What species orientation are you?
#21
frater Wrote: I usually go to St Alphonsus, although I've been to Mount Calvary also. How about yourself?

I go to Holy Transfiguration in Mclean, VA.  I've been to Mt. Calvary a few times, though, and St. Alphonsus once a long time ago.
Reply
#22
(08-03-2013, 10:55 AM)Basilios Wrote: So... natural law theory is totally wrong when it claims that (sexually) the natural end of males is females and the natural end of females is males?

You're only proving my point here! The orientation of all males is towards females as a matter of fact. Just because those with SSA do not participate (for want of a better word) in this particular inescapable fact doesn't make it any less a fact. It just makes their SSA a disorientation and a disorder. Hence Catholic teaching.

Well, not quite.  Natural law doesn't claim that man's natural end is in females, or vice versa.  It claims that sexual complimentarity is found between two members of the opposite sex, and that's correct.  It is also correct to say that every person's sexual orientation is naturally supposed to be directed towards the opposite sex.  What is not correct, and what you incorrectly describe as natural law claiming, is that there is no such situation where one person ends up having their attractions oriented toward their own sex for whatever reason.  Simply put, you are not using the word orientation according to its correct meaning.  You are misusing it.
Reply
#23
[Image: I-Hate-Cats-graphic-design.png]
Reply
#24
(08-03-2013, 02:56 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(08-03-2013, 10:55 AM)Basilios Wrote: So... natural law theory is totally wrong when it claims that (sexually) the natural end of males is females and the natural end of females is males?

You're only proving my point here! The orientation of all males is towards females as a matter of fact. Just because those with SSA do not participate (for want of a better word) in this particular inescapable fact doesn't make it any less a fact. It just makes their SSA a disorientation and a disorder. Hence Catholic teaching.

Well, not quite.  Natural law doesn't claim that man's natural end is in females, or vice versa.  It claims that sexual complimentarity is found between two members of the opposite sex, and that's correct.  It is also correct to say that every person's sexual orientation is naturally supposed to be directed towards the opposite sex.  What is not correct, and what you incorrectly describe as natural law claiming, is that there is no such situation where one person ends up having their attractions oriented toward their own sex for whatever reason.  Simply put, you are not using the word orientation according to its correct meaning.  You are misusing it.

Yes it does claim that - in the realm of sexuality. If you want to call it sexual complimentarity go ahead. Amounts to the same thing.

What is not correct is that having a disordered attraction to the same sex somehow changes ones fundamental, natural and God-given orientation.

You are not misusing the word orientation so much as applying it in the opposite case - you are applying it to something that is rightly considered a disorientation. That's understandable given the diabolical distortion of language where the word orientation is simply fabulous because everybody is equal we're all just oriented towards different things. It all goes hand in hand. Talk about complimentarity!

If homosexuality is an orientation, then it's simply equal to and on par with heterosexuality. That's why the word is used.
Reply
#25
(08-03-2013, 03:18 PM)Basilios Wrote: If homosexuality is an orientation, then it's simply equal to and on par with heterosexuality. That's why the word is used.

if i say my visual acuity is 20/600, am i denying that normative visual acuity is 20/20? 

should i start saying, 'my lack of visual acuity is 20/600'? 

that makes no sense.  really, you're simply being petulant and pedantic.
Reply
#26
(08-03-2013, 03:23 PM)guacamole Wrote:
(08-03-2013, 03:18 PM)Basilios Wrote: If homosexuality is an orientation, then it's simply equal to and on par with heterosexuality. That's why the word is used.

if i say my visual acuity is 20/600, am i denying that normative visual acuity is 20/20? 

should i start saying, 'my lack of visual acuity is 20/600'? 

that makes no sense.  really, you're simply being petulant and pedantic.

Kay.

You're simply being obtuse and a poopie head. Do I win?
Reply
#27
(08-03-2013, 03:23 PM)guacamole Wrote:
(08-03-2013, 03:18 PM)Basilios Wrote: If homosexuality is an orientation, then it's simply equal to and on par with heterosexuality. That's why the word is used.

if i say my visual acuity is 20/600, am i denying that normative visual acuity is 20/20? 

should i start saying, 'my lack of visual acuity is 20/600'? 

that makes no sense.  really, you're simply being petulant and pedantic.

Maybe it was me, but *that* made no sense.  
Reply
#28
(08-03-2013, 03:29 PM)2Vermont Wrote: Maybe it was me, but *that* made no sense.  

visual acuity = sexual orientation 
Reply
#29
(08-03-2013, 10:55 AM)Basilios Wrote:
(08-03-2013, 07:28 AM)Melkite Wrote: Basilios, you're being absurd

... Yes.


Quote:Orientation refers to the direction you are headed, not the location you presently are in. 

So... natural law theory is totally wrong when it claims that (sexually) the natural end of males is females and the natural end of females is males?

You're only proving my point here! The orientation of all males is towards females as a matter of fact. Just because those with SSA do not participate (for want of a better word) in this particular inescapable fact doesn't make it any less a fact. It just makes their SSA a disorientation and a disorder. Hence Catholic teaching.


Quote:I think I understand your confusion wih sexual orientation now.  You think that if a man proclaims himself to be oriented towards other men, and because of the biological heterosexuality of the species, the man is somehow claiming he's really a woman on the inside.  Because, naturally from a heterosexual perspective, to be attracted to a man must mean one is a woman on some level.  This isn't remotely close to what is going on with homosexuals. 

That's not at all what I'm talking about.

Anyway, back to my topic.

If you can have a sexual orientation, why not a species orientation? Indeed, why not any kind of orientation? Why can I not claim that my food orientation is to eat glass?

Sexuality is fluid. Species are fluid.

Please stop trying to demean my orientation as a feline. It's just what I am.  

Your problem is that you're confusing biological orientation in terms of natural law with a psychological orientation, many varieties of which do exist, including that of eating glass:


Some people can be oriented toward doing evil. That doesn't make their behavior "on par" with doing good, and it doesn't mean that God positively wills they they do evil. You could say they are "disoriented toward the good," but that doesn't make them any less oriented toward evil.

And yeah, human behavior is fluid. That's what makes people fascinating.
Reply
#30
(08-03-2013, 03:54 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: Your problem is that you're confusing biological orientation in terms of natural law with a psychological orientation, many varieties of which do exist, including that of eating glass:

Biological and ontological orientation. Which is what I was always talking about. I was never talking about a subjective mental state. But nor are people who claim to have a homosexual orientation. They never just mean "Oh my psychological mental state says I am unnaturally attracted to the same sex". That's not what they mean, and it's definitely not what the liberals want you to think when you see the phrase 'homosexual orientation'. This is the whole point.

If 'homosexual orientation' = psychological perversion then it's okay to use the phrase.

Quote:Some people can be oriented toward doing evil.

They are not oriented towards it so much as they have a perverted will or darkened intellect. We all seek the good (in a general sense), and depending on our will and intellect we do things that are evil thinking them to be good for us somehow. Just because people do evil things and behave in evil ways it doesn't make them oriented towards evil.

It's like saying that every human creature is oriented towards hell. Well, no they aren't. We're all oriented towards Heaven, it's our lifes telos. Just because some people end up in Hell and do things that make them go there doesn't make it any less truthful that we were all made for God by God to spend eternity with Him in Heaven.

Quote:That doesn't make their behavior "on par" with doing good

But that's the whole point about this modern phrase 'sexual orientation'. It places everything on equal footing.

"Hey Tim whats your sexual orientation?"
"I'm heterosexual what about yourself Sarah?"
"Oh, I'm homosexual and my wife is bisexual with a preference for women which is why we're married!"
"Awesome!"

All the things we say about homosexuality apply equally to pedophilia, correct? Perversion, immoral, some people have that attraction. So let me ask you how you'd feel if the next time you filled in a questionnaire this came up:

What is your sexual orientation?
a) Heterosexual
b) Bisexual
c) Homosexual
d) Pedosexual

Do you feel okay with this? Why or why not? Would the world feel okay with this? NO. Why? Because they know what it means. It means that finding children sexually enticing is equal to heterosexuality. It means it's just another choice amongst a few others. This is why words are so important.

Quote:And yeah, human behavior is fluid. That's what makes people fascinating.

Vox, are you saying that it's interesting that people sin or that we have horrible reminders in all of us of original sin?
If sexuality is fluid then natural law is wrong and so is Catholic teaching on sexual ethics and morality.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)