Dear Michael Connell,
Thank you for your response. I read it with great interest, and I will respond again now that I have a better idea of your stance, and also what you consider your position.
In referring to the Bible, it is natural to point out the book itself because the Church's do hold up the Bible as the word of God, and use same in their masses. As to the sources the Vatican has privately, we can only speculate, but it is essentially irrelevant when discussing something that can be decided fairly based on our modern understanding and evidence regarding homosexuality.
A brief aside here, I thought Jesus was considered the son of God, not "God himself". Even the Holy trinity of the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost makes this plain. I have never understood why some religions attempt to claim that Jesus is also God. I would appreciate you explaining that discrepancy as I truly don't know the reason behind it. I am Catholic incidentally, but it can be very confusing as to which denomination is presenting their own selective view of Christianity when you hear so much from all different quarters.
In response to you calling me naive over my references to "rationality", I have to respectfully disagree with your analysis of rational. The Enlightenment's search was a failure because you CANNOT use rationality alone as a judging stick for morals because many emotional and subjective issues are involved, and hence are in of themselves, irrational. But the real sticking point here is this. Is acting out homosexual desire a behaviour? In the strictest sense of the word you could say yes, but we don't consider eating food as a means of substance as just a behaviour. Nor the urge to use our legs to walk. If the church felt walking was a sin, then they could use this same argument they are presenting against homosexuals turned around to fit this situation. "It is perfectly natural to want to use your legs to walk. I know you have the desire to use them for your means of transport, but you should ignore this natural tendency because we have on paper ideas presented 2000 years ago explaining quite clearly that it is sinful to use your legs for this purpose." Do you see the distinction? Your examples of rapists, or pedophiles are not a valid comparison because in the first place those tendencies NEVER show themselves at birth. So this cannot be considered a parallel of behaviour. Conversely, the sheer numbers, especially consistent numbers of people born all over the world that are homosexual, are more than enough evidence for anyone being honest with themselves to conclude that it is natural for a small percentage of life forms to be homosexual. The reasons no one knows, and that would be pure speculation. Secondly as I just alluded to, homosexual behaviour is very well documented in animals and therefore under your own description would fall under the instinctual umbrella of human characteristics. These animals are not CHOOSING behavioral tendencies, they are acting out natural instincts. I am NOT referring to the unnatural situations where animals without access to members of the opposite sex will then change from their instinct into a different outlet for their desires. THIS then becomes unnatural behaviour because we have EVIDENCE that they are changing their natural instinct. The church cannot use the word "unnatural" to define homosexual behaviour because people are not forced or given a "hobson's choice" in regards to their instinct. If it happens in nature, it is natural. In regards to personal behaviour, it is unnatural if it is against your own nature. Therefore suggesting homosexuals not act out their instinct, or even worse, try to change their behaviour to heterosexual is the very essence of influencing unnatural behaviour.
"The simple idea that actions are good or bad based on how well they contribute to this notion of self-fulfillment is silly. This is no more “rational” than the Catholic belief that the purposed of life, and hence, self-fulfillment, is derived from discovering God’s will for us as expressed by Jesus Christ and continued through the Church he instituted."
Well in this sentence you have actually boxed yourself into a corner. If you profess that there is no way to rationally decide between these two choices, then you have no evidence to back up a notion that your opinions are superior to self-fulfillment. In that case, a fair person would suggest that neither side is provable and should leave it open to future discussion, and personal choice.
"Catholic’s believe in sin, that is, homosexual acts do hurt someone even if they are consensual, because you can hurt yourself. And while we may all have a fundamental right to hurt ourselves if we so choose, it can never be condoned – the Church cares too much. Believe it or not, the teaching is motivated by love."
Yes they do. This is precisely the problem with their position. belief. Belief is not an argument that is worth anything other than to the person professing it. Read this example of someone's explanation as to why the "I believe" argument should never be used as a reason for someone's position. And I might add, should never be used as a reason to dictate laws and morals.
(quote)
Yes, it's the famous "I believe" argument. Every single creationist with whom I have ever debated has used this argument at least once (if not many, many times).
The obvious rebuttal is: "so what"? Why should it matter to anyone what your opponent believes? If I say that I believe in the Tooth Fairy, it doesn't prove that she exists!
I wish people like this would try to understand the concept of a logical argument. It is not a meaningful argument to say "I believe". The notion that belief and faith are laudable is a purely religious idea, and has no relation to the scientific method or mindset. My father went to a Jesuit private school as a youth, and he told me that he and his classmates often tried to debate their teachers, but they would always respond to every argument with "faith is a virtue". As far as they were concerned, the fact that their positions were irrational had no bearing on their validity.
Indeed, faith is usually regarded as a good thing. But faith and belief actually represent the acceptance of that for which there is no objective evidence. Faith is the pure essence of irrationality.(unquote)
So you're reference to homosexual acts as being hurtful to people are completely based on belief. The religious community as a whole have tried to bring forward (out of context) studies supposedly documenting the hurtful nature of homosexuality, but have only grabbed examples of LIFESTYLE. This is the great distinction between the church and being Gay. Being gay and having sex with someone of the same sex is NOT a lifestyle, it is no more a lifestyle choice than gathering and eating food. Of course eating is a little more important naturally as you will not survive without it, but it is still not a behavioural choice alone, it is a natural process of following your instincts. Instincts are there for a reason, and even though many of them are unexplained does not mean there is not a good reason to be found based on evidence, not belief. Also in regards to the last statement about the catholic church being about love, I would venture to say that love is accepting people for who they ARE, not changing them to what you think is proper. Only if people's actions can be clearly proven to be detrimental to themselves and others would you be able to say that it is loving to wish to change that person. There is no true evidence that homosexuality and it's actions are in any way hurtful to either party. You cannot use examples of situations surrounding people to prove the basic essence is wrong. People could do the exact same thing with heterosexuals and all of the bad lifestyles that have developed from the many unions between straight families and couples. That is a strawman argument. Attacking a caricature of the situation and not truly challenging the essence of the argument. Unless you can prove that the actual inborn desire, and the acting out of same is inherently hurtful to that person's existence, or to the consensual partner's, then it MUST be dismissed as unprovable and without foundation. Why do you think in almost all of the educated countried it is no longer considered a disease or disorder by the medical community. Pathologically or psychiatrically? The answer is simple. No objective evidence to the contrary, and that is why it is no longer against the law in many societies. Government is a bit slower in implementing changing ideas, but they eventually get around to updating their mistakes. Religion is one of the great holdouts whenever their ideas are challenged and disproved.
(quote)
"You also say that we shouldn’t “create laws or rules that our impressionable children are told are "moral" and "right", and hence are made to feel guilt, shame, and in many cases suicidal because of simply recognizing that what they ARE is considered wrong.” Again, what if a child is a bully? Does this mean that we ought not teach them that bullying is wrong? It’s even funnier that later on in your message you suggest that teaching the Catholic belief ought to be “illegal.” You can’t seem to resist what Catholic are constantly accused of – desiring to legislate your beliefs."
You mean to say that you believe that bullying is a natural inborn tendency? The AGGRESSION could be argued thus, but the bullying is solely a behavioural choice. It is also not a valid parallel as we are not referring to an iborn characteristic that has to be expressed in one form or the other. Do people grow up depressed or suicidal because they know that bullying is wrong? Do they feel repressed because they are not able to act out those "natural" desires? If you see any evidence supporting this idea, by all means show me. If so, then maybe you have a similar example. I somehow doubt you'll find any evidence of this however, good luck.
And you're second part of the statement is where you've made a major mistake. There is no need of legislation in regards to this issue because it should be a given as to people's rights and actions. What need is there in legislation? Do we need to legislate the right to have sex between a man and a woman? That is fallacious. You're even bigger mistake is claiming that what I'm presenting as an argument is MY beliefs. You are trying to paint me with the same brush as yourself. YOUR ideas are beliefs, mine are not. My position is solely based on the logical evidence we have AT HAND, reproducible and widely disseminated regarding the natural existence of homosexuality. It exists, that's a fact. It is in every culture and race of the world in almost identical statistical proportion. That's a fact. They have never found any evidence showing that the homosexual instinct or acting out of same is hurtful in any way to the person or their partner's SOLELY as a sexual act. That's a fact. Or if you prefer, they have found no evidence showing it is in any way better or worse than the same instinct of heterosexuality. So my position is based on logic and demonstrable evidence. Your's is not, so you cannot call what I am arguing a "belief".
"My Catholicism is intrinsic to my self-identity. It can reasonably be held that your disparaging of it, could well lead to my depression and ultimately suicide. But guess what? You’re entitled to defend your beliefs anyway, and so am I."
Now this is an example of a personal choice of behaviour, SOLELY. You were not born an instinctual catholic, and you did not have this as a biological need of expression in order to live life as a happy human. Secondly the disparaging if ideas is not the same as attacking a person. Homosexuality is a part of being human, Catholicism is not. We have to judge ideas based on their merit or we would have no common ground on which to live life. This is truly self-evident, and you are using a very bad example. It's not much different than someone else's argument I just read claiming it's a hate crime to speak out against policies that hate. It is not intolerance to be intolerant of intolerance. That is an oxymoron and is a self defeating argument. If that was a valid answer than we would not be able to argue anything or choose any understanding for better or worse.
"The problem with all your arguments is that they beg the question by assuming that homosexual acts are morally neutral – prove it. This requires a far more sophisticated argument than simply saying that it is an “innate tendency” or a “natural inclination”. The burden of proof really is yours."
Ummm no. the problem with YOUR arguments is that they beg the question by assuming that homosexual acts are morally harmful.
Unlike your position, I have evidence to cite that shows homosexuality is NOT harmful in any way shape or form. It is a victimless "crime". Homosexuals are born with innate tendencies. Since that is a normal part of their makeup, it is only logical to first assume it is neutral unless proven otherwise. So you are incorrect to switch the burden of proof onto homosexuals.
"Most importantly, no one has ever suggested that Mark not be allowed to attend the prom. It’s his actions which are being “discriminated” against, not him. I wonder, if alcoholics had advocacy groups, would they protest that those students who identify as such are not allowed to drink at the prom? Remember, love the sinner hate the sin. This is about Homosexual acts – which same-sex dating clearly is – not students with homosexual inclinations"
Catholic Civil Rights League <ccrl@idirect.com> wrote:
From: "Catholic Civil Rights League "
To: "'Ken P'"
Subject: RE: Thomas Langan
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 17:28:29 -0500
Ken,
Thanks for passing this conversation our way.
I’m slightly confused by your constant reference to the Bible. No where in Dr. Langan’s piece does he mention the Bible. When dealing with Catholic issues it is helpful to remember that the dictum “sola scriptura” is a protestant belief. The Catholic Church actually pre-dates the Christian Bible; therefore, unlike other Christian Churches which are susceptible to your criticisms, Catholicism is not primarily a religion of The Book. Rather, the Church as instituted by Jesus (God Himself) functions to carry-out His teaching mandate on earth. Guided by the Holy Spirit, the Church has been entrusted with the “Deposit of Faith” both in Scripture and Tradition. If you have read any of the Fathers of the Church (like St. Augustine and St. Thomas) you’ll know that the Church’s teachings do not stand or fall based on interpretations of text. The Church’s teaching is far richer than that. In fact the Church’s teaching guide how the Bible is to be interpreted.
Also, your constant reference to the “rational” seems a little naive. The Enlightenment’s search for a rational basis for morality really was a failure. The truth is, we all make certain non-rational assumptions concerning the purpose of life. You obviously believe that self-fulfillment - defined as living out our inclinations and appetites - is the purpose of life, but you’d be hard pressed to prove this rationally. In fact, the very definition of non-rational beings (animals) is that they are simply motivated by their appetites. The simple idea that actions are good or bad based on how well they contribute to this notion of self-fulfillment is silly. This is no more “rational” than the Catholic belief that the purposed of life, and hence, self-fulfillment, is derived from discovering God’s will for us as expressed by Jesus Christ and continued through the Church he instituted.
You write: “They even touch upon it as much as they dare by admitting that they agree homosexuality is an innate tendency but that it is NOT acceptable to be yourself because they consider it a "test" of God's. This should be a completely unacceptable reason for any organization to use as a defense against discrimination.”
I suggest that the innate character of homosexuality is irrelevant. Does it matter if the rapist has intrinsic inclinations toward evil, or the pedophile? That is, if one decided that the inclination to violent non-consensual sex was intrinsic to their self identity would it become acceptable for them to “be themselves”? I know, your protesting that the analogy doesn’t work because the rapist is hurting someone. Well guess what? Catholic’s believe in sin, that is, homosexual acts do hurt someone even if they are consensual, because you can hurt yourself. And while we may all have a fundamental right to hurt ourselves if we so choose, it can never be condoned – the Church cares too much. Believe it or not, the teaching is motivated by love.
St. Augustine reminds us that whether you approve or disapprove of someone else’s actions, both are motivated by care for the individual. The only unloving position is indifference (what some believe to be tolerance).
You also say that we shouldn’t “create laws or rules that our impressionable children are told are "moral" and "right", and hence are made to feel guilt, shame, and in many cases suicidal because of simply recognizing that what they ARE is considered wrong.” Again, what if a child is a bully? Does this mean that we ought not teach them that bullying is wrong? It’s even funnier that later on in your message you suggest that teaching the Catholic belief ought to be “illegal.” You can’t seem to resist what Catholic are constantly accused of – desiring to legislate your beliefs.
My Catholicism is intrinsic to my self-identity. It can reasonably be held that your disparaging of it, could well lead to my depression and ultimately suicide. But guess what? You’re entitled to defend your beliefs anyway, and so am I.
The problem with all your arguments is that they beg the question by assuming that homosexual acts are morally neutral – prove it. This requires a far more sophisticated argument than simply saying that it is an “innate tendency” or a “natural inclination”. The burden of proof really is yours.
Most importantly, no one has ever suggested that Mark not be allowed to attend the prom. It’s his actions which are being “discriminated” against, not him. I wonder, if alcoholics had advocacy groups, would they protest that those students who identify as such are not allowed to drink at the prom? Remember, love the sinner hate the sin. This is about Homosexual acts – which same-sex dating clearly is – not students with homosexual inclinations.
Sincerely,
Michael Connell
-----Original Message-----
From: Ken P [mailto:justforfun000ca@yahoo.ca]
Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 1:51 PM
To: ccrl@idirect.com
Subject: Thomas Langan
Well I have read your position on the Marc Hall issue as it was posted as an op-ed submission by someone on a web-board.
So I thought you may want to hear my response to your position, and if you have anything to say in response I would be happy to discuss this with you.
I posted this on the web-board in response as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As logical and well-written this epistle may SEEM to be on first glance, it has at it's heart no true substance because of one big flaw.
The argument is made on the basis of assumption that what is in the Bible is morally correct and should be acted upon without any question to the contrary. They even touch upon it as much as they dare by admitting that they agree homosexuality is an innate tendency but that it is NOT acceptable to be yourself because they consider it a "test" of God's. This should be a completely unacceptable reason for any organization to use as a defense against discrimination.
They are setting themselves up as an offerer of education to young people, and if they cannot offer this without insisting that the students not only learn but ACT OUT their religious unprovable dogma, then I don't believe that these institutions should be allowed to teach. I really can't believe they have lasted this long honestly.
I have no problem with people having their opinions, and if they want to believe in something irrational, that is their business. But admit it's irrational and has no defensible basis. Secondly, don't try to create laws or rules that our impressionable children are told are "moral" and "right", and hence are made to feel guilt, shame, and in many cases suicidal because of simply recognizing that what they ARE is considered wrong.
This is when irrational belief becomes discrimination, and is particularly reprehensible that they prey on our most innocent and naive member's of society. It should be illegal, and I hope that we start seeing some sanity in this issue world-wide.
(someone anonymous replied)
No the argument has never been about whether the Bible, Torah or Koran are morally correct but about whether those who believe it is have the right to separate schools.
Funding those schools from the public purse is a historical accident/compromise struck between the French and English.
Langan's point is not about morality, it is that believers have the right to educate THEIR children in ways they see fit.
Marc was a voluntary attendee. Any court will not that first. It is a hard argument to get past for a defence lawyer.
------------------------
(So I replied)
Funding the schools is a disgrace to begin with, there is no excuse now.
Besides that, your point about believers having the right to educate their children the way they see fit? If you missed my earlier post regarding this issue I'll sum it up by saying that parent's SHOULD NOT have the right to choose education that is potentially harmful to the child's well being. It goes without saying that if the child is gay that he will experience incredible intolerance of acting out his natural inclinations, and that dear people, is CHILD ABUSE. You keep using the Bible as an appeal to authority so you can justify this discrimination, but there is no proof of it's authority or validity. Laws should not be based on it. Period.
Parent's have a responsibility to raise their child with a sound mind and body, and they should not have the power to decide to brainwash them into believing and acting out irrational religious dogma. If they wish to go there when they are older, fine. Even if they seek it out on their own while a child, I say fine as well. But they are impressionable, and if not brought up with a proper education in learning how to truly discern logic from fallacy, then they are walking right into what amounts to a brainwash of ideas and moral codes that cannot be defended, only mindlessly accepted. This is why the church's try to acquire the role of "Teacher" to children because they are aware of the fact that people up to the age of about 7 will naturally retain a belief in most things they were told to believe in regardless of objective thought.
Parent's were also a product of this very deliberate brainwashing technique, and hence cannot be considered an objective or authoritative decision maker on what is proper for children to be taught.
That is why we have generally agreed upon standards, and school boards so that these issues can be better decided upon by people who have to debate these issues objectively.
Unfortunately, Catholic school boards do not meet this criteria successfully, because they rely on anything they wish to use as "Gospel" from the Bible and hence no discussion or objectivity is needed or allowed.
This is very spooky folks, and I still can't believe people can't see this so clearly.
Ultimately people have to stop saying that it's ok to exonerate the Catholic school board's decision because "Marc was a voluntary attendee".
Marc is a very young human being that is only NOW realizing the truth about Catholicism, and how they have a facade of tolerance, but is really not tolerance at all. It's two-faced and hypocritical. So Marc is not to blame, the brainwasher's are, and like I said, they should not be given the legality to convert children's mind to irrational dogma.
AMEN
[/b][quote][/quote]
