Pope: Catholics should ask gay people for forgiveness

[Ben Kenobi]

However, you are totally correct about his cherry picking. The Bible has tons of stuff that were ok and ordered by God back then and now would be considered horrific.

Indeed, which is my point. Human society is created by us making decisions as to what ought to constitute the natural order of society. Just because something is seen in nature doesn't necessarily mean that it should be a part of human society. There are many examples of things that are natural, but not part of society which I'm not going to get into because I'd like to remain posting here.

The reason conservatives have argued so hard against changing these parts of society is because they see society as a fabric - that it is all interconnected with each other. Weaken parts of the natural order, and that weakens other parts. It makes other things more common.

Just since the 30s we've seen all kinds of changes to society in general. Many of them negative. The question for us remains, "what should or should not be part of society", and that's the discussion we are having here.

[Ming]

Negative to you... positive to others.
And the laws are moving to the positive... so I guess most people don't agree with your negative crap.

And that is INDEED WHAT WE ARE DISCUSSING HERE.

[Berzerker]

1. Sex has a purpose - to unite husband and wife for that purpose.

2. All other uses of sex are contrary to the natural order and that includes other unions.

2 follows from 1 as the premiss. If sex has a purpose and this is the purpose of sex - sin comes in when we change the equation.

Homosexuality, or rather, sodomy - follows as sinful because it does not fit in with number 1, as does fornication, etc.

Can you rephrase 1, sounds circular... The purpose of sex is to unite husband and wife for the purpose of sex?

So the natural order is sex only between husband and wife? I hate to break it to ya, but nature "objectively" disagrees

Sodomy means anal or oral sex, that includes husband and wife. Homosexuality aint even mentioned... Why dont we link heterosexuality to sodomy since most acts of sodomy are committed by heterosexuals?

[Giancarlo]

He's got a point there Gian...

However, you are totally correct about his cherry picking. The Bible has tons of stuff that were ok and ordered by God back then and now would be considered horrific.

I named them. Like selling ones daughter into slavery. Mass exterminations. Stoning people. etc.

I am just not holding the bible to any real level of credibility as it lacks it.

[Giancarlo]

Again, if your argument is that "we see things in nature, therefore they would be things that people ought to do - that would also include cannibalism. Either we draw a distinction between nature and the natural order, or we do not. Human society exists because we draw this distinction.

This is all straight from Aquinas, Giancarlo.

Cannibalism has nothing to do with sexual orientation. Stop making the comparison. Aquinas... Full of ****. Can you stop quoting ancients? We live in the 21st century. Homosexuality is part of the natural order, period.

I don't care if this is a cross post. There is an edit feature. I view this post as a defiance of the warning.

[Ming]

I don't care if this is a cross post. There is an edit feature. I view this post as a defiance of the warning.

Uhhhh... you weren't warned... the person that compared Cannibalism to homosexuality was the one warned. CHILL OUT!

[Giancarlo]

If I was warned in a similar fashion, I would have edited it as it would be the right thing to do. That is just me.

I am still annoyed over that remark.

[Ming]

If I was warned in a similar fashion, I would have edited it as it would be the right thing to do. That is just me.

I am still annoyed over that remark.

Gee... I would never have guessed that...
He was warned... If he continues he is toast. So just Chill!

[Giancarlo]

Gee... I would never have guessed that...
He was warned... If he continues he is toast. So just Chill!

Okay.. That's alright with me.

I guess I will just reduce my presence in this thread. It is no use getting worked up over someone like Ben. Someone so completely detached from reality and so hateful.

[Ben Kenobi]

Can you rephrase 1, sounds circular... The purpose of sex is to unite husband and wife for the purpose of sex?

Yep. Sex outside of marriage = fornication, while it gets you sex is not the purpose for which sex was designed.

So the natural order is sex only between husband and wife? I hate to break it to ya, but nature "objectively" disagrees

Again, natural order!= nature. That's why I quoted Aquinas - it's his argument that there's a distinction between the two - it's where Natural law, and the concept of rights come from.

Sodomy means anal or oral sex, that includes husband and wife. Homosexuality aint even mentioned... Why dont we link heterosexuality to sodomy since most acts of sodomy are committed by heterosexuals?

You're thinking of it backwards - what the church does is define what is the appropriate purpose and place for sex and then says that everything outside of that is sin. It doesn't matter who does it or where it's done, unless it fits with sex between one man and one woman in a marriage, it's sin.

[Giancarlo]

Aquinas... Nonsense.

This man refuses to look at science. Homosexuality. Is naturally occurring and does not defy any sort of natural order.

Pardon me for not wanting to live in the Victorian age.

Sex outside of marriage is fornication? So you don't want gay couples to get married, therefore you don't even want them having sex? Great logic... Not.

[Ben Kenobi]

Aquinas... Full of ****. Can you stop quoting ancients? We live in the 21st century.

The question was, "what does the Church teach on this issue". The concept of natural order comes from Aquinas. We argue that morality is transcendent, you believe that morality is progressive. These are fundamental differences that have nothing to do with homosexuality. Again, it was just one example, there are many, many examples of things we see in nature that we do not see in society. Nor should we. This argument concerns, "where should we draw the line"?

[Giancarlo]

The question was, "what does the Church teach on this issue". The concept of natural order comes from Aquinas. We argue that morality is transcendent, you believe that morality is progressive. These are fundamental differences that have nothing to do with homosexuality. Again, it was just one example, there are many, many examples of things we see in nature that we do not see in society. Nor should we. The argument is over, "where should we draw the line", not "everything in nature is good".

Aquinas is wrong and irrelevant to modern society and scientific investigation. Your concept of morality is wrong and immoral on its own. Homosexuality is not wrong, nor is it a sin. And draw the line? Oh really? And what do you plan to do about people like me who choose to call you out on your bull****? So much for drawing that imaginary line.

[Ming]

Good as defined by WHO?

Catholics are welcome to their perspective. But freedom of religion allows for other perspectives.
You can argue all you want about what Catholics believe, and that's fine for Catholics.
But others believe differently. You are no more right than they are.

[Giancarlo]

Ben, who are you to say that we should not see homosexuality in society? And how do you plan to accomplish that? With a "final solution" like a certain Austrian in the 1930s?