Gay Cancer

[Apotheoun]

No man is ontologically a homosexual.

[Jaime]

Todd

Show me where the Church states no distinction between intrinsic and objective disorders.

[XIX]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1402103' date='Oct 14 2007, 01:15 AM']hot stuff,

Do a search and you will see that I have quoted Magisterial texts on this topic at Phatmass for more than three years.

God bless,
Todd[/quote]
But not in this debate, which mean you are losing the debate (from a Catholic perspective) unless you can somehow prove that a homosexual desire is both objectively and intrinsically disordered.

Besides, aren't we picking at some serious nits at this point?

[Apotheoun]

As Dr. Kemp put it so well: "In its teaching on homosexuality the Church makes a sharp distinction between homosexual activity, which it holds to be objectively wrong in all cases for the reasons mentioned above, and homosexual desires, which it holds to be intrinsically disordered, but not in themselves morally wrong (or sinful)."

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='XIX' post='1402106' date='Oct 13 2007, 10:18 PM']But not in this debate, which mean you are losing the debate (from a Catholic perspective) unless you can somehow prove that a homosexual desire is both objectively and intrinsically disordered.

Besides, aren't we picking at some serious nits at this point?[/quote]
It is by definition unnatural and intrinsically disordered for a man to desire to have sex with another man, and that you are unaware of this fact is most disturbing.

[XIX]

If we are going to debate this any further, can we at least give some definition of the terms "intrinsic" and "objective?"

Lacking this, the debate is kind of lacking any real direction.

[Jaime]

I think that Dr Kemp would be the first to admit he is not an authoritative document of the Church.

I could drive down and ask him

[XIX]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1402108' date='Oct 14 2007, 01:20 AM']It is by definition unnatural and intrinsically disordered for a man to desire to have sex with another man, and that you are unaware of this fact is most disturbing.[/quote]
One would think that a person would be so disturbed as to do something meaningful to change my mind. You aren't even offering arguments anymore, but assertions. If you don't offer some sort of Church document to support your claims, then i have no reason to attempt dialogue with you.

I have no idea who "Dr. Kent" is. Why on earth do you expect me to trust his opinion if you can't even site Catholic teaching?

[XIX]

I'll re-visit this thread when Apo sites an authoritative church document.

Until then, go Red Sox.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1402110' date='Oct 13 2007, 10:20 PM']I think that Dr Kemp would be the first to admit he is not an authoritative document of the Church.

I could drive down and ask him[/quote]
hot stuff,

I have read your posts in this thread and I have seen nothing in the documents of the Roman curia (i.e., [i]Persona Humana[/i] and [i]Homosexualitatis Problema[/i]) that supports your making a hard distinction between "objective" and "intrinsic." That said, if something is objectively disordered it is disordered per se, i.e., it is intrinsically or inherently disordered. I am saddened by your constant attempts to legitimize the homosexual condition as something normal.

God bless,
Todd

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='XIX' post='1402113' date='Oct 13 2007, 10:25 PM']I'll re-visit this thread when Apo sites an authoritative church document.

Until then, go Red Sox.[/quote]
Clearly, like hot stuff you cannot read very well, because I already cited two different documents of the CDF earlier in this thread.

God bless,
Todd

[Jaime]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1402114' date='Oct 14 2007, 12:30 AM']hot stuff,

I have read your posts in this thread and I have seen nothing in the documents of the Roman curia (i.e., [i]Persona Humana[/i] and [i]Homosexualitatis Problema[/i]) that supports your making a hard distinction between "objective" and "intrinsic." That said, if something is objectively disordered it is disordered per se, i.e., it is intrinsically or inherently disordered. I am saddened by your constant attempts to legitimize the homosexual condition as something normal.

God bless,
Todd[/quote]

Every quote provided showed the action to be intrinsically disordered while the desire to be objectively disordered. How you missed that, I cannot fathom

And I'm saddened at your assumption that I'm making the homosexual condition normal. You are grasping at straws.


I am stating things as they are. I am not blurring lines like you and others are attempting to do. Concise language is key. I wish you had more respect for that.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1402116' date='Oct 13 2007, 10:34 PM']Every quote provided showed the action to be intrinsically disordered while the desire to be objectively disordered. How you missed that, I cannot fathom

And I'm saddened at your assumption that I'm making the homosexual condition normal. You are grasping at straws.
I am stating things as they are. I am not blurring lines like you and others are attempting to do. Concise language is key. I wish you had more respect for that.[/quote]
As I tell my students, a quotation in and of itself does not prove a point, the burden of proof remains upon you to show that the Church explicitly holds that there is a difference between an "objective disorder" and an "intrinsic disorder," and so far you have not done that; instead, you have simply quoted various texts and then asserted that this proves your point, when in fact it does not.

Edited October 14, 2007 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

An objective disorder is a disorder [i]per se[/i], which means that it is inherent or intrinsic disorder. You have not proven that there is a difference in meaning between the two terms, which are in fact related. To put it another way, if something is objectively disordered it follows that there is something intrinsically wrong with it.

Edited October 14, 2007 by Apotheoun

[Jaime]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1402117' date='Oct 14 2007, 12:39 AM']As I tell my students, a quotation in and of itself does not prove a point, the burden of proof remains upon you to show that the Church explicitly holds that there is a difference between an "objective disorder" and an "intrinsic disorder," and so far you have not done that; instead, you have simply quoted various texts and then asserted that this prove your point, when in fact it does not.[/quote]

And as I've told my Australian Shepherd just now, I have shown where the Church makes the distinction over and over again. The burden of proof is off my shoulders. You have yet to show besides your opinion that objective and intrinsic are interchangeable

because they are not