What I Think

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1636867' date='Aug 24 2008, 06:39 PM']because there has been no rational demonstration that it is wrong. If you simply wish to hold it as a matter of faith that is fine, but admit it as such.[/quote]

Homosexuality is contrary to natural law. Incest is simply immoral.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Noel's angel' post='1636856' date='Aug 24 2008, 05:32 PM']Yeah, especially when people take the time to reply to every point, writing long explanatory posts, and all they can reply with is a one-liner which is unrelated to the topic.[/quote]


he made a host of unverifiable claims, it's not right, it's not wrong, it's just a series of unsupported metaphysical claims he pulled out of the air.

For instance if I claimed that homosexuality is morally good because one can measure that morality or immorality of an action by the amount of (spiritual) tears a panda (spiritually) cries, and people claiming homosexuality is wrong makes panda's (spiritually) cry a great deal, and therefore homosexuality is fine. Then you would correctly say that is just a big pile of non-sense I pulled out of nowhere with no tangible supporting evidence.

[Hassan]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1636871' date='Aug 24 2008, 06:43 PM']Homosexuality is contrary to natural law. Incest is simply immoral.[/quote]


you say "natural law" and I say "the ammount of spiritual tears a panda bear spiritually cries" Both are unsupported assertions, based on suspect and unverifiable metaphysical assumptions.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1636877' date='Aug 24 2008, 06:48 PM']you say "natural law" and I say "the ammount of spiritual tears a panda bear spiritually cries" Both are unsupported assertions, based on suspect and unverifiable metaphysical assumptions.[/quote]

No, your bizarre theory is an unsupported assertion. My assertion is supported a Church well over 2,000 years old which has the Truth.

[b] The Catechism of the Catholic Church [/b]

2357 [b]Homosexuality[/b] refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 [u]They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. [/u] Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

......

2388 [b]Incest[/b] designates intimate relations between relatives or in-laws within a degree that prohibits marriage between them.181 St. Paul stigmatizes this especially grave offense: "It is actually reported that there is immorality among you . . . for a man is living with his father's wife. . . . In the name of the Lord Jesus . . . you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh. . . . "182 [u]Incest corrupts family relationships and marks a regression toward animality.[/u]




The parts I underlined support non-religious claims against homosexuality and incest.

[Noel's angel]

Let's get down to the nitty-gritty basics. Forgive me for being crude. If men were supposed to have sex with other men, they wouldn't naturally do it through their anus. It makes no sense naturally (even if we take God out of the picture). In no way is it natural for that to happen.
Just as it is the eye's function to see, it is the anus' function to dispose of waste.

Edited August 24, 2008 by Noel's angel

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='Noel's angel' post='1636887' date='Aug 24 2008, 06:07 PM']Let's get down to the nitty-gritty basics. Forgive me for being crude. If men were supposed to have sex with other men, they wouldn't naturally do it through their anus. It makes no sense naturally (even if we take God out of the picture). In no way is it natural for that to happen.
Just as it is the eye's function to see, it is the anus' function to dispose of waste.[/quote]


Exactly.

And the female homosexuals, they are in an even more confusing situation.

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1636871' date='Aug 24 2008, 05:43 PM']Homosexuality is contrary to natural law. Incest is simply immoral.[/quote]

Right. I think there could be an argument also that incest is against natural law, too. I wonder if even among the lower animals there are cases of relations trying to mate with each other. I have genuinely never heard of such a thing. It is as if God created animals (lower and higher) to not even have the URGE or ATTRACTION to mate with their siblings (and other closely related blood relatives). So therefore, any who do it are in defiance of natural law and truly deviant.

[CatherineM]

[quote name='Madame Vengier' post='1636908' date='Aug 24 2008, 06:28 PM']Right. I think there could be an argument also that incest is against natural law, too. I wonder if even among the lower animals there are cases of relations trying to mate with each other. I have genuinely never heard of such a thing. It is as if God created animals (lower and higher) to not even have the URGE or ATTRACTION to mate with their siblings (and other closely related blood relatives). So therefore, any who do it are in defiance of natural law and truly deviant.[/quote]

My Godmother raised standard sized poodles. She had a son mate with his mother accidentally because they were in the same pen at the wrong time, and obviously couldn't sell the resulting puppies. I got one of them, and by the age of 5 he was deaf, and by 7 he was also blind and had to be put down.

As to lesbians, I was so sheltered from such things, that I didn't actually understand what they were, or what they did together, until my husband explained it to me. I just thought they were women who didn't like men, and lived together like nuns or something. So the whole thing makes no sense to me at all.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Noel's angel' post='1636856' date='Aug 24 2008, 06:32 PM']Yeah, especially when people take the time to reply to every point, writing long explanatory posts, and all they can reply with is a one-liner which is unrelated to the topic.[/quote]

Pretty much... its easier that way I guess...


[quote name='Hassan' post='1636855' date='Aug 24 2008, 06:31 PM']You miss the point silly.

Homosexuality is morally deranged for the same reason God considers the ingestion of shell fish an abomination.

The reason these things are morally wrong is because they clearly are,
that is they clearly are to anyone who is not morally bankrupt/insane,
and we can tell who is not morally bankrupt by how clearly they see that the perquisite litmus test for moral coherence,
which is the recognition that the moral issues in question are clearly wrong,
which we know are in fact wrong because we recognize them as wrong thus proving our moral coherence,
thereby affirming the moral depravity of the actions in question
(which is clearly wrong).

Clear as crystal and shiny as a brand new dime [/quote]

This is a twisting and misrepresentation of my argument, as are your other posts, it also conveniently omits the argument based on natural procreation. And no if someone supports incestuous unions no their argue should not be taken seriously. If you make that argument no one will take you seriously. You've added nothing to this debate but irrelevant twisting and misrepresentation of other arguments.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1636949' date='Aug 24 2008, 08:05 PM']As to lesbians, I was so sheltered from such things, that I didn't actually understand what they were, or what they did together, until my husband explained it to me. I just thought they were women who didn't like men, and lived together like nuns or something. So the whole thing makes no sense to me at all.[/quote]

[Hassan]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1636881' date='Aug 24 2008, 06:52 PM']The parts I underlined support non-religious [b][i][u][size=7][color="#FF0000"]claims[/color][/size] [/u][/i][/b]against homosexuality and incest.[/quote]


exactly, CLAIMS they are claims and nothing more.

If you wish to believe homosexuality and incest are morally wrong that is fine. It's not hurting anyone (well, except the tormented souls who are brought up to beleive these claims and slit their wrists after being unable to choose between finding loveing, sexual human relationships but being an hell bound sinner who's relationship is an abomination before God, or liveing a solitary life without experiencing a healthy sexual relationship with another human). I find incest repulsive as well, however I recognise this as a psychological reaction that has not scientific or rational validity in modern times aside from possible adverse implications for a child. I would consider it wrong for this couple to bring a child into the world given the genetic risks, but that's what BC is for.

[Hassan]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1636965' date='Aug 24 2008, 07:15 PM']Pretty much... its easier that way I guess...[/quote]

I did respond to your post. I see you unsupported claims about the natural law with my unsupported claims about panda tears




[quote]This is a twisting and misrepresentation of my argument, as are your other posts,[/quote]


It really was not directed at any particular post here. It was a general satire.

[quote]it also conveniently omits the argument based on natural procreation.[/quote]
No it does not, as it was not adressing any specific thing in your post

[quote]And no if someone supports incestuous unions no their argue should not be taken seriously.[/quote]

Yes, so you say. It's is one of your many, many unproven claims on this subject

[quote]If you make that argument no one will take you seriously. You've added nothing to this debate but irrelevant twisting and misrepresentation of other arguments.[/quote]

no, there was nothing to this argumnt to start with. Just unsupported speculation and SWAG's

[KnightofChrist]

Tell you want Hassan when you can respond point for point, we can have a discussion, but all you can now is misrepresent my argument which is not worth responding to.

Peace!

[Hassan]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1637009' date='Aug 24 2008, 08:39 PM']Tell you want Hassan when you can respond point for point, we can have a discussion, but all you can now is misrepresent my argument which is not worth responding to.

Peace![/quote]
Fine


What exactly do you want me to respond to. I give you my word I will respond point by point

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1636998' date='Aug 24 2008, 08:31 PM']It's not hurting anyone (well, except the tormented souls who are brought up to beleive these claims and slit their wrists after being unable to choose between finding loveing, sexual human relationships but being an hell bound sinner who's relationship is an abomination before God, or liveing a solitary life without experiencing a healthy sexual relationship with another human).[/quote]

Catholics certainly do not teach [i]anyone[/i] that homosexuals are hell bound sinners. We love homosexuals. We love everybody. We despise sin, of course. We despise the sin of homosexual relations because it is contrary to natural law and contrary to God's law (although they are one and the same). Just as a homosexual person can not engage in these acts, I can not engage in sex or sexual acts before I'm married (if I ever get married, that is). And since a homosexual person can not get married, they can not engage in these acts. Ever. Period. Amen.

[quote]but that's what BC is for.[/quote]

Opening a new can of worms, my friend.