SPLIT: Homosexuality immoral rather than evil?

Monster Simpson · #1 Jul 10, '12, 9:37 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by sedonaman

So it is a generic term. What is behind this big switch to generic terms, anyway? I can't say my "wife"; I have to say my "spouse". I can't say brothers and sisters; it's "siblings".

Why can't we say "Mass" when we mean "Mass", "etc." when we mean "etc." like we used to? I smell another liberal plot to control the language to let evil gain social acceptance [e.g., "spouse" could mean homosexual spouse], and refuse to be complicit.

I thought that Roman Catholics thought homosexuality was immoral rather than evil?

sedonaman · #2 Jul 10, '12, 10:33 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monster Simpson

I thought that Roman Catholics thought homosexuality was immoral rather than evil?

I don't want to get sidetracked on that issue, but let me say only that homosexuality by itself is not an act. Homosexual "marriage" is, and it is evil. For an explanation, see
http://www.stjoseph-marysville.org/f...gotiables.html
_________________
I might know nothing about it, but I’ll definitely have an opinion.

ConstantineTG · #3 Jul 10, '12, 11:42 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by sedonaman

I don't want to get sidetracked on that issue, but let me say only that homosexuality by itself is not an act. Homosexual "marriage" is, and it is evil. For an explanation, see
http://www.stjoseph-marysville.org/f...gotiables.html
_________________
I might know nothing about it, but I’ll definitely have an opinion.

Of course it is an act. How can one be homosexual if one is not having sex with another of the same gender?

YoungTradCath · #4 Jul 11, '12, 7:59 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG

Of course it is an act. How can one be homosexual if one is not having sex with another of the same gender?

That's a bit silly. How can one be heterosexual if one is not having sex with one of the other gender?

ConstantineTG · #5 Jul 11, '12, 8:08 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by YoungTradCath

That's a bit silly. How can one be heterosexual if one is not having sex with one of the other gender?

Being heterosexual is inherent in our nature, you do not need to act on it to be one. Homosexuality is not inherent in our nature, therefore you are not one unless you act like one.

Seeker1961 · #6 Jul 11, '12, 8:46 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG

Being heterosexual is inherent in our nature, you do not need to act on it to be one. Homosexuality is not inherent in our nature, therefore you are not one unless you act like one.

Actually, the jury is still out on whether it's inherent in our nature or not. Attraction doesn't change based on lack of action.

CopticChristian · #7 Jul 11, '12, 12:25 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG

Of course it is an act. How can one be homosexual if one is not having sex with another of the same gender?

Constantine,

The heterosexual has opposite sex attraction.

The homosexual has same sex attraction.

Neither has to act other than to recongize the attraction.

CopticChristian · #8 Jul 11, '12, 12:28 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG

Being heterosexual is inherent in our nature, you do not need to act on it to be one. Homosexuality is not inherent in our nature, therefore you are not one unless you act like one.

Constantine,

Heterosexual is inherent in our nature and no actions are necessary.

Homosexuality is not inherent in our nature and you are not acting as one unless you act on your attractions.

The homosexual wants to cause belief that homosexuality is as inherent in our nature as is heterosexuality. Those that say that homosexuality is possibly inherent in our nature may want to rethink this.

CopticChristian · #9 Jul 11, '12, 12:34 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seeker1961

Actually, the jury is still out on whether it's inherent in our nature or not. Attraction doesn't change based on lack of action.

Seeker,

There are therapists that take no position and others that do. This is from Dr. Nicolosi's website....

http://josephnicolosi.com/what-is-ho...lity-reorient/

Quote:

Some take the position that the condition is a developmental disorder--particularly, a gender-identity disorder--which leads to a romantic idealization and sexualization of the qualities that the individual experiences as deficient within himself.

But other therapists disagree. Some prominent members--even some of our Scientific Advisory Committee members--refuse to take a position on the question of pathology.

Some other therapists, including our Scientific Advisory Board member Dr. Mark Stern, take the position that homosexuality is not a disorder, but a missed potential--a closing off of a part of oneself and a "saying no" to generativity.

Dr. Robert Spitzer, the psychiatrist known as the architect of the 1973 decision to remove homosexuality from the list of disorders, maintains that homosexuality was not "normalized" when it was removed from the DSM--only that it was no longer categorized as a disorder. At that time he referred to homosexuality as an "irregular" form of sexuality, and more recently, he agreed that when a person has no capacity for heterosexual arousal, "something is not working."

There is clearly room for practitioners of both persuasions within NARTH, all working together to defend the client's right to pursue change.

I myself take the view that homosexuality is a developmental disorder and is potentially preventable.

Allegra · #10 Jul 11, '12, 1:02 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monster Simpson

I thought that Roman Catholics thought homosexuality was immoral rather than evil?

What do you consider the difference between immoral and evil? A person who knowingly commits immoral acts is doing evil. Homosexual attraction isn't immoral itself.

Monster Simpson · #11 Jul 11, '12, 1:26 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Allegra

What do you consider the difference between immoral and evil? A person who knowingly commits immoral acts is doing evil. Homosexual attraction isn't immoral itself.

I define evil as am atrocious act against humanity and immorality as something frowned upon.

sedonaman · #12 Jul 11, '12, 1:30 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monster Simpson

I define evil as am atrocious act against humanity and immorality as something frowned upon.

Boy, that leaves a lot of room in between! You got a term for that part?

Monster Simpson · #13 Jul 11, '12, 1:36 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by sedonaman

Boy, that leaves a lot of room in between! You got a term for that part?

Yep, bad

CopticChristian · #14 Jul 11, '12, 1:56 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monster Simpson

I define evil as am atrocious act against humanity and immorality as something frowned upon.

Monster,

God is good. The absence of God is evil.

Immoral is something that is in violoation of Morality. Now here is where the issue is defined by whomever calls what Moral or not. The secular view would be "ethical" as opposed to Moral.

On the CAF website the designation of Moral would be defined by the OHCAC.

Bad would probably fall into the designation of both Immoral and Evil.

Allegra · #15 Jul 11, '12, 2:24 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monster Simpson

I define evil as am atrocious act against humanity and immorality as something frowned upon.

Got it. Using those definitions, it is very difficult to determine right from wrong because in order for something to be bad enough to decide not to do it, it must be an atrocious act against humanity. Sexual acts outside the procreative and unitive purposes of marriage are an harmful act against the dignity of oneself and one's partner. They are also atrocious acts against God. Attempting to use the law to force those who cannot in good conscience acknowledge these acts as normal or moral into silence is an atrocious act against humanity.