7 Reasons Same-Sex “Marriage” Isn’t Conservative, or Marriage

[lightbeamrider]

As I said previously, there has not been for decades a serious, science-based suggestion that sexual orientation was a consequence of a “gay gene” that switched it one way or the other. That was a popular media headline.

You said it suggests ignorance and you also concluded i don’t like science.That is taking from the same dirty playbook as the atheists. Perhaps it has something do do with your statement here.

Those who refer to the “gay gene” typically do so to belittle the possibility that homosexuality is anything other than a willingness to partake in perverse behaviour. Why they are so fervent to reject the possibility of genetic, or biological influence, is beyond me. What fervently held belief would such a finding threaten?

This is all the genetic determinism of Dawkins et all we dance to DNA. It is more faddish then factual and comes with a broad array of consequences. Your comes across as Dawkins lite.
edge.org/q2006/q06_9.html

Isn’t the murderer or the rapist just a machine with a defective component?..Why is it that we humans find it almost impossible to accept such conclusions? Why do we vent such visceral hatred on child murderers, or on thuggish vandals, when we should simply regard them as faulty units that need fixing or replacing?

Compare to your statement here.

Why they are so fervent to reject the possibility of genetic, or biological influence, is beyond me. What fervently held belief would such a finding threaten?

Who am i addressing? A Dawkins clone who attends church?

I don’t “wish” for any particular explanation for the cause of homosexuality, I simply keep an open mind. Nor do I fear any, such as a biological influence, as some seem to.

Please. Equating skepticism to fear is self serving.

Why do you so vehemently deny the possibility of a biological influence on sexual attraction? Do you likewise reject that possibility for gender dysphoria?

It is garbage and comes with consequences. Since when is it a tenant of Catholicism to swallow, hook, line and sinker every so called theory from any scientist working from atheistic foundations? Then discounting dissent as not liking science or scientists? Take your sophism elsewhere.

By the way, the link above reports research suggestive of a genetic influence. The journalist harks back to the notion of “gay gene” but scientists explain it is not as simple as that. Perhaps in quoting that article, you are becoming more open to the possibility of biological (even genetic?) influence?

Not really.

 

[Rau]

You said it suggests ignorance and you also concluded i don’t like science.That is taking from the same dirty playbook as the atheists. Perhaps it has something do do with your statement here. This is all the genetic determinism of Dawkins et all we dance to DNA. It is more faddish then factual and comes with a broad array of consequences. Your comes across as Dawkins lite.
Compare to your statement here.
Who am i addressing? A Dawkins clone who attends church?
Please. Equating skepticism to fear is self serving. It is garbage and comes with consequences. Since when is it a tenant of Catholicism to swallow, hook, line and sinker every so called theory from any scientist working from atheistic foundations? Then discounting dissent as not liking science or scientists? Take your sophism elsewhere.
Not really.

A firm intention not to have an open-mind on a matter of scientific enquiry, where studies are not yet conclusive, must be due to something - a fear, or a belief from some other source. Care to share?

I have no idea why you attribute scientific research into this matter, or into the origins of the universe or of genetic mutations, or of Natural Selection to “atheistic foundations”. The Church has no objection to any of these things, nor did the religious who taught me science at school. And BTW, your dislike of scientists was expressed by your yourself at the end of one of your earlier posts! Do you recall writing this:
*“Even if scientists come up and state they have found the answer then they have to put forth their case which would appeal to many and probably be rejected by folks like me. Scientists interpret data based largely on their philosophy. That is why they write books like A Universe From Nothing and The God Delusion. They use their prestige as scientists to advance their atheism.”*It is not a tenet of Catholic faith to reject biological influences on behavioural traits, or any of the other scientific findings you have mentioned. That some scientist may take the view “there is no God” is a matter for that Scientist - such a conclusion is not science.