Monday, May 05, 2003

Sex! Now that I have your attention...


In #Scripture on Undernet, the topic of sex and homosexuality was raised, here's a synopsis:


[21:59] <Jarus> NoWar, and unfortunately for you, there are scientific studies that have confirmed same-sex activity in dogs

[21:59] <Kozubchik> Snaily face facts, the Homosexual Act is an abomination

[22:00] <BigScott> Koz - yes and it is an unnatural act.

[22:00] <Jarus> tzip, the reality is that people will deny it regardless of how many have observed it and regardless that it has been scientifically documented

[22:01] <BigScott> "nature" only works with male/female.

[22:01] <Jarus> "nature" works with male/male, male/female, female/female

[22:01] <BigScott> Jarus, that's simply not true

[22:02] <Jarus> BigScott, it is quite simply true

[22:02] <Jarus> BigScott, Catholic notions of natural law are hypocritical to the core

[22:02] <BigScott> Jarus, male/male does not reproduce, nor does female/female - hence such a relationship is contrary to nature.

[22:02] <A_C> nature doesn't work with same sex intercourse, homosexual reality in the animal kingdom would doom the species.

[22:03] <BigScott> Jarus, let's not change the subject, just because you're losing this one.

(I said that because Jarus brought up "natural law")

[22:03] <Jarus> BigScott, that is absurd to limit sexuality to simply reproduction - you cannot have your cake and eat it to by claiming that it is unnatural and then reject all the scientific observations and evidence that homosexuality is widespread amongst a variety of species

[22:03] <Jarus> BigScott, your hypocrisy is founded in your rather flexible use of "natural".

[22:03] <BigScott> Jarus, I am talking "nature" - not what you might call "pleasure"

[22:04] <Jarus> BigScott, and I am talking nature by observing that it has been documented widely in a range of species, mammalian, reptilian, insect that such homosexual relations occur from casual interaction to pair-bonding.

[22:04] <Jarus> BigScott, you can deny all of these scientific observations and evidence all you like, but don't pretend to be appealing to nature

[22:05] <BigScott> Jarus, anecdotal "happenings" are not nature.

[22:05] <BigScott> Jarus, just because you might see "some" incidents of this in nature does not make it "natural"

[22:05] <Jarus> BigScott, your denial nothwithstanding

[22:05] <Jarus> BigScott, and just because you deny that it happens does not mean it does not exist

[22:06] <BigScott> Jarus, I do not deny that "some" have been observed - but it is still contrary to the natural act.

[22:06] <Jarus> Yves, pairbonding has been observed in a wide variety of species, even lifetime pairbonding

[22:06] <BigScott> Jarus, consider the end - if any given species were to become solely homosexual - the species would end.

[22:07] <Jarus> BigScott, LOL you are reaching for absurdities now

[22:07] <BigScott> Jarus, so homosexuality is against nature.

[22:07] <BigScott> Jarus, it's not absurd, it's taking your conclusions to an end.

[22:07] <Jarus> BigScott, homosexuality is quite compatible with a species flourishing if it remains a consistently stable proportion of species

[22:08] <Jarus> BigScott, it is quite absurd since you assume that homosexuality can overtake an entire species when all the scientific evidence contradicts your false claims

[22:08] <BigScott> Jarus, "nature" intends for the sexual act to be male/female - male/male and female/female are contrary to nature, regardless of your rationalizations

[22:08] <Jarus> BigScott, again even though homosexuality has been observed in a wide range of species, it is also a consistently minority phenomenon that is maintained, along with the flourishing of species

[22:09] <Jarus> BigScott, regardless of your rationalisations, nature intends no such end

[22:09] <BigScott> Jarus, please cite your "evidence" - I've seen such "studies" too, and it is not a widespread phenomena.

[22:10] <BigScott> Jarus, and if your "scientific studies" are honest, they admit as much upfront, even if you are not doing so here.

[22:10] <Jarus> Bruce Baghemil, Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity

[22:10] <Jarus> BigScott, actually scientific observations observe that homosexuality is quite compatible with the flourishing of species

[22:10] <BigScott> Jarus and if your "scientific studies" are honest, they admit as much upfront, even if you are not doing so here.

[22:11] <Jarus> BigScott, your prejudice and bigotry does not annul the facts of scientific observation

[22:11] <BigScott> oh, now the ad hominems

[22:11] <BigScott> I know I'm winning the argument when you start in with those.

[22:11] <Jarus> BigScott, it is a fact :-) Bigotry is the primary reason for people ignoring the mountain of scientific data and observation in this area

[22:12] <BigScott> Jarus, I'll tell you what, I'll have a look at your reference material, and get back to you... fair enough? I am quite sure I can find holes in it.

[22:12] <Jarus> BigScott, do that if you wish

[22:13] <BigScott> Jarus, I suggest that because you are becoming emotional and irrational in your responses - and I won't go that route.

[22:15] <Jarus> BigScott, don't play the emotional and irrational card :-) You were insane on this very topic not very long ago in #cathapol

[22:16] Jarus will BBL

[22:16] Jarus [jarus@Jarus.users.undernet.org] has quit IRC (Quit: "Great is Truth, and mighty above all things" (I Esdras 4:41))

[22:16] <JanHuss> Jarus: please be nice to big. He has treated me and other guests most rationally and fairly there. More so than I have been treated here by romanist ops and their apologists



I do not deny that such "occurances in nature" happen, but occurances does not make it "natural." The sex act is a natural act whose "primary" intention is to reproduce. One of the ways to make sexual reproduction successful is to make it enjoyable. Just because some animals have found a way to "enjoy sex" with the same sex does not make homosexual sex "natural."



One cannot deny that even in nature, such occurances are "abnormal." They are definitely not "the norm." If this were "normal" and whole populations of species were to participate in homosexuality - the species would cease to exist, hence "nature" demands heterosexual sex for the basic survival of the specie.

JanHuss redirects to a discussion of celibacy:




[22:12] <JanHuss> DID YOU KNOW that when a priest takes a vow of celibacy, this has nothing to do with curtailment of sexual activity such as fornication, adultery, homosexuality, and pedophilia; it simply means he cannot be married? Explanation of Catholic Morals, page 149 says it this way:

[22:12] <JanHuss> �All celibates are not chaste: celibacy is not necessarily chastity;...And one who takes the vow of Celibacy does not break it by sinning against the 6th commandment, he is true to it until he weds.�

[22:18] <BigScott> JanHuss anyway, back to your definition, I have never heard of the book you cite.

[22:19] <BigScott> anyway, here's a "common usage dictionary definition" of celibacy:

[22:19] <BigScott> Main Entry: cel�i�ba�cy

[22:19] <BigScott> Pronunciation: 'se-l&-b&-sE

[22:19] <BigScott> Function: noun

[22:19] <BigScott> Date: 1663

[22:19] <BigScott> 1 : the state of not being married

[22:19] <BigScott> 2 a : abstention from sexual intercourse b : abstention by vow from marriage

[22:21] <JanHuss> BigScott: no one doubts that is not the dictionary definition. However what is the vatikan definition is at question here. To accurately use a dictionary one would have to use one for the time when this doctrine was invented to determine the meaning of the word. But there were none. What is important then is how the vatikan defines it in its actions. Clearly they agree with what I posted

[22:29] <BigScott> JanHuss - here is a comment from the CCC on celibacy....

[22:29] <BigScott> 1599. "In the Latin Church the sacrament of Holy Orders for the presbyterate is normally conferred only on candidates who are ready to embrace celibacy freely and who publicly manifest their intention of staying CELIBATE for the love of God's kingdom and the service of men. "

[22:31] <JanHuss> BigScott: right. but what do they mean by celibate? Clearly if priests who marry are automatically excommunicated, byt perverts, and degenerates ARE NOT, IT SHOWS what the vatikan understanding ot the word is

[22:32] <BigScott> JanHuss the weakness of some officials in the vatican does not change the law.

[22:32] <JanHuss> perverts are child molesters. degenerates are priests who have sex with females

[22:33] <BigScott> JanHuss and a priest who marries is not automatically excommunicated. Please cite the canon law that states so, or retract.

[22:33] <JanHuss> BigScott: sure, but not right now. I am bored with talking about pervert priests

[22:33] <BigScott> JanHuss breaking one's vow of celibacy is not an excommucatable offence... it is a sin, but not one that one is automatically forced out by.

[22:34] <BigScott> JanHuss OK, so you concede the argument. Thanks.

[22:34] JanHuss [CC500@lsanca1-ar16-4-47-060-079.lsanca1.dsl-verizon.net] has left #scripture




...Priest does not break vow of chastity by-adultery (Explanation of Catholic Morals, p. 149). "All celibates are not chaste . . . one who takes the vow of celibacy does not break it by sinning against the sixth commandment; he is true to it till he weds."

http://www.his-church.net/roman.html (anti-Catholic site)



From CATHOLICISM AGAINST ITSELF, Lambert. "Celibates are not chaste: celibacy is not necessarily chastity; by a large majority. Unless something other that selfishness suggests this choice of life, the word is apt to be a misnomer for profligacy, and one who takes the vow of celibacy does not break it by sinning against the sixth commandment. He is true to it until he weds. (EXPLANATION OF CATHOLIC MORALS, p. 149)"

http://associate.com/ministry_files/The_Reading_Room/False_Teaching_n_Teachers_1/Chastity.shtml (Another anti-Catholic site)



Catholicism Against Itself does exist, but if you do a search for "Explanation of Catholic Morals" on Amazon.com, you'll not find it.



So, this ellusive book entitled "Explanation of Catholic Morals" does not seem to exist in print anymore, and the ONLY places it is cited on the Internet is in anti-Catholic web pages. This is hardly a credible source of Catholic doctrine! Most of the citations I found for this book also creditted Catholicism Against Itself as the source, so, at best we're dealing with a secondary source. This is not scholarly research, but it seems our detractors have no problem resorting to such "research."


Scott<<<

#CathApol on ACTS! <- Join us in LIVE chat!

ACTS Homepage

No comments:

Post a Comment

Keep in mind while posting:
1) Please respond ON TOPIC to the article at hand.
2) Posts more than 4 weeks old are set to automatically save new comments for moderation - so your comment may not show up immediately if you're responding to an older post.
3) The "Spam Filter" is on - and randomly messages get caught in that filter. I have no control over which messages get caught in the spam filter and those that do must wait for me to mark them as "not spam." A message caught by the spam filter may show up for a moment, making you think it posted, and then disappear. Do not assume I have deleted your comment, it's probably just the spam filter and it will show up.