Saturday, August 3, 2013

Can the Catechism be *right* about homosexuality?

I find it interesting to compare Today's reading from the Catechism with this piece by a homosexual author.

Sometimes compassion and empathy are at odds. Irrational empathy MUST yield to rational compassion in those instances. And this is one of them. Having same sex attraction is not wrong. Those who have same sex attraction should be included in every stage in society.

But those of us who *actually* have compassion for the homosexual, know that the person perversion hurts the most- is the perverted person who will never know the joy of sex done right, never know the 9 months of worry over a spouse and the future, never know what it is like to hold and care for an infant with the same genetic structure and "new baby smell" that you once had as an infant.

And that goes for women who take poison to be artificially sterile as well as homosexuals as well as men who want sex without fatherhood. It's all harmful, not just to greater society- but to the people who engage in these behaviors themselves. And that is why, a deeper understanding of human sexuality is necessary for true compassion. One that is in keeping with the biological reality of gender, instead of trying to ignore it.


Theodore Seeber said...

"And that is why, a deeper understanding of human sexuality is necessary for true compassion. One that is in keeping with the biological reality of gender, instead of trying to ignore it."

You are the one who lacks a deeper understanding of human sexuality. You are the one hung up on gender.

Theodore Seeber said...

Human sexuality is governed by the physical reality of gender. Until you have an opinion in keeping with physical reality, I suggest that you stop posting on this issue entirely with respect to discussions on this board, because I'm never going to respect fantasy in regards to human sexulity (I am to the point that I consider homosexuality to be no more than a fantasy entirely disconnected from the reality of human gender- there are only two genders, anything else is a myth with no more scientific backing than the Energizer Bunny sightings of the Virgin Mary in Yugoslavia).

Theodore Seeber said...

"Human sexuality is governed by the physical reality of gender."

In your world it is. However, you may have noticed that you have very little to say in the private acts of consenting adults. It has all come down to a hypothetical of what the rules would be if you were in charge, which you are not.

Theodore Seeber said...

In ANY world it is. Even homosexuality is governed by gender, which is why the CDC is so homophobic by your standards:

Consent means nothing. Rules mean nothing. If you're going to be a material naturalist, you need to learn to respect material nature.

Theodore Seeber said...

"Consent means nothing. Rules mean nothing."

These are the ravings of a madman. Consent means nothing? Really? Rules mean nothing? What world are you living in?

Theodore Seeber said...

Material naturalism, like you want me to, Bill. Consent and rules are abstract concepts that cannot be supported by material physical evidence.

Give me some material physical evidence to support your "rules" before I will respect them.

Theodore Seeber said...

"Consent and rules are abstract concepts that cannot be supported by material physical evidence."

That is one of those statements that you often make that are meant to be deep and profound but which really have no meaning.

Two adults can consent to sex. That is real.

Society has rules that should be followed by all and the Catholic Church has rules that should be followed by Catholics. There is no physical evidence needed for you to know that those rules exist.

Theodore Seeber said...

"Two adults can consent to sex. That is real."

No it isn't- it's a shared myth between them.

"Society has rules that should be followed by all"

By what authority, if there is no God then Society has no authority.

"the Catholic Church has rules that should be followed by Catholics."

Only by the authority of God, which you've denied has any authority, so you have no say in that.

"There is no physical evidence needed for you to know that those rules exist."

Once again, all rules are mythical. I'm talking about physical reality of gender here, not society, not rules. Pure gender.

Theodore Seeber said...

When I read your responses, I can't help but wonder: do you say things like this to the people in your life? Are there people who agree with you? Do you save all your weirdness for your blog and act normal otherwise? A shared myth between them? If there is no God, society has no authority? Huh???

Theodore Seeber said...

Yes I do. I don't care if there are people who agree with me or not. I do not have a good definition of "normal" as to me the world has always been anything but normal.

All of the authority that society has, rests on the concept of a deity that gave that authority. Remove the deity and I have no reason whatsoever to accept any authority that society has. Remove the soul, and there is no reason to believe free will is possible, and if free will isn't possible, then consent is a total myth.

Based on observation alone, therefore, homosexuality and heterosexuality are just conventions, what counts is the material biology. And from the material biology, "attraction" doesn't matter- what matters is procreation alone.

Theodore Seeber said...

"All of the authority that society has, rests on the concept of a deity that gave that authority."

I'm sorry. That is just a ridiculous understanding of society. Society derives its authority from people not from a deity. That is just another excuse to look to religion for the rules of society. Society functions just fine without religion.

Theodore Seeber said...

People have no authority with me.

Theodore Seeber said...

And yet... Catholics are supposed to respect authority figures in so far as they do not demand something that is immoral. Punishment by an authority is to be respected, insofar as it does not violate a person's soul or body (so no death penalty/sterilization, and no denying of the sacraments/spiritual support).

Theodore Seeber said...

Yet that is authority given by God, not by "the people", the mob is always as stupid as it's least intelligent member.

Theodore Seeber said...

It has nothing to do with intelligence, they still have authority. So long as they're not trying to make you do or condone something immoral, they can be as stupid as they want to be. Even if they are trying to get you to do something immoral, through action or inaction, while you should oppose that aspect of their use of authority, the other things still stand.

Also, we're not talking about a mob, we're talking about the current social system.

Theodore Seeber said...

Illegitimate authority is not to be obeyed, especially when they are trying to make us condone the immoral- and I see no reason to condone them if they condone the immoral. The current social system is no better than a mob, because it is based in the mob. Or rather, it is based on different levels of mobs fighting with each other,

This has led to a genocide already- 55 million have died because of the current social order. What would it take to cause rebellion?

Theodore Seeber said...

"The fact that they aren't is because we, the people, haven't stopped them from degenerating, due to laziness, being self-centered, and not caring enough to inform ourselves, allowing ourselves to compromise on pivotal issues, and generally being stupid. "

And thus, the stupidity of allowing the people to have a voice at all.

Theodore Seeber said...

No, because being truly without a voice is to strip a person of their free will. The problem is not that we have a voice, the problem is that people have not learned how to use it, taking responsibility for it, and learning about the issues that need addressing. We can't strip people of their rights, but we can teach them how to use them wisely. That's what needs to happen, and it's not, but that doesn't mean it never will.

Theodore Seeber said...

All the evidence seems to point to them never learning how to take responsibility for it. Liberty to do evil is merely license to criminal behavior- and doing evil contains its own short term rewards.

Theodore Seeber said...

It doesn't matter. The Catholic church must still respond in the same way, without using violence, or infringing on other people's actual rights, but only to protect and defend the rights of those being violated, and through prayer, preaching, teaching, and leading by way of example. "They'll know we are Christians by our love" is a quote that comes to mind here.

It's not, "They'll know we are Christians by our violation of their human dignity and rights because we don't like what they're doing and have taken it upon ourselves to be hypocritical in the extreme because we think we know better, even though our actions say otherwise."

Theodore Seeber said...

We cannot defend the rights of the innocent, without putting the guilty in jail.

Theodore Seeber said...

Except that they don't view it as being evil, and so we must first educate, and then address it. Just like Catholic women who used birth control before the Church said it was wrong weren't condemned for their actions, because it wasn't brought out of their desire to do wrong, but a lack of knowing and understanding that what they were doing was wrong.

Also, you weren't arguing for sentencing people to prison, you were arguing for a governmental overthrow, which is stupid, since there are plenty of other, much less violent, ways of changing the government, the country, and the people, for the better. One of the first things that we, as Catholics, must do, is learn to use tact and reasoning other than faith alone to win people over. Just quoting the bible and saying that a person is wrong isn't going to work. Pointing out how much harm such actions as using chemical contraceptives, having abortions, and homosexual acts can be to the individual is much more persuasive. Also, forgiveness for sinners. They'll know we are Christians by our love.

Many people think that Catholics are bigoted, hateful, and oppressive. This is in part simply because that's how a lot of fervent Catholics act throughout debates, because they're so focused on protecting the faith that they forget that no matter how much a person has sinned, nor how greatly, they need love and forgiveness. To constantly condemn an act, without explaining why, beyond the bounds of religion, and to never say anything positive about the people makes them feel as if we are personally attacking THEM, not what they're doing. Also, some Catholics do just attack homosexuals, women who have had abortions, women on birth control (whether they're on it for medical reasons or not), couples who are cohabitating, etc.

While we must protect the rights of the innocent, we can not sacrifice the rights of the ignorant, either. Education, reason, logic, love, mercy, and prayer are our greatest weapons against any and all evil. Condemning an ignorant person for actions only taken because of their ignorance is wrong. Jesus on the cross did not condemn those who put him there; he called out for their forgiveness, because they didn't know what they had truly done.

Creative Commons License
Oustside The Asylum by Ted Seeber is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
Based on a work at