Compelled to change?

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Quote: "They (... homosexual acts. Ivan) close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity."

"They (... homosexual acts. Ivan) close the sexual act to the gift of life. IVANHOE

Surely then any married couple that has sex for enjoyment is closing the act to the gift of life. But is not sex for enjoyment between lovers also? How does having sex that does not produce children hurt anyone, please explain ? I understand how sex without love and mutual respect and humanity can hurt , but what's hurtful about "closing sex to the gift of life"?

One could easily argue that contraception is more closing to the gift of life because it could prevent life happening and thus could be said to be hurtful. It's not as if two homosexuals could ever produce a child anyway. I don't notice the church getting too bothered about priests and leaders who use contraception in my neck of the woods , I doubt they are even asked , it would be aprivate affair with their wife (or husband)

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Quote: "They (... homosexual acts. Ivan) close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity."

They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity IVANHOE

...and? Does this mean that a husband with a huge John Thomas and a wife with a tiny deformed entrance who cannot compliment each other sexually and could not produce children are committing sin? How far do we take this pedantry? Why does it matter? Who does it hurt? How is God's kingdom hindered? I can give you many ways in which God's kingdom is hindered via the church's stance on this , can you provide counter examples please.

Originally posted by knightmeister
They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity IVANHOE

...and? Does this mean that a husband with a huge John Thomas and a wife with a tiny deformed entrance who cannot compliment each other sexually and could not produce children are committing sin? How far do we take this pedantry? Who does it hurt? How is God's kingdom h ingdom is hindered via the church's stance on this , can you provide counter examples please.

You're looking for extremes and asking rhetorical questions about them .... to prove exactly what ?

Anyway I'll answer those questions anyway.

"Does this mean that a husband with a huge John Thomas and a wife with a tiny deformed entrance who cannot compliment each other sexually and could not produce children are committing sin?"

No.

"Why does it matter ?"

True happiness of people, here ánd in the hereafter, is at stake.

How does it hurt ?

If people become unhappy ... that hurts.

"How is God's kingdom hindered? "

Not in a any way. The entrance to God's Kingdom of the people involved is at stake.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Either 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:

"Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrins t 'the natural moral law'😉.

Seriously, get some support for your views, ivanhoe.

Seriously LemonJello, do I have to take this cherrypicking and this quoting selectively to "prove" your point seriously ? This is unacceptable from someone who presents himself as a student of philosophy.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
From the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church:

Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality 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 rem tive purposes.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm#2347

Evidently you believe that the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church is a guide to the will of God. It appears to be not only an interpretation of the scriptures, but an extrapolation of it as well. Given the history of the Roman Catholic Church, one has to question the wisdom in using the Catechism as one's source of guidance, moral or otherwise.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Seriously LemonJello, do I have to take this cherrypicking and this quoting selectively to "prove" your point seriously ? This is unacceptable from someone who presents himself as a student of philosophy.

Huh? In case you don't understand how to go about arguing for your view, an argument consists of premises that collectively support some conclusion. If the conclusion of what you posted is that homosexual acts are categorically wrong, then what is the set of premises in there that you think logically supports it? I can't find anything in there that resembles a sound argument. So break it down, focus the content, and show me.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
You're looking for extremes and asking rhetorical questions about them .... to prove exactly what ?

Anyway I'll answer those questions anyway.

[b]"Does this mean that a husband with a huge John Thomas and a wife with a tiny deformed entrance who cannot compliment each other sexually and could not produce children are committing sin?"

No.

" ...[text shortened]...

Not in a any way. The entrance to God's Kingdom of the people involved is at stake.

True happiness of people, here ánd in the hereafter, is at stake. IVANHOE

The only thing I see coming out of the church's stance on this issue is misery , rejection and pain.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
You're looking for extremes and asking rhetorical questions about them .... to prove exactly what ?

Anyway I'll answer those questions anyway.

[b]"Does this mean that a husband with a huge John Thomas and a wife with a tiny deformed entrance who cannot compliment each other sexually and could not produce children are committing sin?"

No.

" ...[text shortened]...

Not in a any way. The entrance to God's Kingdom of the people involved is at stake.

If people become unhappy ... that hurts. IVANHOE

How does two homosexuals expressing their love for each other make them unhappy?

Originally posted by ivanhoe
You're looking for extremes and asking rhetorical questions about them .... to prove exactly what ?

Anyway I'll answer those questions anyway.

[b]"Does this mean that a husband with a huge John Thomas and a wife with a tiny deformed entrance who cannot compliment each other sexually and could not produce children are committing sin?"

No.

" ...[text shortened]...

Not in a any way. The entrance to God's Kingdom of the people involved is at stake.

The entrance to God's Kingdom of the people involved is at stake IVANHOE

Exactly , and if we only stopped judging and discriminating we might get in.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
You're looking for extremes and asking rhetorical questions about them .... to prove exactly what ?

Anyway I'll answer those questions anyway.

[b]"Does this mean that a husband with a huge John Thomas and a wife with a tiny deformed entrance who cannot compliment each other sexually and could not produce children are committing sin?"

No.

"

Not in a any way. The entrance to God's Kingdom of the people involved is at stake.

"Does this mean that a husband with a huge John Thomas and a wife with a tiny deformed entrance who cannot compliment each other sexually and could not produce children are committing sin?" KM

No. IVANHOE


So , let's think this through . Not being able to perform sex naturally is not what makes a sex act sinful. Also , not being able to produce children and having a sex act that has no chance of producing children is not sinful. So a sex act that it performed in an unnatural way due to the sexual limitations of a person is Ok and its still Ok if there is no chance of having children . So it can't be these issues that are the problem with homosexuality. It must be something else.KM

Originally posted by ivanhoe
You're looking for extremes and asking rhetorical questions about them .... to prove exactly what ?

Anyway I'll answer those questions anyway.

[b]"Does this mean that a husband with a huge John Thomas and a wife with a tiny deformed entrance who cannot compliment each other sexually and could not produce children are committing sin?"

No.

" ...[text shortened]...

Not in a any way. The entrance to God's Kingdom of the people involved is at stake.

You're looking for extremes and asking rhetorical questions about them .... to prove exactly what ? IVANHOE

I'm not trying to prove anything , I'm trying to get to the bottom of what the objection to homosexuality is (other than scripture). You say that it is unnatural or not complimentary so I am finding exceptions to the rule and wondering why you select some over others.

Another example might be siamese twins . If they had sex with a man (if they were women) this could be said to be a threesome and therefore sinful but since they have little choice who are we to judge? The world is full of the "unnatural" but we are on dangerous ground once we deem the unnatural as sinful . One could argue (not me) that it is unnatural and sinful for people with disabilities to reproduce because it is "unnatural" and furthers an "unnatural" gene. How far do we go?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Evidently you believe that the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church is a guide to the will of God. It appears to be not only an interpretation of the scriptures, but an extrapolation of it as well. Given the history of the Roman Catholic Church, one has to question the wisdom in using the Catechism as one's source of guidance, moral or otherwise.

The "Fallacy of poisoning the well" which is widely used, most of the time without even realising it, by hords of debaters when Roman-Catholic teachings are being discussed.

These teachings can't be right, because ... and then you'll get the usual list of about everything that went wrong during the past two millennia .... the Roman Empire, the Cathares, the Crusades, Galilei, the Second Word War, the Shoa ...... true facts or imagined facts, truthful interpretations of events or twisted interpretations of events, ... it doesn't matter anymore if the goal is to poison the well called the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church ..... some of us debaters are true masters regarding this fallacy.

"Poisoning the Well

Etymology:
The phrase "poisoning the well" ultimately alludes to the medieval European myth that the black plague was caused by Jews poisoning town wells—a myth which was used as an excuse to persecute Jews.

The phrase was first used in its relevant sense by Cardinal John Henry Newman during a controversy with Charles Kingsley:

…[W]hat I insist upon here…is this unmanly attempt of his, in his concluding pages, to cut the ground from under my feet;—to poison by anticipation the public mind against me, John Henry Newman, and to infuse into the imaginations of my readers, suspicion and mistrust of every thing that I may say in reply to him. This I call poisoning the wells.
"I am henceforth in doubt and fear," he says, "as much as any honest man can be, concerning every word Dr. Newman may write. How can I tell that I shall not be the dupe of some cunning equivocation?" …
Well, I can only say, that, if his taunt is to take effect, I am but wasting my time in saying a word in answer to his foul calumnies… We all know how our imagination runs away with us, how suddenly and at what a pace;—the saying, "Caesar's wife should not be suspected," is an instance of what I mean. The habitual prejudice, the humour of the moment, is the turning-point which leads us to read a defence in a good sense or a bad. We interpret it by our antecedent impressions. The very same sentiments, according as our jealousy is or is not awake, or our aversion stimulated, are tokens of truth or of dissimulation and pretence. There is a story of a sane person being by mistake shut up in the wards of a Lunatic Asylum, and that, when he pleaded his cause to some strangers visiting the establishment, the only remark he elicited in answer was, "How naturally he talks! you would think he was in his senses." Controversies should be decided by the reason; is it legitimate warfare to appeal to the misgivings of the public mind and to its dislikings? Any how, if Mr. Kingsley is able thus to practise upon my readers, the more I succeed, the less will be my success. … The more triumphant are my statements, the more certain will be my defeat."

Source: John Henry Newman, Apologia Pro Vita Sua

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/poiswell.html

Originally posted by knightmeister
True happiness of people, here ánd in the hereafter, is at stake. IVANHOE

The only thing I see coming out of the church's stance on this issue is misery , rejection and pain.

That is the only thing shown in the liberal and other anti Church media.

Originally posted by knightmeister
If people become unhappy ... that hurts. IVANHOE

How does two homosexuals expressing their love for each other make them unhappy?

-How does two homosexuals expressing their love for each other make them unhappy?

( .... by performing sexual acts you mean of course, not by expressing their friendship by taking care of each other and supporting eachother in times of need)


-How does stealing make the thief happy ?

-How does lying make the liar happy ?

-How does killing make the killer happy ?

In general: How does sinning make the sinner happy ?

Originally posted by knightmeister
The entrance to God's Kingdom of the people involved is at stake IVANHOE

Exactly , and if we only stopped judging and discriminating we might get in.

You missed a few importance statements I made in one of my earlier posts.

Recognising and pointing out morally wrong acts in someone's behaviour doesn't necessarily mean that the person in question is being judged or discriminated against.