Teh point was that all he has done is construct a language construct that says I'm delusional and that homosexual acts are ok when I could just as easily say I've created a language construt that says its not. He simply wills himself to correctness, when I could just as easily do the same thing.
Yeah Institute of Philosophic Studies= IPS. It's a pretty good program, the only doctoral program in the country with a core curriculum. I'm not in IPS yet, just doing the Grad work, but I'm mulling over whether I want to get all three degrees (if infact I do want the Phd.) at the same school. I'd love to sit around with a bunch of high schoolers and read the Odyssey or the Illiad for the first time with them. Seems like it would be special every year, just to see them get that "aha". Of course my dream job would be to be chief academic officer at a Catholic private school. Would be fun to set curriculums and such. What do you think of Rorty?
Well, there's a softball. Never heard a better definition of "faith." And he didn't will himself to correctness. He made the valid point that your definition of "natural" is nothing but a reflection of your own experience. Had you been born gay, you would feel quite differently about it. Mary Cheney would tell you that her love for her partner is the most natural thing in the world. For her, sex with a man would be unnatural, but she would never tell you that someone born heterosexual was practicing an unnatural act by making love with the person they loved. The prejudice runs one way. I've been thinking some about this sex only for procreation thing. No oral sex in your marriage, right? What about french kissing? Isn't that a lustful, unnatural act since it arises from sexual attraction but doesn't lead to children? If you touch your fiancee's breast, are you acting unnaturally and against God or are you just reducing her to a lustful object?
Well wlaking around naked is completely natural. Speaking is completely not natural. What define nature? It seems as if the modern day push has been to dismiss nature all together, so I'm gettting tired of arguing about this and will shut up now.
Do you mean Richard? The lit. professor? I know of him. So basically, I think he exists. Beyond that, I don't think anything.
I've often asked priest's this about French Kissing, and they ususally say don't let it go on to long, because then it is merely for the stimulation of those parts. From the Cathecism: Conjugal love involves a totality, in which all the elements of the person enter - appeal of the body and instinct, power of feeling and affectivity, aspiration of the spirit and of will. It aims at a deeply personal unity, a unity that, beyond union in one flesh, leads to forming one heart and soul; it demands indissolubility and faithfulness in definitive mutual giving; and it is open to fertility. In a word it is a question of the normal characteristics of all natural conjugal love, but with a new significance which not only purifies and strengthens them, but raises them to the extent of making them the expression of specifically Christian values." The openness to fertility 1652 "By its very nature the institution of marriage and married love is ordered to the procreation and education of the offspring and it is in them that it finds its crowning glory."162 Children are the supreme gift of marriage and contribute greatly to the good of the parents themselves. God himself said: "It is not good that man should be alone," and "from the beginning [he] made them male and female"; wishing to associate them in a special way in his own creative work, God blessed man and woman with the words: "Be fruitful and multiply." Hence, true married love and the whole structure of family life which results from it, without diminishment of the other ends of marriage, are directed to disposing the spouses to cooperate valiantly with the love of the Creator and Savior, who through them will increase and enrich his family from day to day.163 1653 The fruitfulness of conjugal love extends to the fruits of the moral, spiritual, and supernatural life that parents hand on to their children by education. Parents are the principal and first educators of their children.164 In this sense the fundamental task of marriage and family is to be at the service of life.165 1654 Spouses to whom God has not granted children can nevertheless have a conjugal life full of meaning, in both human and Christian terms. Their marriage can radiate a fruitfulness of charity, of hospitality, and of sacrifice. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c3a7.htm#V
I think Catholics can do all of that, but ultimately the seed has to end up in the "right place" and no other. What I do is imagine God's face on my wife while we are doing it. I think God gets off on that. Don't let kissing go on too long? YOU HAVE TO BE KIDDING ME. twhy77, all you are doing is convincing me more and more to give up Catholicism entirely.
I've heard that too, but it seems at odds with twhy's explanations. As I understand him, any sexual act that does not lead directly to procreation is unnatural and against God. That would mean to me no oral sex, no fondling, no french kissing.
Religious martyrdom as an answer to forced assimilation is respectable. Or do you think holidays like Channukah are stupid?
Please don't take my explanations to be the absolute say on the matter. I found the more pertinent references from the Cathecism: 2353 Fornication is carnal union between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman. It is gravely contrary to the dignity of persons and of human sexuality which is naturally ordered to the good of spouses and the generation and education of children. Moreover, it is a grave scandal when there is corruption of the young. About Homosexuality: 2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved. 2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition. 2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection. The love proper of Husband and Wife: 2360 Sexuality is ordered to the conjugal love of man and woman. In marriage the physical intimacy of the spouses becomes a sign and pledge of spiritual communion. Marriage bonds between baptized persons are sanctified by the sacrament. 2361 "Sexuality, by means of which man and woman give themselves to one another through the acts which are proper and exclusive to spouses, is not something simply biological, but concerns the innermost being of the human person as such. It is realized in a truly human way only if it is an integral part of the love by which a man and woman commit themselves totally to one another until death."143 Tobias got out of bed and said to Sarah, "Sister, get up, and let us pray and implore our Lord that he grant us mercy and safety." So she got up, and they began to pray and implore that they might be kept safe. Tobias began by saying, "Blessed are you, O God of our fathers. . . . You made Adam, and for him you made his wife Eve as a helper and support. From the two of them the race of mankind has sprung. You said, 'It is not good that the man should be alone; let us make a helper for him like himself.' I now am taking this kinswoman of mine, not because of lust, but with sincerity. Grant that she and I may find mercy and that we may grow old together." And they both said, "Amen, Amen." Then they went to sleep for the night.144 2362 "The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude."145 Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure: The Creator himself . . . established that in the [generative] function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them. At the same time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just moderation.146 2363 The spouses' union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple's spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family. The conjugal love of man and woman thus stands under the twofold obligation of fidelity and fecundity. And the Fecundity of marriage: The fecundity of marriage 2366 Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which is "on the side of life,"151 teaches that "it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life."152 "This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act."153 2367 Called to give life, spouses share in the creative power and fatherhood of God.154 "Married couples should regard it as their proper mission to transmit human life and to educate their children; they should realize that they are thereby cooperating with the love of God the Creator and are, in a certain sense, its interpreters. They will fulfill this duty with a sense of human and Christian responsibility."155 2368 A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of procreation. For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood. Moreover, they should conform their behavior to the objective criteria of morality: When it is a question of harmonizing married love with the responsible transmission of life, the morality of the behavior does not depend on sincere intention and evaluation of motives alone; but it must be determined by objective criteria, criteria drawn from the nature of the person and his acts criteria that respect the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love; this is possible only if the virtue of married chastity is practiced with sincerity of heart.156 2369 "By safeguarding both these essential aspects, the unitive and the procreative, the conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and its orientation toward man's exalted vocation to parenthood."157 2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.158 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil:159 Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.160 2371 "Let all be convinced that human life and the duty of transmitting it are not limited by the horizons of this life only: their true evaluation and full significance can be understood only in reference to man's eternal destiny."161 I don't know if that makes what I said any clearer for you Batman, but thats what we as Catholics believe.
It must be fun being so clever. No, we read him in class today and he is certainly interesting. I was just wondering what you thought about him. Basically, I'm asking you to write a well reasoned argument about Rorty's role for literary criticism that's around 5-7 pages long.
I'll bet they've seen O Brother Where Art Thou. This thread has really moved around. For example, I never knew Rimbeaux taught high school!! Wow, the things you learn here....
twhy, how many children are you two thinking of having, if you don't mind me asking? Keep D&D Civil!!
I wasn't trying to be clever. Unless you want me to turn my last post into 5-7 pages, my ignorance would get in the way. That could be interesting, though. TJ, I teach high school? If that is a joke or insult, I don't get it.
So explain to me why my wife and I were sneered at and called "breeders." That isn't supposed to be hurtful or disdainful in some way. Hell...all I wanted was a belgian waffle at Katz's and I have to put up with that? We got our table...and as we were being escorted to our table we passed a small group of gay men. I know they were gay because two of them had been holding hands earlier. One of them says "of course the breeders get a table." But of course, that prejudice only goes one way.
Isn't "Breeder" more of a nickname than a derogatory word? I guess it's not what you say but how you say it...