Catholicism

Statement: "Sexual intercourse that has no intent of making children doesn't cause bad things to happen. " Response: Con refused to answer my question. I asked Con if he agreed that the primary purpose of sexual intercourse was to conceive children. Con has not only refused to answer my question, but he has attempted to divert my argument by arguing that there are no negatives to sexual activity that destroys the purpose of sexual activity. This is a completely unfounded argument. Also, there are negatives to sexual activity that does not intend to conceive children. First, it can damage or destroy a relationship. Second, it can harm both participants by treating the other not as their partner, but as an object for their pleasure, as pleasure would become the new purpose for sexual activity, transforming it into a selfish, possessive activity rather than one that celebrates the creation of life. Statement: "Who would come to the conclusion that masturbation is a bad thing to do? " Response: I would. So would other Catholics. So would other Christians. So would many others. Do you want names? Statement: "Who would logically come up with the statement that homosexual behavior is bad and that masturbation is bad. " Response: I would. So would other Catholics. Is this an argument or just you in disbelief that people disagree with you? Statement: "I am saying Catholics pray TO saints not PRAY ABOUT them. " Response: I know that's what you're saying. You're just incorrect and misinformed. I clarified for you in R2. Statement: "Also yes we should worry about sinning, but we should worry about what we can logically conclude is bad. " Response: I agree. Logically, masturbation and homosexual behavior pervert the purpose of sexual intercourse by shifting the purpose from conceiving children to gaining pleasure. This transforms a selfless act that is pleasurable by its very nature into a selfish act that treats others like objects, or in the case of masturbation, treating yourself like an object. If you want a logical syllogism, here it is: TO BE ASSUMED: That the purpose of sexual intercourse is to conceive children (Con has dropped this contention) AND that all moral behavior is behavior that follows its purpose (Con has also dropped this contention). 1) All sexual behavior that cannot conceive children is behavior that is immoral (Assumption 1+2). 2) All homosexual behavior is behavior which cannot conceive children. 3) Therefore, all homosexual behavior is behavior that is immoral. AAA-1 syllogism, valid Is this logical enough for you, Con? Statement: "Catholics view everything not in a rational logical way, but in an irrational nonsensical way. " Response: "All" is an universal affirmative statement. If there is at least one rational, logical Catholic in the span of mankind, this argument fails. I offer Saint Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and over the course of this debate, myself. I would ask the judges if I have remained rational and logical in presenting my arguments. I would ask the judges to view the many works of Thomas Aquinas and Saint Augustine, such as "Confessions" and "Summa Theologica. " If any of these contain rational, logical conclusions, Con's argument fails. Statement: "Also to add another topic to this debate. .. " Response: It's the final round, and to add new topics to the debate is in violation of conduct. Statement: "Priests rape little boys because they are stripped of EVERY OTHER MEAN OF PLEASURING THEMSELF" Response: No, they do so because they succumbed to temptation. It's the same reason any sin occurs. You hurt others because you succumbed to the temptation to do so. How do I prevent this? Not by letting you beat up animals when you get mad, but by enrolling you in anger management courses. To allow others to use sin as a coping mechanism will not solve the issue, it will only enrage and worsen the condition. Statement: "How could you strip such things from a person's life, it's not right. " Response: It's not right to be doing those things. And furthermore, I am not the one stripping those from the Priest's life, the Priest is entering a covenant between him and God. How am I responsible for him living a holy life? How am I the one stripping him of his "right to sin? " He is the one who made the decision to become a Priest. Statement: "I could hardly go a week without masturbating. " Response: It's a struggle. Did you want life to be easy? Statement: "Catholicism asks of you to do ridiculous things that me personally could never do. " Response: Should you give up, then? We all fall short. I'll admit, masturbation is one of the things that I struggle with on a day to day basis. It's really difficult to tell my body no. But every time I tell myself that I will abstain, that I will not give in to temptation, it is a victory. Every time I find myself face to face with my temptations and make the right choice, it is a victory. God doesn't expect you to be perfect. He expects you to fight. He expects you to lose many times, but far more importantly, He will rejoice when you win. So to you, Con, I ask you to continue fighting for what you know to be right. I ask you to challenge yourself the next time temptation comes, rather than succumbing to pleasure. It will be difficult, sure. But it will be worth it. To conclude, I will summarize how I ask the judges to vote upon this debate. I ask the voters to consider conduct because Con brought up new topics in the final round. I would ask the voters to tie us on sources, as neither of us used any (they were unnecessary in this debate, as it was over ideals that required no physical evidence). I ask for arguments, as I carefully and specifically addressed all of Con's points, while Con dropped almost all my contentions. Finally, I ask that spelling and grammar be left up to you, as while Con's arguments are littered with typos and grammatical irregularities, I personally could understand his arguments to a reasonable degree, yet I am unsure as to how they came across to a non-participant in this debate.