A Depraved Mind

[quatona]

No, but it's true all the same.

This remark sounds like the ultimate stop sign for any intellectual discussion.

 

[LightHorseman]

But, truth to be told, creating such a society is one of the predominant goals of the GayAgendaTM.

Dude, please don't, otherwise I fear trolling over at Raqpture Ready and seeing posts quoting "a leader of the NAMBLA/GLBT movement admits the agenda" with a link to this quote

 

[ranmaonehalf]

T.... the fact that homosexuals cannot produce children poses a big objective problem there. It closes the door to procreation; no procreation = extinction. And then we can go into the high HIV and STD rate as well as the social and societal problems concerning the raising of children with a missing mother or father.

wow one big mistake after another.
1st women can be artificially inseminated. men and women can adopt.
And of course not everyone is gay. Are you suggesting there are issues with those who simply choose not to have kids? (i suspect your against condoms or other birth controls)

HIV, STDs have nothing to do with sexuality but unsafe sex that applies to gay or straight. Social problems deal with bigots who simply dont like things that are different. Not having a mother figure or father figure really doesnt matter. What is important is to have loving parents that can take care of you. If you have actual facts please post them or your sources.

If your just going to runon and on with the unbacked claims dont make them.

 

[ranmaonehalf]

The Church has done this for over 2000 years now and has always declared homosexual acts to be sinful and disordered. Not one apostle, saint ,mystic, or early father has denied it.
..

The church is not god.
And frankly you could be executed if you went against the church if you lived during those wrong times.

 

[Gareth]

The Church was not God but acted like it, and still does in some places. The trouble for it is that it rests many of it's statutes on the teachings of men, using the Bible or Christianity as a validation stamp.

 

[Garyzenuf]

The Church has done this for over 2000 years now and has always declared homosexual acts to be sinful and disordered. Not one apostle, saint ,mystic, or early father has denied it.

They probably all believed the sun orbited the earth as well. Just because a lot of (even intelligent) people believe something to be true, doesn't always makes it so.

Objective evidence? well taken the fact that homosexuals cannot produce children poses a big objective problem there. It closes the door to procreation; no procreation = extinction.

This could just as well prove that its a natural sexual orientation. (Pssst...homosexuals can procreate).

And then we can go into the high HIV and STD rate as well as the social and societal problems concerning the raising of children with a missing mother or father.

Well don't let us stop you, go right ahead.

*

 

[yguy]

Nope, greatest good for greatest number.

What happened to consent all of a sudden?

What are you basing this on?

I'm not going to tell you just now.

 

[yguy]

This remark sounds like the ultimate stop sign for any intellectual discussion.

Stopping an "intellectual discussion" isn't always a bad idea.

 

[Corey]

It's obvious that sometimes God just gives some over to a depraved mind and allows them to believe that which isn't true. That's why so many are believing the devil's lie that homosexual sex is not a sin.

Or...there's no objective evidence your god exists, so we're happy to ignore it.

 

[yguy]

The law assumes that it hurts the animal. A reasonable assumption, I would say.

How about killing the animal before eating it? Is it reasonable to assume that hurts the animal?

Okay, what you seem to be saying is that while homosexuality in itself does not cause any harm, its practioners are influenced by evil and do evil in other ways. Am I interpreting you correctly?

I have no idea how you got such a patent self-contradiction out of what I said.

 

[Belk]

28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.

29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. Romans 1:28-32


It's obvious that sometimes God just gives some over to a depraved mind and allows them to believe that which isn't true. That's why so many are believing the devil's lie that homosexual sex is not a sin.

Yay! I have a depraved mind.

<dances around doing the Peewee Herman dance>

In your face normality.

 

[PsychMJC]

Yay! I have a depraved mind.

<dances around doing the Peewee Herman dance>

In your face normality.

But....
Do you have the shoes?

 

[CreedIsChrist]

I'd like to address these one at a time if I may?Can you think of any other long held positions within the Church, even those held by the early fathers that have been revised, even abandoned in more recent times? I can think of a few.

The problem is homosexuality as a sin is an infallible declaration. Meaning that it cannot be changed. The early fathers and mystics just back this up and make it even a more solid case. If homosexuality is ok like you seem to say, why didn't any of the early christians speak up against it? Surely we would have evidence of people telling the Church that homosexuality is ok and not a sin.

Does Igantius of Antioch bring up any issue of this? Nope. How bout Clement of Rome or Polycarp? Nope theres no objections there. Justin Martyr maybe? He brings up the problem of it in Pagan Rome. Hmmm. Maybe Irenaeus or Tertullian brings up it and opposes what the Church says. Unfortunately they don't either. In fact Tertullian yet again like Justin Martyr brings up the problem that it has been causing in Pagan Rome with Pederasty and such.

Without any digging, slavery, geocentrism, Creationism, capital punishment of disenters or heretics, and limbo spring to mind as doctrine/ideas held acceptible by the church that it has later abandoned. Saying "we've always condemned homosexuality, therefore we will always condemn homosexuality" does not strike me as a valid enough reason to hurt so many people. If we're going to condemn millions of people, I think we need a much better reason than "its the way we've always done it"

Wonderful way of ripping everything out of context. For if you read, the Church was the first to condemn slavery. St. Augustine said slavery was the consequences of sin, and if we read about the nature of sin we cannot really deny this opinion. The Church has never denied creationism, it says it is too complicated to point out exactly and that its foolish to try to debate creationism vs evolutionism. However it DOES condemn atheistic evolution and the fact that our souls are uniquely created by God. And if you read Pope Pius XII encyclical Humani Generis you would see that. Ill post it for you

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/p.../hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html

Im surprised (since you have the Catholic icon in your profile) that you even brought up Limbo. COnsidering the Church has never infallibly declared Limbo. They were the opinions of the Church and nothing more. However homosexual sex as a sin is infallible and thus it cannot be reversed.

Lastly, again if you knew Catholic history you would see that secular law is what executed heretics, not the Church. Heresy back then was a STATE crime, because they believed it caused rioting, violence and dissention among the public. There was looting of Churches, murder, and general upheaval of the public.

Lastly, it is the sin that is condemned , not the person. Homosexuals are called to chastity officially by the Church. Its a solution to a problem, not a condemnation. Its an effort to bring people out of a sin that is hurting them. If you don't believe that then you are in dissention with Church teaching. Personal opinions have little weight in these matters.

You are creating a false dichotomy. Your homosexuality=no procreation=extinction fails because it implys that accepting homosexuals necesitates EVERYONE being homosexual. This simply is not the case. Depending on which study you believe, between 5-15&#37; of people are homosexual. that leaves between 85-95% of people to get on with procreating. Further, condemning homosexuality does not cause homosexuals to procreate, so condemned or accepted, homosexuals still aren't going to contribute to the procreation stakes, and finally, if an ability to procreate determines righteousness in the eyes of God, does that mean that infertile couples are fornicating everytime they have sex?
If procreation is such a desired thing that any loving couple that can't procreate is unrighteous, why does Paul speak so highly of celibacy?

This is a common arguement. However again you take each act out of context and try to fuse it with homosexuality without giving any explanation why the bible talks about things like celibacy. It has nothing to do with population or percentage, but rather it is the act itself. Homosexual sex is a defiance and closing off to the openness to procreation, which closes off God and his natural law. Celibacy is not the case, because the person has givin up the world for God and is living for God. There is no sacrifice for God when it involves fornication, however celibacy involves this sacrifice. One involves a denial of wordly lusts, the other dosen't. That is why Paul speaks so highly of it.

Lastly infertile couples were born that way, and thus they are not culpable. However for someone who is able to procreate and makes an effort to close off this natural act of procreation is in defiance to God's natural law and thus is a great mortal sin.

Do you really want to make a statement to the effect that disease rates indicate sinfulness? You can do it, but you won't like where it leads, I warn you now.Well a. That would seem to be an issue relating to homosexual adoption which is not necesarily the same thing.
b. If you are so concerned about the social problems of children missing a parent, I take it you are campaigning equally strongly against single parents, including widows and widowers, having children in their care? if not, why not?

I take it you have never read my thread on Ban No fault divorce and such. Again this is another common argument of pro homosexual groups but yet it still provides no justification for the deliberate closing off of procreation. All you have done is given examples of people who physically cannot procreate and have no option in the issue. The sterility of others has nothing to do in nullifying the natural act of procreation in people who can.

Widowers? so? They have already lived with someone and have been open to the chance of procreation. SIngle parents? since when have I ever justified divorce? God's word denys divorce. Your grabbing at straws

I'd like to see your evidence that any such issues, infact, exist, because there seems to be a fair bit of objective evidence that says that adequately supported single parent or same sex parent families are perfectly able to raise healthy well adjusted children as the nuclear model. Also, minor point, but all this "the nuclear family is GOD's WILL" rhetoric that goes around is utterly non-Biblical, if we all to subscribe to Biblical "family values" we'd all be living in multi generational extended family households, so lets take it easy claiming that the nuclear family is the be all and end all to child raising, because it is, in fact, quite a recent inovation in social terms

First off your in no authority to say that gay couples are able to raise children correctly. If your a Catholic,authority comes from the magestarium not your personal opinion. SInce homosexual acts are disordered then it will show us the fact that a disordered people cannot raise children correctly until they get they're own lives straight. I will not even bring up the ample evidence of a child needing both a maternal and paternal figure in they're lives or the mother-child connection and visa versa, because its so obvious to people with common sense.

 

[Belk]

But....
Do you have the shoes?

No, but I have the bicycle.

 

[PsychMJC]

No, but I have the bicycle.

<--- Is jealous

 

[LightHorseman]

What happened to consent all of a sudden?

Not a thing. However, I have stated elsewhere that sometimes in more complex situations, there are other considerations that need to be taken ionto account. Greatest good for greatest number is one of them, would you like examples?

I'm not going to tell you just now.

Sort of sounds like you're dodging the question, almost like, I don't know, you don't think you have an adequate answer?

 

[LightHorseman]

The problem is homosexuality as a sin is an infallible declaration. Meaning that it cannot be changed. The early fathers and mystics just back this up and make it even a more solid case. If homosexuality is ok like you seem to say, why didn't any of the early christians speak up against it? Surely we would have evidence of people telling the Church that homosexuality is ok and not a sin.

Do we have any early Christians speaking out against slavery? Again, I don't think argument from tradition is, by itself, a justification for anything.

Does Igantius of Antioch bring up any issue of this? Nope. How bout Clement of Rome or Polycarp?

Wasn't Polycarp the champion of natural law? I think natural law is pretty pro-homosexuality actually.

Nope theres no objections there. Justin Martyr maybe? He brings up the problem of it in Pagan Rome. Hmmm. Maybe Irenaeus or Tertullian brings up it and opposes what the Church says. Unfortunately they don't either. In fact Tertullian yet again like Justin Martyr brings up the problem that it has been causing in Pagan Rome with Pederasty and such.

Point of order, pederasty and consentual adult homosexuality are apples and oranges.

After 30 seconds of research, I find that there ARE, in fact, early examples of Church sponsored homosexuality...

Not everyone agrees that the wealth of condemnations are fully characteristic of early Christianity. Historian John Boswell, for instance, has tendentiously argued that adelphopoiesis, a Christian rite for uniting two persons of the same sex as "spiritual brothers/sisters", amounted to an approved outlet for romantic and indeed sexual love between couples of the same sex. However, the rites for adelphopoiesis explicitly state that the union is not a "carnal" one. Boswell also drew attention to Saints Sergius and Bacchus, whose icon depicts the two standing together with Jesus between or behind them, a position he identifies with a pronubus or "best man". Critics of Boswell's views have argued that the union created was more like blood brotherhood; and that this icon is a typical example of an icon depicting two saints who were martyred together, with the usual image of Christ that appears on many religious icons, and therefore that there is no indication that it depicts a "wedding". But Saints Sergius and Bacchus were both referred to as erastai in ancient Greek manuscripts, the same word used to describe lovers (Boswell).
Boswell, in his essay The Church and the Homosexual [5], attributes Christianity's denunciations of "homosexuality" to a supposedly rising intolerance in Europe throughout the 12th century, which he claims was also reflected in other ways. His premise is that when sodomy wasn't being explicitly and "officially" denounced, it was therefore being "tolerated". Historian R. W. Southern disagrees with Boswell's claims and has written that "the only relevant generalization which emerges from the penitential codes down to the eleventh century is that sodomy was treated on about the same level as copulation with animals." Southern further notes that "Boswell thinks that the omission of sodomy from the stringent new code of clerical celibacy issued by the Roman Council of 1059 implies a degree of tolerance. But this is mistaken: the Council of 1059 had more urgent business on hand; and in any case, sodomy had been condemned by Leo IX at Rheims in 1049."[9] Similarly, Pierre Payer has drawn attention to the fact that Boswell's thesis (as outlined in his Christianity, Homosexuality and Social Tolerance) almost completely ignores the wealth of condemnations found in the pentitential literature prior to the 12th century.[10]

Wonderful way of ripping everything out of context. For if you read, the Church was the first to condemn slavery. St. Augustine said slavery was the consequences of sin, and if we read about the nature of sin we cannot really deny this opinion. The Church has never denied creationism, it says it is too complicated to point out exactly and that its foolish to try to debate creationism vs evolutionism. However it DOES condemn atheistic evolution and the fact that our souls are uniquely created by God. And if you read Pope Pius XII encyclical Humani Generis you would see that. Ill post it for you

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/p.../hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html

Im surprised (since you have the Catholic icon in your profile) that you even brought up Limbo. COnsidering the Church has never infallibly declared Limbo. They were the opinions of the Church and nothing more. However homosexual sex as a sin is infallible and thus it cannot be reversed.

You say out of context, I say they are still examples of doctrine and dogma that were once held true, now held false. (Minor point, Pope John Paul II endorsed the Big Bang theory, which sounds pretty anti big "C" Creationist to me... you also sort of ignored Geocentrism, thats a big one the Church used to insist on that it has actually apologised for. Then there's forced conversions, the circulatory system...)

Lastly, again if you knew Catholic history you would see that secular law is what executed heretics, not the Church. Heresy back then was a STATE crime, because they believed it caused rioting, violence and dissention among the public. There was looting of Churches, murder, and general upheaval of the public.

Well ACTUALLY what you'll find, if you assess the evidence honestly, is that the Church convicted heretics in Cannon courts, and then turned the convicted over to the secular authorities for execution. Thus the Church could claim not to have any blood on its hands, but the Church was the driving force behind such executions.

Lastly, it is the sin that is condemned , not the person. Homosexuals are called to chastity officially by the Church. Its a solution to a problem, not a condemnation. Its an effort to bring people out of a sin that is hurting them. If you don't believe that then you are in dissention with Church teaching. Personal opinions have little weight in these matters.

I understand this is the case, however a great many people seem to have difficulty with the distinction between the sinner and the sin. And I will admit that this is actually doctrine where I disagree with the Church's teaching. Birth control too, while we're at it, but thats a whole other discussion.

This is a common arguement. However again you take each act out of context and try to fuse it with homosexuality without giving any explanation why the bible talks about things like celibacy. It has nothing to do with population or percentage, but rather it is the act itself. Homosexual sex is a defiance and closing off to the openness to procreation, which closes off God and his natural law. Celibacy is not the case, because the person has givin up the world for God and is living for God. There is no sacrifice for God when it involves fornication, however celibacy involves this sacrifice. One involves a denial of wordly lusts, the other dosen't. That is why Paul speaks so highly of it.

I could ALMOST buy this argument... were it not for the fact that the Church blesses unions between heterosexuals known to be infertile. Could not the exact same arguments about homosexuality being all about carnal lust and closing off to procreation be applied to known infertile heterosexuals? It seems a blatant double standard to me. IF people condemned homosexual and infertile heterosexual relationships equally, well, I could sort of see the point (though I reserve the right not to agree with it) but the fact that one is considered proper, while the other is not, while there is no apparent difference in outcome renders the whole "procreation" argument false to me. Plus the fact that condemniung homosexuality doesn't actually make homosexuals procreate... a condemned homosexual in a homosexual relationship is no more likely to procreate than an accepted homosexual in a homosexual relationship.

Lastly infertile couples were born that way, and thus they are not culpable.

I contend that homosexuals are "born" that way, or at least, are homosexual due to natural causes and through no fault of the individual.

However for someone who is able to procreate and makes an effort to close off this natural act of procreation is in defiance to God's natural law and thus is a great mortal sin.

So, hypothetically a fertile man who marries an infertile woman, or a fertile woman who marries an infertile man... are they not people able to procreate who close off the natural act of procreation? I'm sorry, I'm really not trying to be difficult, I just want consistency.

I appreciate your reasoned, respectful response.

[eta]Oops! It keeps going! the "lastly" threw me.

I take it you have never read my thread on Ban No fault divorce and such.

I guess not, sorry.

Again this is another common argument of pro homosexual groups but yet it still provides no justification for the deliberate closing off of procreation. All you have done is given examples of people who physically cannot procreate and have no option in the issue. The sterility of others has nothing to do in nullifying the natural act of procreation in people who can.

See above... what about heterosexual relationships where only one partner is infertile? What about heterosexual relationships where procreation is actively avoided using church approved methods like abstinance and the rythm method? Why aren't people campaigning as hard against them?

Widowers? so? They have already lived with someone and have been open to the chance of procreation. SIngle parents? since when have I ever justified divorce? God's word denys divorce. Your grabbing at straws

That wasn't the issue, and I'm sure you are aware of it. You made the point that homosexual couples should not be allowed to be parents because they rob the child of the missing gendered parent. I make the point that widows, divorced or never married single parents would appear to have the same issue, so why aren't you condemning them? This isn't about the rightness or wrongness of how the parent came to be in that situation, its about whether or not they can adequately raise the child without the missing gender. Short verion, if its OK for a widowed mother to raise a child herself, why is it wrong for two lesbians to raise a child?

First off your in no authority to say that gay couples are able to raise children correctly.

Any "authority" I may have comes from scientific observation, nothing more, nothing less.

If your a Catholic,authority comes from the magestarium not your personal opinion.

I don't believe that magesterium dogma trumnps the scientific method.

SInce homosexual acts are disordered then it will show us the fact that a disordered people cannot raise children correctly until they get they're own lives straight.

That would make sense... IF we agreed that homosexual people are disordered. Not even the Catholic Church says they are any more, the Church actually recognises homosexuality as a valid sexual orientation, it merteloy calls them to celibacy. No disorder there...

I will not even bring up the ample evidence of a child needing both a maternal and paternal figure in they're lives or the mother-child connection and visa versa, because its so obvious to people with common sense.

Ah yes, appeal to "common sense"... unfortunately observed evidence disagrees. It also raises the issue of the widowed mnother again. If a child raised by 2 same sex parents cannot hope for a normal upbringing and thus shouldn't be permitted, how can you permit single parents, however they came to be in that situation, to raise children?

Consistency issue again.

 

[yguy]

Not a thing. However, I have stated elsewhere that sometimes in more complex situations, there are other considerations that need to be taken ionto account.

And just how does one prioritize all these considerations?

Greatest good for greatest number is one of them, would you like examples?

One should suffice.

Sort of sounds like you're dodging the question, almost like, I don't know, you don't think you have an adequate answer?

For where you are as of now, I don't.

 

[LightHorseman]

And just how does one prioritize all these considerations?

One does the best one can.

One should suffice.

Sure, lets look at killing animals for meat again.

Is there consent? Well, not from the animal. But by killing one animal, several humans might live, and it is an axiomatic value judgement that human life is worth more than animals. Thus, the greater good for greatest number argument trumps the "informed consent" issue. I am adamant that although such a killing can be justified, the killing still needs to be done in as humane and painless way as possible.

For where you are as of now, I don't.

Well I'm certainly not going to change my position unless you attempt to explain the reasoning underlying yours.

 

[yguy]

it is an axiomatic value judgement that human life is worth more than animals.

And how do you square that with your view expressed elsewhere that "murder" is defined by legal consensus?

Well I'm certainly not going to change my position

I'm not here to get people to change their positions. I'm here to give people a choice they may not have had before: between truth and lies.