There is No Such Thing as a Homosexual Catholic Priest
(02-21-2011, 06:33 PM)voxpopulisuxx Wrote:
(02-21-2011, 06:01 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(02-21-2011, 05:34 PM)voxpopulisuxx Wrote:
(02-21-2011, 05:21 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(02-21-2011, 05:15 PM)voxpopulisuxx Wrote: this your opinion and a cherry picked definition with all due respect.

I don't think so, but I'll be happy to defend myself if you are willing to back up your claim.

Give me another definition from any reputable dictionary.  That was from Merriam-Webster for the word "homosexual".

Here it is from the Oxford dictionary:

(of a person) sexually attracted to people of one's own sex.
involving or characterized by sexual attraction between people of the same sex:
homosexual desire

a person who is sexually attracted to people of their own sex.
since the term is recent novelty circa 1892 according to your own source.... it can not hold the test of the traditional definition which is what is in this debate I think.

If the word didn't exist until 1892, how could it have a traditional definition?now your just playin games

Yep, I've giving back to you what you're handing to me.  Word games.

Quote: It also presumes the existence of a naturally born homo-sexual....a complete novelty and an affront to the creator IMO

The definition does no such thing.  It makes no claim where this attraction is rooted.You said yourself some are born with this disposition

Sure, I did.  The definition didn't.  We're talking about the definition that you object to as "cherry picked".

Quote:Further the second definition from websters defines homosexuality as an act.

Really?  Websters must be really messed up if they put the definition of a noun (an act) in with the definition of an adjective.  Or could it be you aren't reading it properly?

My bad.  I didn't realize you were talking about a different word.  All I have to say is: so?  That's a different word.  Sodomy refers to an act as well.

Quote:Further still if one defines the word SEX at websters we find : the sum of the structural, functional, and behavioral characteristics of organisms that are involved in reproduction marked by the union of gametes and that distinguish males and females

Therefore HOMO or singular gender genital  stimulation (really shared masturbation) cannot be defined as sex or sexual at all by any definition, there for the term HS is a misnomer, more like orwellian newspeak

Talk about cherry picking a definition.   ::)    You're also reading the definition wrong.  Sexual as opposed to asexual.  Only organisms that reproduce sexually have a sex (duh).  That's why it qualifies it with reproduction.  One still has a sex if they are chaste, don't they? Or if they are non-sexual, or asexual, etc.

There's a thinker for ya, voxp.  If someone is asexual, they don't have an interest in sex, and don't reproduce, so obviously the word is orwellian newspeak, right?
No there can only be ONE definition for sex or sexuality or sexual intercourse that is pertinent to this discussion. not slang terms or cultural definitions. sexuality pertains to that power or gift in man and woman it cannot pertain to man and man or woman and maybe...Friendship..of course! but sexuality...IMPOSSIBLE

Really, you are a trip.  You complain I use a dictionary definition of homosexual, then you use a dictionary definition, and when I point out you are misunderstanding it you claim we shouldn't be using cultural definitions.

Hello, earth to voxp.  I AM using the proper definitions, you are the one arguing for cultural ones, especially about "homosexual".

Messages In This Thread
Re: There is No Such Thing as a Homosexual Catholic Priest - by Historian - 02-21-2011, 06:40 PM

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)