intrinsic property it cannot differ, ever, from a duplicate issue. Now, when we think of desires, there are never two desires which are exactly the same. This is further proof that a desire cannot be intrinsic.

Here is a syllogistic way to look at this.....

1. Choco (a specific piece of Chocolate) is valuable (intrinsically or extrinsically).
2. There is some property—being made of chocolate, say—such that Choco
is made of chocolate, and it is good that there be things which are made of
chocolate. (from 1, by definition of “is valuable”)
3. For any properties F and G, if
(a) it is good that there be things which are F, and if
(b) there are things which are F iff there are things which are G,
then it is good that there be things which are G.
4. There are things which are made of chocolate iff there are things which are
such that something is made of chocolate.
5. It is good that there be things which are such that something is made of
chocolate. (from 3, 4)
6. Everything is such that something is made of chocolate. (from 2)
7. Therefore, everything is valuable (intrinsically or extrinsically). (from 5, 6,
by definition of “is valuable”)


What I am getting at is this, Choco (the chocolate piece) is a thing and insofar as the thing has intrinsic value or is intrinsically valuable. What is not intrinsically valuable is are the properties or the if we were to take it back to our terms, the desires of Choco are not intrinsically valuable, but rather Choco itself is.....

This is where the move is being convoluted by Appy. And this is where he is confusing the situation. It is not a desire that is intrinsic, but rather it is the person who is intrinsic and it is the properties which are not.

Hope that didn't confuse anyone too much, but it really does clarify a lot.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1403942' date='Oct 16 2007, 08:37 PM']hot stuff has argued vehemently against the idea that homosexual inclinations are intrinsically (in themselves) disordered, or that they are mentally disordered (see closed thread linked to), as well as for those with strong homosexual inclinations being allowed in the seminary, and against legislation opposing "gay marriage" (against the stated position of the USCCB, whom he usually follows slavishly). (I don't currently have time to dig up those threads.)
True, he never claims homosexual acts are not sinful, but it seems to me he always attempts some kind of linquistic ju-jitsu to consistantly land him in a socially p.c. position, and insisting that his is the Catholic position.

I don't care to rehash this whole debate, and I doubt anyone will change his position.
Much of my observations have already been stated quite eloquently by Todd here (who is well-versed in theology), and CMom also seems to agree, so I don't think this can be dismissed as simply my own personal paranoia.
Anyway, I'm through with this thread.[/quote]


Yes he has argued against that, because an inclination (ie. desire) cannot be intrinsic. You, yourself, are contradicting yourself by making this statment. A desire can be, as you state earlier, objectively disordered, but it cannot be intrinically so.

hot stuff has not, condoned anything that you have accused him of. Again, I ask you to cite direct statements from hot stuff supporting this.

Incidentally, hot stuff and I are also "well-versed" in theology, but that seems to have no bearing on you or your position. I suspect this is because we are at odds with you and what you want to perpetuate.

[Lil Red]

okay, i've read this thread. and i've read everyone's posts (especially hot stuff's, apotheoun's, socrates, and cam's) twice. and i'm still confused.

[Aloysius]

Cam, when you say "a desire cannot be intrinsic" you are saying something wholly different than "a desire cannot have intrinsic value" which is what it sounds like you intend to say in your statements. It really still seems as if you are still confusing that distinction.

[quote]you were and are secularizing the terms.[/quote]
I am using no different definition of "intrinsic" than cam is using.

I admit that at first, I went the wrong direction with "objective", I am no longer doing so. but I am not no longer doing so by thinking that the definition of "objective" is "frustrating the procreative act" because, well, that's not the definition of objective, even if it is an application of it. it means in this context, as I understand it, that the object to which the desire is focused is the wrong object, even though the desire itself (being the sexual desire in general) is good, it is focused on the incorrect object; in the case of masturbation, it would be focused on the self, in the case of fornication, it would be focused on someone other than the spouse, in the case of homosexuality, on someone of the same sex. of course, in fornication, it is still focused on the correct object in the most basic sense (someone of the opposite sex) so that is something of an entirely different nature than homosexual desires or masturbation impulses.

what you call secularizing the terms, I call attempting to understand them for their definitions rather than just rigidly (and blindly) following some system which says where I can and cannot apply them thinking that that is a substitute for understanding their meanings.

[Jaime]

[quote]what you call secularizing the terms, I call attempting to understand them for their definitions rather than just rigidly (and blindly) following some system which says where I can and cannot apply them thinking that that is a substitute for understanding their meanings.[/quote]

Ok well pray about that when you go to Sunday "A property of matter equal to the measure of an object's resistance to changes in either the speed or direction of its motion".

Also as you know you are required to "moving or able to move, operate, function, or take effect quickly; quick; swift; rapid" for at least one hour prior to going.

[Aloysius]

what secular definition am I using, then? I am defining "intrinsic" the same way Cam is (seems like he didn't even understand why I felt I had to make a point of that), I am looking at the meaning of the term "objective" and applying it. What, pre tell, is the definition I should be using? Are you honestly suggesting that the definition of "objective" is "frustrates the procreative act" and that there is no reason for the application of that word there? why does it not mean focused on the wrong object? that would make it perfectly applicable to acts which frustrate the procreative act, and would make sense with the use of the term "objective"

I'm not picking random dictionary definitions, I'm applying the meanings of words in their context.

[Jaime]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1404169' date='Oct 17 2007, 08:55 AM']what secular definition am I using, then? I am defining "intrinsic" the same way Cam is (seems like he didn't even understand why I felt I had to make a point of that), I am looking at the meaning of the term "objective" and applying it. What, pre tell, is the definition I should be using? Are you honestly suggesting that the definition of "objective" is "frustrates the procreative act" and that there is no reason for the application of that word there? why does it not mean focused on the wrong object? that would make it perfectly applicable to acts which frustrate the procreative act, and would make sense with the use of the term "objective"

I'm not picking random dictionary definitions, I'm applying the meanings of words in their context.[/quote]


Oh come on Al! That last post was at least a little funny!!And for the record, those weren't random definitions. Those were the most common.

I was using those to demonstrate that I wasn't being rigid in my interpretation. When the Church uses a particular word in a particular and consistent way, we have to pay attention to that. If the Church is using it to mean "focused on the wrong object" then it would use it in areas that don't deal with sexual ethics. You say you want to apply the meanings of words in their context, then you can't argue against the context of the phrase "objective disorder"

And you can't argue that objectively disordered and intrinsically disordered are interchangeable. Because that would be completely out of context.

[Aloysius]

I laughed, it just didn't reach my fingertips.

So what is your definition of "objectively disordered"? that it "frustrates the procreative act"... sorry, I just can't accept they'd invent such an arbitrary definition; it has to mean something related to the word. I'm not convinced it cannot be applied to anything other than things which are frustrating of the sex act, it seems to me that's where the Church found herself in need of the term to distinguish something, but that doesn't mean its application there must become its definition.

I never said they were interchangeable, I suggested that they might not be mutually exclusive. big difference.

Zac Efron!

[Jaime]

[quote]I never said they were interchangeable, I suggested that they might not be mutually exclusive. big difference.[/quote]

Not when you've repeatedly said "homosexual desires are intrinsically disordered" when the Church has pointedly never done that.

Thought, will and desire do not have intrinsic value

[Cam42]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1404161' date='Oct 17 2007, 06:23 AM']Cam, when you say "a desire cannot be intrinsic" you are saying something wholly different than "a desire cannot have intrinsic value" which is what it sounds like you intend to say in your statements. It really still seems as if you are still confusing that distinction.[/quote]

Nope not confusing anything here. Sorry if it seems that way.....I am making the same point I started with.

Secondly, there is no theological definition for intrinsic, so it must be handled on a philosphical and secular level. So, there is no issue on the defintion of intrinsic.

Finally, do you know why you are listing the names of male actors? If you are doing it simply to mimic hyper, I suggest you go back and read the reasoning, because it really seems as if you don't.....if you do, then ummmm........aaaaa........okay?

[Aloysius]

I do. It's complicated. I should stop. It might just be objectively disordered lol.

hot stuff, you're a little behind on my position.

cam, would it not be more precise to say "desires cannot have intrinsic value" than to say "desires cannot be intrinsic", the former seems to be what you want to say, the latter is also true (especially if we're talking about disordered desires) but it seems out of place from the context of what you're saying.

I still feel it is very messy to go around saying "the homosexual desire is not intrinsically disordered" because it makes it sound like it is not, in and of itself, disordered for one to be attracted to members of the same sex. I understand the distinction now, if you want to bring it down to the base of a "desire", but it really seems like too messy of a statement that leads directly to confusion. The big fuss in the whole debate was that hot stuff was making it sound as if it was not wrong, in and of itself, for one dude to be attracted to another dude. what he was really saying, if my interpretation is correct, is that the desire itself is merely a sexual desire, with no intrinsic value, but that its object was disordered because it was focused on an object which would not bring about procreation (which is the ordered purpose of the sexual desire)

hot stuff really should've nipped it in the bud when people started saying "then, could the homosexual desire ever be properly ordered?"... he should have said "no, the sexual desire can be properly ordered, but if we're defining something as the "homosexual desire", the "homosexual desire" can never be properly ordered"

because we are using the term "homosexual desire" it would seem that by the very nature of a desire for homosexuality, it would be disordered; the way to make the point that a desire cannot have intrinsic value is to define the desire in its most base terms, to define it merely as the "sexual desire" in order to make the point that it is a desire which could be properly ordered and thus does not have intrinsic disorder.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1404187' date='Oct 17 2007, 07:41 AM']I do. It's complicated. I should stop. It might just be objectively disordered lol.

hot stuff, you're a little behind on my position.

cam, would it not be more precise to say "desires cannot have intrinsic value" than to say "desires cannot be intrinsic", the former seems to be what you want to say, the latter is also true (especially if we're talking about disordered desires) but it seems out of place from the context of what you're saying.

I still feel it is very messy to go around saying "the homosexual desire is not intrinsically disordered" because it makes it sound like it is not, in and of itself, disordered for one to be attracted to members of the same sex. I understand the distinction now, if you want to bring it down to the base of a "desire", but it really seems like too messy of a statement that leads directly to confusion. The big fuss in the whole debate was that hot stuff was making it sound as if it was not wrong, in and of itself, for one dude to be attracted to another dude. what he was really saying, if my interpretation is correct, is that the desire itself is merely a sexual desire, with no intrinsic value, but that its object was disordered because it was focused on an object which would not bring about procreation (which is the ordered purpose of the sexual desire)

hot stuff really should've nipped it in the bud when people started saying "then, could the homosexual desire ever be properly ordered?"... he should have said "no, the sexual desire can be properly ordered, but if we're defining something as the "homosexual desire", the "homosexual desire" can never be properly ordered"

because we are using the term "homosexual desire" it would seem that by the very nature of a desire for homosexuality, it would be disordered; the way to make the point that a desire cannot have intrinsic value is to define the desire in its most base terms, to define it merely as the "sexual desire" in order to make the point that it is a desire which could be properly ordered and thus does not have intrinsic disorder.[/quote]


Yes, it is messy, but that is the reason for all the banter. Appy was wrong in his wording......when it is brought to the base, it is the case. No one has said that homosexual desires are ordered, but rather that it cannot be INTRINSICALLY disordered, becuase it is not possible for a desire to be intrinsic. A desire can objectively disordered, but that is not the same thing.

The reason I got involved is because it is so messy and the reason that I took it clear to the base. Looking at it from the base it is clear to see.....