3 ms·

Ad hominem much? And yes, why shouldn't someone have the right to say that? Under natural law theory, same sex attraction is gravely disordered, and indulging t

Ad hominem much? And yes, why shouldn't someone have the right to say that? Under natural law theory, same sex attraction is gravely disordered, and indulging that attraction by engaging in an active gay lifestyle is perverse and self-destructive. That some people want to silence traditional views is revealing. Instead of counterargument, you see totalitarian attempts to silence people, in this case Catholics, though one not need be a Catholic to hold this view. The presumption that such criticism must come from a place of contempt shows a profound misunderstanding of the nature of love (the willing of the true good of the other), conflating it with the scandalous encouragement of self-destructive behavior. Regardless, let us suppose such remarks show contempt. Then by that definition, the rabidly anti-clerical and Church-hating Jacobins on the left are the pot calling the kettle black.

tremon 6y ago
Under natural law theory, same sex attraction is gravely disordered, and indulging that attraction by engaging in an active gay lifestyle is perverse and self-destructive. You're claiming a natural law that doesn't exist. Even lions on the African savannah have been documented to engage in same-sex sexual acts. Worse, you're using that imagined "law" to disparage a whole class of people that do not fit your imagined world order. Even worse, you're then claiming that you should have the right to disparage these other people, and that not being allowed to spread your intolerance is somehow equal to you not tolerating these other people. And to top it off, in order to justify your position, you're claiming a universal concept (love), giving it your own spin, and claiming that any other interpretation than yours is invalid. So let me give you a counterexample: the Ancient Greeks had four main words for love: eros, philia, storge, agape. The latter one has been narrowed by Thomas Aquinas into the definition you just gave, but even in the language of the Bible, that does not preclude the other instances of love. So please, get off your high horse and stop imposing your narrow worldview on the rest of us.

tremon 6y ago

Under natural law theory, same sex attraction is gravely disordered, and indulging that attraction by engaging in an active gay lifestyle is perverse and self-destructive. You're claiming a natural law that doesn't exist. Even lions on the African savannah have been documented to engage in same-sex sexual acts. Worse, you're using that imagined "law" to disparage a whole class of people that do not fit your imagined world order. Even worse, you're then claiming that you should have the right to disparage these other people, and that not being allowed to spread your intolerance is somehow equal to you not tolerating these other people. And to top it off, in order to justify your position, you're claiming a universal concept (love), giving it your own spin, and claiming that any other interpretation than yours is invalid. So let me give you a counterexample: the Ancient Greeks had four main words for love: eros, philia, storge, agape. The latter one has been narrowed by Thomas Aquinas into the definition you just gave, but even in the language of the Bible, that does not preclude the other instances of love. So please, get off your high horse and stop imposing your narrow worldview on the rest of us.