Skip to main content

Does Defense of Homosexuality lead to Defense of Pedophilia & Murder?

Flashback Catholic Monitor comment section debate in the 2009 Richard Salbato "How to Teach Purity" post with a homosexual that ended when the apparently pro-pedophile gay refused to respond these questions:
"There are child abusers mixed in with with non-child abusers across cultures and history.


Do you think child abuse is right because of this reason? Answer Yes or No

There are persons who murder mixed in with with non-murdering persons across cultures and history.

Do you think murder is right because of this reason? Answer Yes or No
etc..."


Anonysaurus Rex said…
The apt title for this article should have been, "How to teach bigotry and misinformation: A Catholic's propagation of patently false opinions as though they were fact"

So many unsubstantiated claims, presuppositions, logical errors (such as ipse dixit, circulus in probando, cum hoc ergo propter hoc) and falsehoods about basic biology and psychology, all packed into one article. Impressive! When so many canards are packed into one article it is difficult to address each one, so I'll just point out what I found hilariously ironic in the little time I have here.

The author flirts with the naturalistic fallacy, and says: "I had to first teach them what is natural to our nature and why it is good. God created what is natural for good reasons. [...] When ever we violate what is natural to our nature, we end with a disoriented nature, a sick nature"

The author goes on to assert the falsehood that homosexuality is a mental sickness: "This mental sickness borders on the demonic because it so violates nature."

No. Psychologists, psychiatrists, and other mental health professionals agree that homosexuality is not an illness, a mental disorder, or an emotional problem. More than 35 years of objective, well-designed scientific research has shown that homosexuality, in and itself, is not associated with mental disorders or emotional or social problems. American Psychological Association

Moreover, apparently the scientific fact that homosexuality occurs naturally throughout the animal kingdom (human beings included) was ignored:

Homosexuality is quite common in the animal kingdom, especially among herding animals. 1,500 animal species practice homosexuality

Article for laypeople showing scientific evidence that sexual orientation is at least, in part biological.

So according to his own logic, he has refuted his own position on homosexuality.

More unsubstantiated rubbish by the author. Bigotry and assertions pulled out of thin air: "[Homoseuxality] often leads to pedophilia, because sex for nothing but personal satisfaction and not out of love ends up by hating all that is pure. It is even a way of showing hatred for God. The pedophile hates God and everything pure."

Any credible sources to back this up? Nope. One does not need to have homosexual proclivities to be a pedophile (see: Self-esteem and coping strategies in child molesters. Journal of Interpersonal Violence or Facts about homosexuality and child molestation, Gregory M. Herek, Ph.D.), anymore than being heterosexuality leads to rape. Many pedophiles are homosexuals, but many are also heterosexuals. In the broad sense, pedophilia is a sexual preference for children, the orientation of sex is irrelevant. Are the multitude of Catholic clergy who sexually molest little girls necessarily homosexual? Moreover, according to the flawed logic in this article, many Catholic clergy must surely hate Yahweh. And perhaps even those in the upper echelons of the Church who cover-up such crimes.

Priest raped 13-year-old girl in sacristy of church

More documented sexual abuse cases from Catholic clergy than you can shake a stick at.
Mr. Martinez,

You chose to post this tripe from Salbato…

Re Salbato: “God created man to be attracted to women, and he starts this attraction at a very young age, 8 to 10 years old. Man does not know why but he just likes women. Women start younger because they mature much faster. A woman is sexually mature about 10 years sooner than man is. She is also more sexually aggressive. You are going to disagree with me right now, but I will explain this later.”

It’s offensive. Scientifically incorrect. Misogynistic. I remind you, just as you and others have the rights of free speech to spew such inane nonsense, the rest of us have the right to dispute it.

Where exactly is the scientific data to back this and the other ludicrous points?

I feel great pity for the mental state you and he must live in… fear of; women, homosexuals, and seemingly anyone not of your ilk.
Fred Martinez said…
Norman Mailer, in his book "Prisoner of Sex," shows why this relativism and moving away from natural objective truths such as heterosexual sex can lead to will to power:
"So, yes, [homosexuals] in prison strive to become part of the male population, and indeed – it is the irony of homosexuality – try to take on the masculine powers of the man who enters them, even as the studs, if Genet is our accurate guide, become effeminate over the years. ... Homosexuality is not heterosexuality. There is no conception possible, no, no inner space, no damnable spongy pool of a womb ... no hint remains of the awe that a life in these circumstances can be conceived. Heterosexual sex with contraception is become by this logic a form of sexual currency closer to the homosexual than the heterosexual, a clearinghouse for power, a market for psychic power in which the stronger will use the weaker, and the female in the act, whether possessed of a vagina or phallus, will look to ingest or steal the masculine qualities of the dominator."
This is the end result when universal truths and responsibility toward those truths are denied. The only "currency" left to the left is stealing of power, because they are insecure in any truth including their own objective masculinity.
Unsure of their own objective masculinity – or any objective truth, for that matter – they will not tolerate truth, calling it intolerance. They will not tolerate the truth of the purpose of sex, which is married love, with the creation of a secure family for the children of that love.
Anonysaurus Rex said…
In my previous post I briefly pointed out one of the logical fallacies being committed, the "is-ought" aka "naturalistic" fallacy, where the author is trying to appeal to what he opines is natural to derive an ethical conclusion.

I suspect you're not familiar with this logical fallacy as you regurgitated a quote which essentially does the same: an attempt to derive an ethical conclusion based on a factual premise. Even though the factual premise in the quote is incorrect, it is still committing the naturalistic fallacy.

The final two paragraphs of your post are non-sequiturs, and finishes with a false dichotomy. There is only "purpose" to sex in the functional sense: procreation, pleasure, social bonding, etc. Open a text book on the matter and read, scientific consensus is the closest we have to "truth", and it doesn't agree with your opinions.

When you throw around the word "purpose" in the context of biology you imply intent. There is no intent in biology. The biological naturalistic pressures that guide evolution are blind. To maintain a position of intent and purpose is tautological. It implies non-evolutionary design, and that implies a designer. Unless you're one of the kooks who deny (scientific) reality (evolution) and cling to Bronze age canards on the nature of reality, the onus is on you to prove this intent and purpose in biology: (a) a designer (b) his intent regarding the act of sex.

Finally, you're also ineffectually throwing around the worth "truth" and "objective" to buttress opinions that have no actual robust objective evidential support. At best they're pressupostions, and what can be said about those? In the words of the Greek mathematian Euclid, "what has been affirmed without proof can also be denied without proof."

I'd call what you're doing sophistry but that's a disgrace to the Sophists.

Have a good day, and thanks for the lulz.
Anonysaurus Rex said…
Just to clarify my comment about there being no intent or purpose in biology. There is functional purpose, but this is not the context in which you used the terms. You used them in the teleological sense, and it is in that teleological sense where there is no intent or purpose.
Fred Martinez said…
Even a functional purpose reguires intent.

You have to be kidding. The purpose of sex is not children. You need to reread Darwin.

This has to be a joke.
Mr. Martinez,

Are you agreeing that the sole purposes of sexual relationships and bonding are NOT procreation? You aren’t really clear if you are attempting sarcasm. Human sexuality has evolved within the human species. Sexual bonding has been inherently part of our development and how most of us make intimate connections with our mates. Any claim that sexual coupling ONLY serves as a vehicle to transport sperm is short sighted and accepted as a falsehood.

The only joke would be if you are referring to Ray Comfort’s version of Darwin‘s On the Origin of Species.

How Creationist 'Origin' Distorts Darwin
Occam's Taser said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonysaurus Rex said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonysaurus Rex said…
You didn't comprehend what I wrote:

There is only "purpose" to sex in the functional sense: procreation, pleasure, social bonding, etc.

The joke perhaps is your lack of comprehension between teleology and functional explanations in biology.

When Charles Darwin or evolutionary biologists use the word purpose, they do NOT use it in the teleological sense as you seem to be doing, but as functional explanations. Sexual reproduction is not some inherent purpose of sex. Sex, like other things, is merely a mechanism that results in the replication of genes. Thinking of it in terms other than mechanisms or processes is fallacious.

Don't worry, its a common misconception about evolutionary biology.

Evolution has no meaning or purpose. It is simply an indifferent phenomena. Perhaps in the future when you speak of purpose you should define your terms.

Edit: Deleted and re-posted to fix a typo.
On the topic of homosexuality, here is an amazing video: Just like their oppressors -- white Christians who used the Bible, "natural law", and religious arguments to justify discrimination against blacks -- these black Christians are using the same sorts of arguments to justify discrimination against homosexuals in the name of their god. Source: youtube.com/watch?v=OiIp5hOq1yA
Fred Martinez said…
There is a reason that Planned Parenthood and the homosexual political movement are so intertwined. Planned Parenthood was founded by Margaret Sanger, an avowed racist worshipper of Adolph Hitler. The ideology of Sanger and her ilk can be seen in the racism that is still a driving force within the elitist mindset of the homosexual political machine. And it is no wonder that homosexual activists have gone to great extremes to take over the civil rights movement in America so that they can gain dominance and control over the black leaders who have been historically in charge of the civil rights movement. Go to any Martin Luther King celebration and you will find white homosexual leaders, who have absolutely nothing in common with the grave injustices committed against blacks in America, running the celebrations and rememberance events.

http://jameshartlinereport.blogspot.com/2008/11/racism-bigotry-are-big-components-of.html
Fred Martinez said…
There is a reason that Planned Parenthood and the homosexual political movement are so intertwined. Planned Parenthood was founded by Margaret Sanger, an avowed racist worshipper of Adolph Hitler. The ideology of Sanger and her ilk can be seen in the racism that is still a driving force within the elitist mindset of the homosexual political machine. And it is no wonder that homosexual activists have gone to great extremes to take over the civil rights movement in America so that they can gain dominance and control over the black leaders who have been historically in charge of the civil rights movement. Go to any Martin Luther King celebration and you will find white homosexual leaders, who have absolutely nothing in common with the grave injustices committed against blacks in America, running the celebrations and rememberance events.

http://jameshartlinereport.blogspot.com/2008/11/racism-bigotry-are-big-components-of.html
Fred Martinez said…
You have to be kidding. The only observable final good of sex is not children. You need to reread Darwin.

Wikipedia says: “Biology has always been susceptible to teleological thought, even after Darwin proposed survival as the only observable final good.” 1 The only observable final good (for your sake we’ll use that instead of purpose) for Darwin is the survival of the species.

Darwin said: "[S]exual selection depends on the success of certain individuals over others of the same sex, in relation to the propagation of the species; while natural selection depends on the success of both sexes, at all ages, in relation to the general conditions of life. It is a struggle between individuals of one sex, generally the males, for the possession of the other sex. The result is not death to the unsuccessful competitor, but few or no offspring." (Darwin, 1859) 2

1.http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:GJ7jHnsjwNsJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology+purpose+teleological+darwin&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&ie=UTF-8]
2.http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:6qeYJYYudcYJ:web.missouri.edu/~flinnm/courses/mah/lectures/sexualselection.htm+reproductive+success+sexual+selection.+darwin&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&ie=UTF-8
Fred Martinez said…
First note that in order for the universe to fall back in on itself there would have to be enough mass for gravity to overcome the outward force of the expansion. But according to the best estimates scientists have, there isn't enough matter to cause such a contraction. Consequently, if the universe cannot contract, there could have been no previous big bangs and no endless cycles. At most you could posit one big bang.

There is nothing that would cause the universe to expand again after it had collapsed. If such a collapse occurred - a big crunch, so to speak - the universe would remain in an unimaginably compressed state, never capable of expanding again. The tremendous gravity exerted by such a great mass would prevent any expansion. Black holes, which are most probably collapsed stars, are an example of this phenomenon on a much smaller scale. A black hole's gravitational pull is so strong not even light is able to escape from it.

If all the matter in the universe were compressed into a single black hole or something like a black hole, the gravitational forces would be incalculable, and it is hard to imagine anything that could overcome them. If they couldn't be overcome, nothing could escape in the form of another big bang.

Even if there were a mechanism to re-expand the universe, each cycle of expansion and contraction would lose energy because of entropy, the tendency to of matter run down, much as a spring-driven clock runs down. The extent of the universe's expansion would diminish with each cycle - consider how swings of a pendulum slowly diminish - and eventually the universe would cease expanding entirely, its mass remaining collapsed. There could never be an infinite number of successive expansions and contractions.

Keep in mind that the idea that the universe came into existence as a result of a cataclysmic explosion of highly compressed matter is not inconsistent with the Catholic teaching that God created the universe. A big bang could have been part of his method of creation.

But an atheist has a problem here. If there really was a big bang, and if there could not have been an infinite series of big bangs before the present one, then there are only two possibilities: Either God created matter out of nothing and (arguably) set things going through a big bang - this alternative destroys atheism - or matter existed for an infinite amount of time in a primordial black hole state. But if it existed that way for an infinite amount of time, it never could have exploded in the big bang.

If an infinite amount of time passed without a big bang, then every combination of protoplasmic matter and energy would have existed at one time or another within that black hole, without any one combination leading to the big bang. All the combinations would have been tried, and none of them would have produced the explosion. (Remember, this presumes an infinite amount of time.) If none of the combinations could have produced a big bang, and if a big bang occurred anyway, it could have arisen only from outside intervention, not from anything inside the black hole.
Since the whole of the universe - all matter and energy, even space Itself - was compressed into the black hole, "outside" must imply a non-natural force, a force above nature, and that is the definition of supernatural. No matter which alternative an atheist takes, he ends up with God.
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/quickquestions/keyword/atheism
Anonysaurus Rex said…
"Planned Parenthood was founded by Margaret Sanger, an avowed racist worshipper of Adolph Hitler [blah blah blah]"

This is irrelevant and I really could care less about Margaret Sanger or Planned Parenthood, but just to illustrate dishonesty and bloviation of stupidity:

(1) Logical fallacy of posioning the well
(2) Logical fallacy of ad hominem attack.
(3) Regurgitating misinformation makes you dishonest, unless you're ignorant of what you copy-and-paste, but that makes you careless and oblivious to your confirmation bias.

Margaret Sanger was a member of the American Council Against Nazi Propaganda, and "gave money, my name and any influence I had with writers and others, to combat Hitler's rise to power in Germany." ("World War II and World Peace," 1940? [MSM S72:269])

Regardless, that particular reply of yours was a desperate attempt to refute the irrefutable video (St. B posted) which perfectly parallels the same religious arguments you use, to those that many white American Christians used to discriminate against black Americans.

Moreover, congratulations for being another person to prove Godwin's Law or Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies. It goes like this, "As a [...] discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches [...] whoever makes such a comparison is said to 'lose' the debate."
Anonysaurus Rex said…
Regarding your copy-and-pasting from http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/quickquestions/?qid=1549, "There are several points you could make. First note that in order for the universe to fall back in on itself there would have"

Do you often leave out the context of your quotes? You really should have copy-and-pasted the question your link is answering:

"How should I respond to an atheist who denies creation, claims there has been an infinite number of universes before this one, and believes that the universe was made not by God but through the "Big Bang," part of the universe's endless cycle of expansion and contraction?"

Who in this comments page espoused a position on the cyclical universe? And which model? There are more than one. Your link doesn't address the Steinhardt and Turok cylic model. The answer attempts to refute the question based on supernaturalist presuppositions, and some patently false and bare assertions.

For example, look at this bare assertion: "The universe would remain in an unimaginably compressed state".

Or look at this wonderfully obtuse claim that conflates black holes with a singularity: "Since the whole of the universe - all matter and energy, even space Itself - was compressed into the black hole."

If the author of that crap is going to discuss black holes, Hawking Radiation should be discussed since Hawking Radiation shows that black holes aren't a state of perfect entropy.

Not to mention the entire article is tautological, and it's conclusion creates infinite regress which is only escaped by yet another logical fallacy special pleading.

What will the next evasive reply entail? Perhaps some more canards that have already been refuted? Fine tuning canard perhaps?

Try staying on topic: "How to teach bigotry and misinformation: A Catholic's propagation of patently false opinions as though they were fact." The original post contains patently false claims regarding homosexuality which I detailed. You didn't address any of them.
Anonysaurus Rex said…
"You need to reread Darwin"

Modern evolutionary theory has been modified since Darwin's version. The ToE hasn't remained static in the face of new evidence and information (unlike religious dogmas). It's been 150 years since the ToE was published. Gaps in his knowledge have been filled, errors he's made corrected.

-----------

"The only observable final good of sex is not children." and Wikipedia says [...] even after Darwin proposed survival as the only observable final good."

You're quoting Larry Wright on Darwin, a philosophical publication from 1968. Don't pass that off as a position Darwin maintained unless you can provide the book, chapter, and page number Darwin said it in. It's nonsensical to attribute that position to Darwin. He said nothing about "good," "final" or otherwise. On the Origin of Species offered a hypothesis about the cause of observed speciation. It says nothing about the morality of that cause, or the moral implications of natural selection because there aren't any. Now I suppose this is where you reply with a vacuous "you need to reread Darwin," and cherry pick quotes to feed that confirmation bias.

Furthermore, did you even read the rest of the section? Nice quote mining.

--------

Our skulls are "for" preventing brain injuries when something hits our heads. That doesn't mean we should hit our head. Hitting our heads to allow our skulls to fulfill its biological "purpose" is just dumb, and the reasoning flawed.

But, if you must play this game:

(1) Addressing the false dichotomy regarding homosexuals and children: Homosexuals still have children. Sexual orientation is not an either-or trait but exists as a continuum (Haynes 1995). Those with some heterosexual orientation can still contribute homosexual genes (to the extent it is genetic; see above). And even the most extreme homosexuals sometimes have children.

(2) Genes for homosexuality could be beneficial on the whole. In bonobo chimpanzees, homosexual interactions are a form of social cement. It is possible that homosexuality evolved to serve social functions in humans, too (Kirkpatrick 2000). After all, social cohesion is still a main function of sex in humans.

The genetic etiology of homosexuality may come from a collection of traits that, when expressed strongly and in concert, result in homosexuality; expressed less strongly or without supporting traits, these traits contribute to the robust nature of our species. The genes for these traits persist because they usually combine to make us better at survival and reproduction.

Genetic factors linked to homosexuality in men apparently boost fertility in women. Female relatives of gay men, on their mother's side of the family, had more children than female relatives of heterosexual men. (Corna et al. 2004)

It should be noted that the question of explaining homosexuality is not limited to humans. Homosexuality exists in hundreds of animal species (Bagemihl 1998).
Anonysaurus Rex said…
There's a wealth of research on this, and it's even accessible to laypeople on popular science periodicals and sites.

IE: A common assumption is that homosexuality means not having children, but this is not necessarily true, especially in cultures other than our own. Until it became acceptable for same-sex couples to live together in western countries, many homosexual people had partners of the opposite sex. In some traditional societies, various forms of non-exclusive homosexuality were common.

Among animals, homosexual behaviour is usually non-exclusive. For instance, in some populations of Japanese macaques, females prefer female sexual partners to male ones but still mate with males - they are bisexual, in other words.

It has also been suggested that homosexuality boosts individuals' reproductive success, albeit indirectly. For instance, same-sex partners might have a better chance of rising to the top of social hierarchies and getting access to the opposite sex. In some gull species, homosexual partnerships might be a response to a shortage of males - rather than have no offspring at all, some female pairs raise offspring together after mating with a male from a normal male-female pair.

Another possibility is that homosexuality evolves and persists because it benefits groups or relatives, rather than individuals. In bonobos, homosexual behaviour might have benefits at a group level by promoting social cohesion. One study in Samoa found gay men devote more time to their nieces and nephews, suggesting it might be an example of kin selection (promoting your own genes in the bodies of others).
-Source
Anonysaurus Rex said…
Homosexual behavior is common in nature, and it plays an important role in survival,

[R]esearchers are finding that same-sex couplings are surprisingly widespread in the animal kingdom. Roy and Silo belong to one of as many as 1,500 species of wild and captive animals that have been observed engaging in homosexual activity. Researchers have seen such same-sex goings-on in both male and female, old and young, and social and solitary creatures and on branches of the evolutionary tree ranging from insects to mammals.

... the study of homosexual activity in diverse species may elucidate the evolutionary origins of such behavior. Researchers are now revealing, for example, that animals may engage in same-sex couplings to diffuse social tensions, to better protect their young or to maintain fecundity when opposite-sex partners are unavailable—or simply because it is fun. These observations suggest to some that bisexuality is a natural state among animals, perhaps Homo sapiens included, despite the sexual-orientation boundaries most people take for granted. “[In humans] the categories of gay and straight are socially constructed,” Anderson says."

...human same-sex environments might bring out normal tendencies that other settings tend to suppress. That is, some experts argue that humans, like some other animals, are naturally bisexual. “We should be calling humans bisexual because this idea of exclusive homosexuality is not accurate of people,” Roughgarden says. “Homosexuality is mixed in with heterosexuality across cultures and history.”


-Scientific American Mind, June 2008
Fred Martinez said…
There are child abusers mixed in with with non-child abusers across cultures and history.

Do you think child abuse is right because of this reason? Answer Yes or No

There are persons who murder mixed in with with non-murdering persons across cultures and history.

Do you think murder is right because of this reason? Answer Yes or No
etc...


Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Mass and the Church as well as for the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

"Exorcist Fr. Ripperger is asking everyone to say this Prayer until the Election is Resolved"

A good friend of the Catholic Monitor got this from a group message. She said "exorcist Fr. Chad Ripperger is asking everyone to say this prayer until the election is resolved": Prayer of Command In His Name and by the power of His Cross and Blood, I ask Jesus to bind any evil spirits, forces and powers of the earth, air, fire, or water, of the netherworld and the satanic forces of nature.  By the power of the Holy Spirit and by His authority, I ask Jesus Christ to break any curses, hexes, or spells and send them back to where they came from, if it be His Holy Will.  I beseech Thee Lord Jesus to protect us by pouring Thy Precious Blood on us (my family, etc.), which Thou hast shed for us and I ask Thee to command that any departing spirits leave quietly, without disturbance, and go straight to Thy Cross to dispose of as Thou sees fit.  I ask Thee to bind any demonic interaction, interplay, or communications.  I place N. (Person, place or thing) under the protectio

If Kamala Harris' Father is part White & part Jamaican African and her Mother is Asian-Indian then is she really Black?

  Is Joe Biden's running mate really Black? If Kamala Harris' father is part white and part Jamaican African and her mother is Asian-Indian then is she really Black? Reason.com tries to figure it out: Kamala Harris, Joe Biden's pick to be the Democratic Party's vice-presidential nominee, is the daughter of an Indian immigrant mother and a Jamaican immigrant father. Her father, as I understand it, has ancestors of both European and African origin. [Welcome new Volokh readers. FYI, I've been working on a book on the American Law of Race, with this forthcoming article the first relevant output. My own opinion is that Ms. Harris should be deemed American, period, but there is no such box on government forms, and if you decline to state your race, someone will decide for you… First things first. There is no multiracial or mixed-race category in American law in any jurisdiction. Nor is there an Indian category. So Harris cannot be legally Indian, nor can she b

Bishops of Colorado gave an apparent Vaxx "Exemption" Letter & Stated: "Vaccination is Not Morally Obligatory and so Must Be Voluntary"

Today, the bishops of Colorado gave an apparent Vaxx " exemption" letter (21_8_Vaccine_Exemption_CCC_Fin...docx(20KB)) and stated that "Vaccination is Not Morally Obligatory and so Must Be Voluntary":  COLORADO CATHOLIC CONFERENCE 1535 Logan Street | Denver, CO 80203-1913 303-894-8808 | cocatholicconference.org   [Date]   To Whom It May Concern, [Name] is a baptized Catholic seeking a religious exemption from an immunization requirement. This letter explains how the Catholic Church’s teachings may lead individual Catholics, including [name], to decline certain vaccines. The Catholic Church teaches that a person may be required to refuse a medical intervention, including a vaccination, if his or her conscience comes to this judgment. While the Catholic Church does not prohibit the use of most vaccines, and generally encourages them to safeguard personal and public health, the following authoritative Church teachings demonstrate the principled religious