Catholic politicians must oppose gay marriage: Pope says - Page 5 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 03-14-2007, 10:21 PM   #61
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
redhotswami's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Waiting for this madness to end.
Posts: 5,846
Local Time: 05:22 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Ormus
Where I get deeply disappointed in the Catholic Church is in the fact that they have embraced science and textual Biblical scholarship so deeply in the 20th century as to be admirable. While much of American Protestantism bickers over the issue of creationism versus evolution, the Catholic Church has long backed evolution, based on the science, coming to the theological conclusion that God can create through such science (this has nothing to do with Protestant "intelligent design," as ID demands strict changes to science, while Catholicism accepts the scientific conclusions about evolution completely). And, yet, it seems like all this fairly reasonable theology is overshadowed by its nonsensical clinging to "natural law" pseudoscience. And, frankly, I don't get it, except that such misanthropic attitudes as espoused in "natural law" have become so core to "Catholic tradition" that they cannot even think of a way to get rid of it. But, in the process, the more they try to reassert "natural law," the more irrelevant and foolish they look.

"Pride," after all, is a vice, not a virtue.


But I still don't understand why they view it so wrong if people are naturally born homosexual. It pisses me off that they even use the term "sexual orientation." HELLO! O-RI-EN-TA-TION!!!! that implies it right there. Making a homosexual engage in heterosexual acts is unnatural. And do you perhaps have an explanation as to why they accept evolution but not the APA saying that people are born into homosexuality?
__________________

__________________
redhotswami is offline  
Old 03-14-2007, 10:35 PM   #62
PJW
The Fly
 
PJW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 65
Local Time: 08:22 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by redhotswami




But I still don't understand why they view it so wrong if people are naturally born homosexual. It pisses me off that they even use the term "sexual orientation." HELLO! O-RI-EN-TA-TION!!!! that implies it right there. Making a homosexual engage in heterosexual acts is unnatural. And do you perhaps have an explanation as to why they accept evolution but not the APA saying that people are born into homosexuality?
Actually, the Catholic church does accept that people are born homosexual, just as it accepts evolution. If you are homosexual and remain celibate there is no problem - the problems start when a catholic chooses to have a homosexual relationship. This is when the sin is committed, not by just identifying as homosexual.
__________________

__________________
PJW is offline  
Old 03-14-2007, 10:44 PM   #63
War Child
 
Ormus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Frontios
Posts: 758
Local Time: 06:22 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by redhotswami
But I still don't understand why they view it so wrong if people are naturally born homosexual. It pisses me off that they even use the term "sexual orientation." HELLO! O-RI-EN-TA-TION!!!! that implies it right there. Making a homosexual engage in heterosexual acts is unnatural.
While many evangelical Protestant sects would demand a "conversion" to heterosexuality, Roman Catholicism does not make such an expectation. Their expectation is that a homosexual live a life in total celibacy. With that, I find the demand for total asexuality just as "unnatural" as the demand for total heterosexuality.

Quote:
And do you perhaps have an explanation as to why they accept evolution but not the APA saying that people are born into homosexuality?
Because evolution does not threaten their traditions, although, in many ways, it should. The cornerstone of "natural law" is Augustine's concept of "original sin." And the cornerstone of that theology is predicated on Adam and Eve actually existing.

But, in many ways, that illustrates the problem I have with many Catholic traditions. They have long forgotten or stopped caring about the origins of these traditions; they only care that they are still mindlessly carried out for whatever hysterical reason they decide there to be.
__________________
Ormus is offline  
Old 03-14-2007, 11:01 PM   #64
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
redhotswami's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Waiting for this madness to end.
Posts: 5,846
Local Time: 05:22 PM
thanks PJW, you're right, I forgot about that. But, like Ormus said, I think too that it is contradictory for them to expect homosexuals to remain celebant. But then again, they do put the same demands on some heterosexuals too...but obviously for different reasons.

I have a random thought about this though, do you think that they oppose homosexual acts because of the idea of one male being submissive to the other? Do you think that they believe that accepting that will threaten their male domination?

I don't think I worded that properly...but I'm sure you get what I'm saying.
__________________
redhotswami is offline  
Old 03-15-2007, 03:10 AM   #65
PJW
The Fly
 
PJW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 65
Local Time: 08:22 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by redhotswami
I have a random thought about this though, do you think that they oppose homosexual acts because of the idea of one male being submissive to the other? Do you think that they believe that accepting that will threaten their male domination?
I would say that the Catholic Church (amongst others) opposes homosexual acts because they believe it's a sin based on biblical texts. Whether we agree with that biblical interpretation or not, whether the average Catholic agrees with that or not, that is what the leaders of the Catholic Church believe.

Underlying it amongst some priests may be the fear that the days of male domination would be over, but I suspect those sorts of priests would be more vehemently opposed to female priests rather than worrying about homosexuals

Oh, and celibacy is different from asexuality - the requirement that homosexuals remain celibate would be viewed no differently by the church than the requirement that unmarried people remain celibate, the difference being that one day they have the chance of getting married!
__________________
PJW is offline  
Old 03-15-2007, 10:18 AM   #66
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,662
Local Time: 04:22 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by PJW


Oh, and celibacy is different from asexuality - the requirement that homosexuals remain celibate would be viewed no differently by the church than the requirement that unmarried people remain celibate, the difference being that one day they have the chance of getting married!
It's not the same at all, for homosexuals WON'T have the chance of getting married, not if they have anything to say about it.

So it's not just celibacy it is asexuality, for not only do you have to remain celibate in their eyes, they want you to deny who you are.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 03-15-2007, 08:15 PM   #67
PJW
The Fly
 
PJW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 65
Local Time: 08:22 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


It's not the same at all, for homosexuals WON'T have the chance of getting married, not if they have anything to say about it.

So it's not just celibacy it is asexuality, for not only do you have to remain celibate in their eyes, they want you to deny who you are.
Asexuality is used to describe someone who doesn't identify as homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, or whatever. They literally just aren't interested in sex.

Quote:
Originally posted by PJW


The requirement that homosexuals remain celibate would be viewed no differently by the church than the requirement that unmarried people remain celibate, the difference being that one day they have the chance of getting married!
I didn't put this very well in my last post, I should have said 'the difference being that one day heterosexuals have the chance of getting married', which is basically what you say above. If homosexuals who remain celibate to avoid committing sin in the Catholic church are expected to be asexual, so are all the unmarried heterosexuals, and there are quite a few of them out there.

And the church does not want homosexuals to deny who they are - it is fine to identify as a homosexual Catholic as long as you don't do anything about it.

I don't agree with the stance of the church, and I'm not Catholic. However, as someone who's married to a Catholic I'm just trying to give the church's perspective on these issues.

Here in Australia, the ultra-conservative pentacostal churches are having more of an effect on policy which denies homosexuals the right to marry, and to be honest I think most of the Catholics in this country wouldn't object.
__________________
PJW is offline  
Old 03-15-2007, 08:32 PM   #68
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,662
Local Time: 04:22 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by PJW


Asexuality is used to describe someone who doesn't identify as homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, or whatever. They literally just aren't interested in sex.
But if you are a homosexual who's forced to deny all your feelings and it's not by choice, aren't you being asked to not be interested in sex?


Quote:
Originally posted by PJW


And the church does not want homosexuals to deny who they are - it is fine to identify as a homosexual Catholic as long as you don't do anything about it.
And this is my point. You keep comparing celibate heterosexuals with homosexuals, they aren't comparable. For celibate heterosexuals can publicly date with the intention to marry someday. Homosexuals don't have that choice. So how are they not being denied?
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 03-15-2007, 08:35 PM   #69
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 11:22 PM
That's the weird logic of the church.
They say you are allowed to be homosexual as long as you don't love any other man.

Please, don't understand it, it's the Catholic church.
__________________
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 03-15-2007, 09:33 PM   #70
PJW
The Fly
 
PJW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 65
Local Time: 08:22 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Vincent Vega
That's the weird logic of the church.

Please, don't understand it, it's the Catholic church.
It's not supposed to be logical! It's not supposed to be popular! The theology of the church, any church, is based on their interpretation of the bible. Arguing logic, or that things aren't popular with parishioners or the general public, will make NO DIFFERENCE to their stance on this issue, or any other issue, because they genuinely believe that theirs is the only stance to take based on the bible!

And BonoVox, maybe you're right, maybe they are being denied. And maybe in that case, it comes down to the individual to decide whether it’s more important to them to have a loving relationship that the church disapproves of, or to have a relationship with the church. In an ideal world, they wouldn’t have to make that decision. And the Catholic Church, or at least the decision makers in the church, are not going to change this just because we want them to.
__________________
PJW is offline  
Old 03-15-2007, 09:41 PM   #71
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,475
Local Time: 05:22 PM
i think PJW has done a great job explaining the position of the catholic church, and it's actually a more scientific/logical position than the evangelicals who refuse to believe that homosexuals even exist (there are just damaged heterosexuals in need of therapy).

for the catholic church, any sex which is not procreative in nature and intent is, by definition, immoral. it is wrong. people should have have sexy only for pleasure, only for love, only for intimacy; all those things are fine, but they must be secondary to the fact that people should only have sex to procreate. that's what sexuality is for. the church would agree, probably, that homosexuals can have sex for pleasure, love, and intimacy, but they can never have sex for procreation, thus, homosexual sex is wrong. simply being gay, being homosexually oriented, is not wrong. it's having sex without procreative intent that's wrong.

so, if you've ever had oral sex, withdrawn before ejaculation, masturbated, or used birth control, then you've committed an act of sexual sin, otherwise known as sodomy.

at least it's consistent.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 03-16-2007, 08:28 AM   #72
War Child
 
Ormus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Frontios
Posts: 758
Local Time: 06:22 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
at least it's consistent.
Except with their public condemnation. When was the last time the Pope had an angry hissy fit targeted towards heterosexuals? Where is his angry global crusade to ban divorce, for instance?
__________________
Ormus is offline  
Old 03-16-2007, 08:32 AM   #73
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 11:22 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by PJW


It's not supposed to be logical! It's not supposed to be popular! The theology of the church, any church, is based on their interpretation of the bible. Arguing logic, or that things aren't popular with parishioners or the general public, will make NO DIFFERENCE to their stance on this issue, or any other issue, because they genuinely believe that theirs is the only stance to take based on the bible!

Nothing else I've said
__________________

__________________
Vincent Vega is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com