31 Aug 07
Originally posted by Bosse de NageAgain one of your annoying jokes ......
TRADITION!
Do I win a prize?
You're wrong and it proves you haven't read the whole of the elaborate quotes I gave from the Cathechismus ..... but who cares, as long as you're popular with the crowd ......
BDN: "Do I win a prize?"
Yes, of course you do ..... for the most annoying and most spoiled young man on RHP trying to put himself in the limelight by trying to be funny .....
31 Aug 07
Originally posted by ivanhoe"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." Followed by a slew of verbiage supporting this tautological reasoning.
Again one of your annoying jokes ......
You're wrong and it proves you haven't read the whole of the elaborate quotes I gave from the Cathechismus ..... but who cares, as long as you're popular with the crowd ......
BDN: "Do I win a prize?"
Yes, of course you do ..... for the most annoying and most spoiled young man on RHP trying to put himself in the limelight by trying to be funny .....
Same story as with women priests. Can't do it. Why? Tradition...
31 Aug 07
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI repeat: ....... it proves you haven't read the whole of the elaborate quotes I gave .......
"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." Followed by a slew of verbiage supporting this tautological reasoning.
Same story as with women priests. Can't do it. Why? Tradition...
BdN: "Same story as with women priests. Can't do it. Why? Tradition ..."
Oh brother, ..... it is no use trying if people simply refuse to understand. Reread my posts, genius.
31 Aug 07
Originally posted by ivanhoeI didn't see anything that would necessarily lead one to conclude that sex between two men for unitive purposes is any less "ordered" or "genuine" than sex between a man and woman who are unable to have children. Evidently you see something, so why don't you just say it? I mean, I can guess, but to have a proper discussion both parties need to voice their position.
After reading what I posted ...... what do you think is the basis on which this claim is made ?
31 Aug 07
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneYou must have missed the notion of "sexual complementarity".
I didn't see anything that would necessarily lead one to conclude that sex between two men for unitive purposes is any less "ordered" or "genuine" than sex between a man and woman who are unable to have children. Evidently you see something, so why don't you just say it? I mean, I can guess, but to have a proper discussion both parties need to voice their position.
31 Aug 07
Originally posted by LemonJelloWhat an arrogant and self satisfied comment ......
As usual, this normative view of ivanhoe's is informed by unsupported and conventionalized theo-teleological blather. So, basically it's made on the basis of nothing that should concern us.
Us ? Why don't you speak for yourself ? Are you the leader of a crowd ?
Maybe you can explain what you mean instead of throwing around fancy terms with which you try to impress the same crowd you imagine you are speaking for.
31 Aug 07
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeThe descriptive fact that they do not form a "sexual complementarity" is not what is interesting about your claim in question. Yes, ivanhoe, a gay couple is not a straight couple.
You must have missed the notion of "sexual complementarity".
What's interesting, and what I would like to see you support, is in regards to the "genuine affective...complementarity" -- or rather the putative lack thereof.
31 Aug 07
Originally posted by ivanhoeI saw it, but realistically I found it difficult to take much away from it other than "We see it as against the natural law because we see sex between a man and a woman as natural and sex between a man and a man as unnatural." What did you take away from it?
You must have missed the notion of "sexual complementarity".
31 Aug 07
Originally posted by ivanhoeI saw it, but realistically I found it difficult to take much away from it other than "We see it as against the natural law because we see sex between a man and a woman as natural and sex between a man and a man as unnatural." What did you take away from it?
You must have missed the notion of "sexual complementarity".
31 Aug 07
Originally posted by ivanhoeThe sources that you copy and paste don't argue for their content. They just list some descriptive claims and also some normative claims that are theological and teleological in nature. And they also just appear to rely on some version of the naturalistic fallacy to link the two. What's your support for this stuff?
What an arrogant and self satisfied comment ......
Us ? Why don't you speak for yourself ? Are you the leader of a crowd ?
Maybe you can explain what you mean instead of throwing around fancy terms with which you try to impress the same crowd you imagine you are speaking for.
31 Aug 07
4 edits
Originally posted by LemonJello" ..... appear to rely .... "
The sources that you copy and paste don't argue for their content. They just list some descriptive claims and also some normative claims that are theological and teleological in nature. And they also just appear to rely on some version of the naturalistic fallacy to link the two.
Show me ..... instead of simply suggesting it.
31 Aug 07
4 edits
Originally posted by ivanhoeEither there are no arguments presented of which to speak; or the arguments there presented are either circular or reliant on the naturalistic fallacy. Consider for example the first section:
" ..... appear to rely .... "
Show me ..... instead of simply suggesting it.
"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 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. Under no circumstances can they be approved."
A conclusion here is that homosexual acts are categorically wrong. What is this conclusion based on? Is it based on the descriptive premises presented that precede it (that tradition has always declared them categorically wrong; and that homosexual acts cannot support procreation)? If so, then that's merely the naturalistic fallacy where you simply take something descriptive and confuse it with something normative. Or is the conclusion based on the normative premises that precede it? Since a premise that precedes the conclusion states blanketly that homosexual acts are contrary to the natural (moral) law, well that's either just circular and question begging; or it's again just descriptive in that you're saying these acts go against God's intentions, which lends itself again to the naturalistic fallacy (hard to tell but I think it's just question begging based on the way you later present 'the natural moral law'😉.
Seriously, get some support for your views, ivanhoe.