Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Not so private message for Ivorythumper
Topic Started: Jul 15 2005, 07:04 AM (497 Views)
Jeffrey
Senior Carp
This was getting buried in another thread. I am reposting:

Thumpy: "You have yet to show anything about why homosexuality is not intrinsically disordered. You could have started by dismantling the notion of an order to nature, or an order to the human person, or even arguing that there is a meta-order that homosexuals have arrived at that transcends complimentary procreative sexuality, or any number of other tacks. But you haven't offered anything -- so it is rather presumptuous on your part to think you know why I responded as I did. "


My reply: You have yet to show anything about why Catholics are not intrisically disordered. You could have tried any number of tacks, but haven't offerred anything to prove that you don't deserve to be a second-class citizen. Quite presumptuous of you!! Therefore, I see no reason you have given why Catholics should be allowed to vote, except maybe on municipal road rules.

If you find it insulting to have to defend your equality, remember, gays have similar issues!! So I am still looking for you to spend some significant time proving that you are not intrinsically disordered for being Catholic (and remember, it can be cured by therapy!). By the way, in this argument over whether Catholics are disordered and should be second-class citizens, I get to use the same standards of argument you do - I can just assert that Catholic voting is a manifestation of evil in modern times, that Catholicism simply violates the laws of nature as I personally perceive them. I also get to claim that my holy book includes commandments by my God claiming that Catholicism is a sin, and reply to any argument you give to the contrary by saying "It's not me. I didn't make the rules. God did!!". I also get to make a half dozen personal attacks, and compare Catholicism to beastiality, murder, and rape and say if we allow Catholic voting, we will have no moral laws whatsoever.

In short, I get to argue against Catholic voting, in exactly the same way you argue against equality for gays and gay marriage!! This should be fun.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
I'll answer that when you tell me if you have stopped beating your wife.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jeffrey
Senior Carp
Why do you get to act all huffy, when you demand that gays have to argue they are not second class citizens, against the very same arguments I used against you? Seems you can dish it out to gays, but can't take it.

If we let Catholics vote, what next? Should criminals and prostitutes vote?? What about the retarded? If we let Catholics vote, we will have to let horses vote, too. Everything will be situational ethics, and moral relativism. They let Catholics vote in Canada, and look what a mess it is up there.

My, this is fun. I can see why these arguments are attractive to you.

These are the exact same arguments used against gay marriage. If you get to use them against gay marriage, and want to treat gays as second class citizens (I believe you also wanted to ban them from adopting) people get to use them against you.

Again, I await your careful, reasoned, factual reply as to why Catholics should be allowed to vote, given that they are disordered, evil, and degenerate (the same charges you make against gays). I don't care if you find it insulting, you never seemed to care if your arguments against gays were insulting to them.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Jeff;

I have already argued why I think that homosexuals are incapable of contracting marriage: namely, that marriage is ordered principally toward the procreation and rearing of children. Homosexual "unions" cannot possibly be ordered toward this. I have also argued that homosexuals are fully entitled to all natural human respect and dignity and to all human and civil rights.

You have not argued against this. Rather, you want to try to turn the question back to me and argue that Catholics are similarly disordered and should be deprived of civil rights. Yet, this question presupposes “order”. On what basis do make such an assertion? The mutable state of random human development in which we happen to find ourselves?

Please define for me “order”, so that I can understand what you intend when you state that Catholics are “disordered”.

The point is, Jeff, I don’t think that you hold to an order of nature or of human nature. In which case, there is no ground for deciding that anything is ordered or disordered. So on your own terms your challenge to me is a non-question. Which is why I will answer it when you tell me if you have stopped beating your wife. ;)

The fact is, all you have is some form of human consensus based on some form of Social Contract Theory for deciding what is right and wrong, what is bigotry (and even if there is any intrinsic problem with bigotry), who is entitled to what if any human or civil rights, etc. And under this aspect, the common consensus is both that Catholics have the right to vote, and homosexuals are not capable of contracting marriage. So on your own grounds, my position is unassailable.

Now, you may try to challenge and change these perceptions – and you do so with resort to abusive and violent language (not that there’s anything wrong with that under your own world view – after all, it is all just highly evolved monkey chatter really). But I do not have to defend myself on your grounds.

So the onus is still on you either to show me why homosexuality is not intrinsically disordered (perhaps, why these categories are insufficient), or to show me why Catholics are disordered. The ball has always been in your court.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jeffrey
Senior Carp
Thumpy: "namely, that marriage is ordered principally toward the procreation and rearing of children."

This is your personal definition of marriage, which you want to impose on others. It is obviously not one that is shared by others, including myself, or homosexuals in general. In my view, marriage is both a publically recognized legal status, and a personal relationship between people intended to be long-lasting. Children may or may not result from such a relationship, and frequently do not (as an empirical matter of fact). The definition of marriage, and conceptions of relationships in general also vary widely, even among well-functioning human societies across time.

"all civil and human rights"

But you explicitly forbade them to adopt. So this statement of yours is deliberately false. It is a lie, in fact.

Now I get to have some fun. Remember, I get to use the same standards of argument against Catholic voting, that you get to use against homosexuals, when you argue they should accept second-class status. This means that I also, like you, get to make up some arbitrary definition of "disorder", impose it on you, and then make up various straw-men fallacies about the horrible consequences of Catholic voting.

Let's just assume that Catholics do not at present have the vote, and they are trying to argue for it. How will the argument against this go??

Catholics are disordered because they are stupid, and can't even accept modern science, or treat others different from themselves as equals, or even follow a simple logical argument. They are evil. (I won't even bother to justify this - like you, I will just assert it). :)

If we allow Catholics to vote, where will it end? Will we let criminals and the mentally retarded vote as well? What about animals? We can clearly see from this the consequences of Catholic voting. Catholics vote in France, and we see what a mess they are in.

These arguments are every bit as good against Catholics, as yours are against homosexuals. Go ahead, defend yourself. :)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

Quote:
 
This is your personal definition of marriage, which you want to impose on others. It is obviously not one that is shared by others, including myself, or homosexuals in general.


Actually, I bet around 80% of americans would agree with Ivory's definition.

Quote:
 
"all civil and human rights"

But you explicitly forbade them to adopt. So this statement of yours is deliberately false. It is a lie, in fact.


Is it a human right to be allowed to adopt? No.

So what are you talking about Jeff? I can think of MANY types of people I wouldn't want raising my kids.

Quote:
 
This means that I also, like you, get to make up some arbitrary definition of "disorder"


But gays have the obvious disorder of not being able to procreate under their current mindset. They are attracted to the same sex, something that *in general*, if you will, nature doesn't want to have happen.

You claim Catholics have a disorder now? Even you just admitted that you would have to "make that up". So stop wasting time.

I'm not making up the fact that gays have a disorder. Blind people cant see, that's a disorder. Deal with it.

But don't dig your own grave admitting that you are making up the disorder argument. :thumb:




Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TomK
HOLY CARP!!!
Jeffrey
Jul 16 2005, 11:03 AM
Catholics are disordered because they are stupid, and can't even accept modern science, or treat others different from themselves as equals, or even follow a simple logical argument.  They are evil. 


True enough in my case. :D

But the real question is: Jeffery did you think this about Catholics before you met me, or is this a new judgment. :D
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Jeffrey
Jul 16 2005, 07:03 AM
Thumpy: "namely, that marriage is ordered principally toward the procreation and rearing of children."

    This is your personal definition of marriage, which you want to impose on others.  It is obviously not one that is shared by others, including myself, or homosexuals in general.    In my view, marriage is both a publically recognized legal status, and a personal relationship between people intended to be long-lasting.    Children may or may not result from such a relationship, and frequently do not (as an empirical matter of fact).  The definition of marriage, and conceptions of relationships in general also vary widely, even among well-functioning human societies across time. 

"all civil and human rights"

    But you explicitly forbade them to adopt.  So this statement of yours is deliberately false.  It is a lie, in fact. 

    Now I get to have some fun.  Remember, I get to use the same standards of argument against Catholic voting, that you get to use against homosexuals, when you argue they should accept second-class status.    This means that I also, like you, get to make up some arbitrary definition of "disorder", impose it on you, and then make up various straw-men fallacies about the horrible consequences of Catholic voting.

    Let's just assume that Catholics do not at present have the vote, and they are trying to argue for it.  How will the argument against this go??

    Catholics are disordered because they are stupid, and can't even accept modern science, or treat others different from themselves as equals, or even follow a simple logical argument.  They are evil.  (I won't even bother to justify this - like you, I will just assert it).  :) 

    If we allow Catholics to vote, where will it end?  Will we let criminals and the mentally retarded vote as well?  What about animals?    We can clearly see from this the consequences of Catholic voting.    Catholics vote in France, and we see what a mess they are in. 

    These arguments are every bit as good against Catholics, as yours are against homosexuals.  Go ahead, defend yourself.  :)

Jeff:

Once again all you can do is attack and not defend or offer anything constructive.

Any jackass can kick down a barn -- it takes a carpenter to build one.

Adoption is a civil right, but civil rights are conscribed and not universal, so you cannot argue that all persons under the law are entitled to civil rights -- can McDonald's adopt? They are a "person" under the law -- why not allow them to adopt?

Why limit marraige to only two consenting adults? Why not have a menage-a-trois or a menage-a-dix? What is the difference between two people giving consent and 1000? If you only limit it to two, then you are bigotted against all who have more generous capacities for loving many people in deeply committed sexual relationships. If you don't limit it to two, then why not allow McDonald's to adopt?

You can not even show me why I am claiming that homosexuals are second class citizens. Not everyone has a human or civil right to adopt. That does not make people second class. They, like everyone else, have the right to vote and try to persuade in the public forum -- and the majority decides. That is the nature of social contract theory. But these rather significant facts don't seem to trouble you as long as you can make violent aggressions. Deal with it. It does not make me the bigot or a liar. I defined my terms quite clearly and they are consistant with my conclusions.

Define your terms, Jeff, and quit accusing me of being arbitrary in my definitions.

Regarding the question of conventional definitions -- there is no consensus that Catholics are degenerate or malformed, or that homosexuals are capable of marriage. If the best you can do is a violent assertion, you are no philosopher -- you are merely a linguistic bully. I'll go toe to toe with you on those terms any day, or on the dojo mat.

So your definition of "order" is:
(1) To be intelligent (or not stupid)
(2) To accept modern science (whatever that current state of the art might be)
(3) To treat others different from themselves as equals
(4) To be able to follow simple logical argument

Totally freaky that you accuse me of making up definitions. You are out to lunch pal. Show me any standard academic dictionary that defines "order" thus, and then we will proceed your discussion.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Quote:
 
I'm not making up the fact that gays have a disorder. Blind people cant see, that's a disorder. Deal with it.


That's a silly analogy. If you have eyesight but choose to close your eyelids, does that mean you have a disorder? Effectively, that's what gays do. The equipment functions, they just choose not to employ it for that purpose.

If it's a disorder (and I don't think it is), it's a mental disorder, not a physical one. Which is why your analogy is silly.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
FrankM
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
Steve,

You’ve restated your position on the central purpose of the marriage contract being procreation. When I offered that marriage today is primarily a vehicle for publicly testifying to a couple’s commitment to each other, you called me a "romantic.”

But now review the content of typical marriage vows, including those in the Roman Catholic services. What words are the defining moment of the ceremony for most people? I suggest it’s some variation of "to have and to hold from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish till death do us part."

In fact, ask anyone who has witnessed a typical Christian wedding ceremony for their impression of the central message and I suggest you’ll get the same "romantic" interpretation.

How many people do you expect you’d have to ask before you found one who said the message is about procreation? And, again, what about those who are unable to or choose not to have children? Should they be denied marriage? What about those who for medical reasons can no longer have children? Has their marriage contract now become specious?

But, at its core, this entire discussion about what marriage today means is a red herring. I feel as foolish trying to argue for the obvious here as I did when I once found myself arguing here for the significance of the Beetles in popular music history. Any attempt at justifying what is so prima facie evident serves only to weaken one’s position.

To be straight with you, I think you’re simply attempting to strategically position yourself in arguing against something you will not accept regardless of what counter-arguments are made.

I will agree that acceptance of homosexuality, not to mention gay secular marriage, is far from a trivial step for most people, like myself, who value order and stability in society. But when I see an highly intelligent person like yourself attempting to finesse their way into a defensible position, I lose any incentive for pursuing a constructive dialogue.

But I still love ya. :wink:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
FrankM
Jul 16 2005, 01:31 PM
Steve,

You’ve restated your position on the central purpose of the marriage contract being procreation. When I offered that marriage today is primarily a vehicle for publicly  testifying to a couple’s commitment to each other, you called me a "romantic.”

But now review the content of typical marriage vows, including those in the Roman Catholic services. What words are the defining moment of the ceremony for most people? I suggest it’s some variation of "to have and to hold from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish till death do us part."

In fact, ask anyone who has witnessed a typical Christian wedding ceremony for their impression of the central message and I suggest you’ll get the same "romantic" interpretation.

How many people do you expect you’d have to ask before you found one who said the message is about procreation? And, again, what about those who are unable to or choose not to have children? Should they be denied marriage? What about those who for medical reasons can no longer have children? Has their marriage contract now become specious?

But, at its core, this entire discussion about what marriage today means is a red herring. I feel as foolish trying to argue for the obvious here as I did when I once found myself arguing here for the significance of the Beetles in popular music history. Any attempt at justifying what is so prima facie evident serves only to weaken one’s position.

To be straight with you, I think you’re simply attempting to strategically position yourself in arguing against something you will not accept regardless of what counter-arguments are made.

I will agree that acceptance of homosexuality, not to mention gay secular marriage, is far from a trivial step for most people, like myself, who value order and stability in society. But when I see an highly intelligent person like yourself attempting to finesse their way into a defensible position, I lose any incentive for pursuing a constructive dialogue.

But I still love ya.  :wink:


Frank: You should know that I respect and appreciate you in this forum. The simple fact is, I have yet to be convinced otherwise that "gay marriage" means anything. I am considering marriage in its essence -- what is particular about marriage (conventionally and traditionally defined in the West as between one man and one woman) that accords it any status at all? This understanding is not limited to the West, but that is our most significant framework for discussion.

It is not a question of whether or not homosexuality is natural to some or intrinsically disordered. I am not sure you have followed everything, but I have numerous times stated that I think society could indeed make provisions for domestic unions (civil corporations) to protect the rights of those who prefer such arrangements. I have several close family members and friends who are in such unions -- who I both love and respect and would defend against attack. So the charges of "homophobia" and “bigotry” (not by you) are ludicrous.

For years I have studied the foundations of Western civilization, family polity, social order, jurisprudence, ethics, philosophy, and theology (in addition to architecture). I have yet to find compelling reasons to assert that marriage is not primarily about the procreation and rearing of children. The modern “romantic” notion is a very late stage development. I trust that you have been through enough with your wife and children to realize that those vows (which I only recently took) are not "romantic". The feelings of limerance that initially bound you and your wife together are not what keep you together. In fact, the defining words are "I do" -- implying consent of the will to live faithfully the terms of the vow. The Catholic service (as do a number of other Christian traditions) also include: "accept children from God lovingly and bring them up according to the law of Christ and his Church." Now I am not insisting that anyone but Catholics need to be faithful to this vow, but even so, the nature of the sexual relationship between any man and any woman is still ordered to children (unless they entirely avoid regular sexual intercourse—which would it seems be abnormal).

Even you misunderstand the point. Marriage is not about the "message" of procreation -- any teenage boy and girl can do that in the back of dad's car. The point is that marriage is naturally ordered toward procreation and the rearing of children. Only one man and one woman are capable of conceiving one child. This is basic biology.

This fact of complementary sexuality speaks of a particular order to relationships.

The fact that people can use their genitals in any number of other ways is not germane. You can walk on your hands if you want to, but that is not what they are made for.

The fact that we also achieve great pleasure through the sex organs is a definite bonus :thumb: :thumb: :thumb:, but this is not why we have sex organs.

The fact that some people never procreate in a marriage, or lose fertility, neither invalidates marriage nor negates the fact that the essential nature of that sexual relationship between man and woman is still biologically ordered toward procreation whether or not the potential is actualized. The homo-sexual relationship can NEVER be ordered toward procreation. Why is this distinction of no value to you?

The fact that children have a natural right to know who are their parents suggests that normatively we should be able to state that artificial conception through rented host "mothers" or sperm donating "fathers" is not good policy.

I thank you for being "straight" with me ;) -- but you do me a great disservice in thinking that I am trying to finesse myself into a defensible position, or that I am inured to counter argument. The fact is, no one has even tried to dismantle the objections that I listed above -- they have only made contrary assertions and personally attacked me, neither of which is an argument.

I have asked you specifically for your research into the question of homosexuality, which I have yet to see. It is not, strictly speaking, germane to the present question since a whole lot of other issues first have to be cleared (e.g., even if it could be demonstrated that homosexuality was normative or natural or proper to the human person, it still does not speak to the question of the intrinsically procreative nature of complementary sexuality that demands the legal protection of marriage.)

So don't give up on me yet, Frank. If the case can be made, then make it. That is all I am asking.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

QuirtEvans
Jul 16 2005, 01:27 PM
Quote:
 
I'm not making up the fact that gays have a disorder. Blind people cant see, that's a disorder. Deal with it.


That's a silly analogy. If you have eyesight but choose to close your eyelids, does that mean you have a disorder? Effectively, that's what gays do. The equipment functions, they just choose not to employ it for that purpose.

If it's a disorder (and I don't think it is), it's a mental disorder, not a physical one. Which is why your analogy is silly.

First of all, gays claim they're not choosing NOT to use it...they don't because they aren't built that way.

I'm not attracted to children, yet I have the capability to have sex with one. Am I choosing not to have sex with children? Technically yes, but not in the pragmatic sense, where I'm not "built" to have sex with children.

It seems your argument is way off balance.

Secondly, whether it's a mental (psychological) or physical (genetic) disorder doesn't matter.

It's still a disorder.

Whether you are built without the ability to see, or without the ability to understand the rules of baseball...you still can't play baseball.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
FrankM
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
Steve,

I apologize for not having read your recent posts. Unlike some here who will remain nameless, you’ve always had the decency and class to not just thoroughly read other people’s posts but also try to understand what they’re trying to say rather than twist their statements to suit your agenda.

Yes I do recall your statement that you would approve of gay civil unions provided the term marriage was reserved for the union of a man and woman. So we really have no disagreement.

Several comments:

(1) a week or so ago I posted something to the effect that gays should accept the compromise of a label other than marriage. The reason? Because I’d expect that would eventually be judged tantamount to separate but equal, therefore overturned and the label "marriage" applied to gay civil unions.

(2) However, in airing out my thoughts further here, I actually prefer the compromise. Why? Because it’s a profound step towards correcting a social and economic inequity while guarding against the possibility of an over correction. If and when people observe that more good than harm has been done to our society by this step, I’d expect the final step to follow soon after. Note the "if" because I believe our system/society is far too complex for anyone to actually prove now that even the initial step will have positive secular utility.

(3) One could easily fill several pages with examples of natural individual characteristics that are harmful to society. My only reason for addressing the issue of homosexuality not being a lifestyle choice –- but rather something that is fixed before adolescence –- is to ensure protection against frivolous abuse of the civil union just to gain the economic benefits.

Meanwhile, as I said in (2), I am willing to take the first compromise step as part of a prudent "cut and try" process. We are not addressing the reprehensible practice of censuring homosexuals here. We are addressing the completion of their full acceptance by the community.

(4) According to, for example, Matt Ridley’s "Nature via Nurture" as well as Steven Pinker’s "the blank slate" the consensus in the scientific community is that male homosexuality is fixed before adolescence. Both furnish some interesting references. There is a more recent as well as much more extensive treatment of the subject in a textbook loaned to me a while back by relative who is a psychiatrist. Last time I saw him I asked him for the book’s exact title. He e-mailed me the title and I have no idea where the h*ll I filed it. :rolleyes2:

At the same time, I am well aware that there is much ongoing scientific effort that considerably muddies the waters. Further, the case for the large majority of female homosexuality being fixed before adolescence is considerably weaker.

5) Bottom line: it is, like virtually all of these controversial subjects, far more complex than surface thinkers make it out to be. I’ve said before that here is one more example of why it is vital that the decision be reserved by the states.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Jeffrey
Jul 16 2005, 07:03 AM

     Let's just assume that Catholics do not at present have the vote, and they are trying to argue for it.  How will the argument against this go??

     Catholics are disordered because they are stupid, and can't even accept modern science, or treat others different from themselves as equals, or even follow a simple logical argument.  They are evil.   (I won't even bother to justify this - like you, I will just assert it).   :)  

     If we allow Catholics to vote, where will it end?  Will we let criminals and the mentally retarded vote as well?  What about animals?     We can clearly see from this the consequences of Catholic voting.    Catholics vote in France, and we see what a mess they are in. 

     These arguments are every bit as good against Catholics, as yours are against homosexuals.  Go ahead, defend yourself.  :)

Jeffrey posits that Catholics are disordered and therefore should not be entitled to vote as American citizens. They should rather be relegated the status of “second class citizens”.

Can this be justified?

Jeffrey implies his definition of “disordered” for the purpose of this discussion as thus:
Quote:
 
Catholics are disordered because they are stupid, and can't even accept modern science, or treat others different from themselves as equals, or even follow a simple logical argument.


From this idiosyncratic definition we can deduce the following predicates and propositions:

(1) Stupid people are disordered
(2) People who can’t accept modern science are disordered.
(3) People who do not treat others who are different from themselves as equals are disordered.
(4) People who cannot follow a simple logical argument are disordered.

If Jeffery is correct that people who exhibit these four predicates are disordered should not be able to vote, and Catholics uniquely and specifically exhibit these four predicates, then Catholics should not be able to vote.

(1) To be stupid is to be “slow of mind” or “given to unintelligent decisions or acts” or “marked by ,,, unreasoned thinking or acting”. (from Merriam-Webster)

a. Catholics regularly contribute to advances in sciences and the arts and politics, and their contributions are widely accepted and acknowledged universally for their contributions. Catholics also occupy chairs and professorships at secular institutions of higher education.
b. People who do such things can reasonably be called not stupid.
c. Therefore Catholics are not stupid. (therefore, Catholics are not disordered)


(2) The Catholic Church has been at the forefront of promoting the modern sciences. Members of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences include Stephen W. Hawking and Nobel Prize recipient Rita Levi-Montalcini. Therefore, since we can show that the Catholic Church promotes the developments in modern science, we must conclude that the Catholic Church is not disordered.

Ironically, the brilliant scientist and Catholic Lovousier was killed by the atheists – perhaps this argues that atheism is actually the religion of the stupid.

Also, we note that Jeffrey still holds on to views of the human embryo before the recent developments in fetology and embryology. Therefore, Jeffery does not accept all of modern science. By his own standards, Jeffrey is therefore disordered.

(3) To treat others different from yourself may indeed indicate that one is disordered. A simple syllogism will suffice:

a. It is disordered to treat one who is different from yourself as not equal. (major B=A)
b. Ivorythumper (who is different from Jeffrey) is treated as unequal by Jeffrey. (minor C=B)
c. Therefore, Jeffrey is disordered. (conclusion C=A)


(4) A simple logical argument is the Barbara form:
Quote:
 
If A is predicated of all B
and B is predicated of all C,
then A is predicated of all C.

Catholics understand and accept this argument.
To understand and accept this argument is to be not disordered.
Therefore Catholics are not disordered.

Since none of Jeffery’s allegations about Catholics can either be upheld or only ascribed to Catholics and also not to himself, his concern about Catholics being disordered is without merit. Therefore, his reasoning for depriving Catholics of the right to vote is without merit.

So now that we have concluded that Catholics are not disordered, we must ask Jeffrey to reciprocate to show why it is that homosexuals are not disordered.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Thanks, Frank.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Jeffrey
Jul 21 2005, 04:05 PM
People frequently like to lash out at others, rather than accept responsibility for their own problems.   ....

Best Wishes to all - Jeffrey


Since this was slipping to page four, I thought I should give it a bump.

Jeff: I did not want to highjack Frank's thread, but what you wrote about the Israel-Palestine question was one of the most interesting and even handed things I've yet read from you. Keep it up! :thumb: :thumb: :thumb:

So would you be willing to take the principle I quote above, and extend it to the Jews who lash out against the Catholic Church for the Holocaust and homosexuals who lash out against conservatives and Christians as "homophobic" (as if they have NEVER done anything to set themselves up for persecution no matter how wrong any form of persecution is)? :confused:

Cordially,

Steve
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jeffrey
Senior Carp
(1) Frank - "complex"

No reason to make some thing simple more complicated than it is. There is nothing puzzling or morally complicated about people consenting to sexual relations with someone of the same gender. Both human and non-human primates do it all the time.

(2) Steve - "interesting and even-handed ... keep it up"

Oh dear, if you like something I say, I will have check my statement for errors. (Ok, yes, I will add a smiley to this - :))

(3) I am rather surprised that you actually bothered to reply in detail to the "Catholics can't vote" stuff. It was obviously satire. My arguments were patently idiotic and offensive, just like your stuff on homosexuals. You have your personal definition of "disorder" which has no objective correlate in reality. All your "arguments" about homosexality come down to this "premise", which has no content whatsoever.

(4) "set themselves up for persecution"

Oh dear, I suppose I could get all hot under the collar about this, but I am in a yoga-karma Buddhist phase tonight, so I will simply ask you, dear friend, what you could possibly mean by this statement. Do you have some examples?

(5) As for my principle, I believe that it is frequently better, in the sense of worldly success, to ignore harms against oneself, no matter how unjust, and seek out better opportunities, than to spend time pressing every grievance. Success is the best revenge. JMHO, of course. YMMV.

(6) Again, because I am in a New Age/crystal wearing/Druid mood tonight we will have to defer a discussion of how the Catholic Church bears responsibility for the Holocaust 'til some other time.

May peace and success be with you and your lovely and lucky new wife.

- Jeffrey
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Well, Jeff -- obviously we disagree on so much, but I am glad you have found some inner peace. No point going any further is there? You'll just have to accept that my view of order is what it is -- formed as it is by the vast western tradition from Aristotle onward -- and that I found your deliberate attempt to satire (and I trust you in kind appreciated the satire in some of my responses) were amusing thought exercises, but ones that fail to achieve the sort of analogy that you intended.

So I shall bid you shalom and bodhi in your path of satori.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
pianojerome
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
QuirtEvans
Jul 16 2005, 01:27 PM
Quote:
 
I'm not making up the fact that gays have a disorder. Blind people cant see, that's a disorder. Deal with it.


That's a silly analogy. If you have eyesight but choose to close your eyelids, does that mean you have a disorder? Effectively, that's what gays do. The equipment functions, they just choose not to employ it for that purpose.

If it's a disorder (and I don't think it is), it's a mental disorder, not a physical one. Which is why your analogy is silly.

Why would anybody CHOOSE to be gay?


Give me one good reason why a man should choose to be sexually attracted only to other men.
Sam
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

Some gays choose to be gay, no doubt there...the question is how many?

I would say that most develop the disorder pre-teen or teen...when their sexual identity hasn't been fully developed and/or when their mind isn't mature and can be EASILY influenced via abuse, or other means.

Basically, most gay people don't choose to be that way...it's a subconcious psychological change that happens early on that they prescribe to and/or don't resist.

As far as your last question...I dont know. It boggles my mind too. Perhaps to be different, perhaps to give meaning to their life, perhaps a bunch of things.

I would be curious to know from gay people here, if they were able to start completely fresh, would they want to be heteosexual. Kenny, I hope it's not too personal, but if you were able to be hetero, would you?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jeffrey
Senior Carp
Bump, just for TomK. It seems that when the same terms and arguments he uses for gays are applied to him, he squeals like a stuck pig. Just as I thought.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community.
Learn More · Sign-up Now
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply