And I didn’t say it was. However, a significant genetic component allows us to label sexual orientation as genetic in the same sense that many other traits are labelled “genetic”, despite not being 100% determined by genes.A (singular) component (singular) is not the same thing as assigning causation, let alone sole causation.
The truth is the truth, and not a matter of ‘feelgoodism’ or opinion.Does it make you feel better about yourself to call homosexuals “disordered”?
Conflating your opinion with “the truth” does not actually strengthen your position, you know.The truth is the truth, and not a matter of ‘feelgoodism’ or opinion.
Do you think that’s the only way to view same-sex marriage? It’s not, even if you accept the idea that homosexuality is somehow disordered (which is a big “if” itself):Cheering on someone’s grave sins is the opposite of love. Are you also having difficulty understanding that distinction?
No. That’s where your pseudo-science is illogical. Physical disease does not work in the same way that social, sexual, and psychological dispositions and eventual identities do.And I didn’t say it was. However, a significant genetic component allows us to label sexual orientation as genetic in the same sense that many other traits are labelled “genetic”, despite not being 100% determined by genes.
Heck, even Huntington’s Disease, which AFAIK is the poster child of a “purely genetic” condition, doesn’t have a 100% correlation between genetic factors and incidence of the disease.
-/quote]
- personal freedom: my right to live as I please despite what others may think implies a moral duty on me to allow others to live as they please despite what I may think.
This is known as license.
How do social, sexual, and psychological dispositions and eventual identities work?No. That’s where your pseudo-science is illogical. Physical disease does not work in the same way that social, sexual, and psychological dispositions and eventual identities do.
Call it Meryl Streep if it makes you happy; the term you use for it doesn’t affect its validity.This is known as license.
Don’t know? That’s an irresponsible comment since professionals have been studying the causes for many years. Here is what the Catholic Medical Association has to say:You mean they are trying hard to figure it out, but don’t know?
Lacking scientific evidence it is indeed irresponsible to assign homosexuality to genetics. It is equally irresponsible to assign it to anything without solid scientific evidence.
There may be indications that point in different directions, but that’s all they are. It’s simple, We don’t know.
The Church uses this term in a descriptive way. It is not designed to make anyone feel this way or that way.Does it make you feel better about yourself to call homosexuals “disordered”?
I agree professionals have been studying the issue for years. And they still don’t know. Lots of effort doesn’t mean they have succeeded in their effort. That includes the Catholic Medical Association.Don’t know? That’s an irresponsible comment since professionals have been studying the causes for many years. Here is what the Catholic Medical Association has to say:
narth.com/docs/hope.html
And without using scientific evidence, a group of gay activists arbitrarily removed homosexuality as a disorder from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual in 1973.
Peace,
Ed
In the unholy name of ‘tolerance,’ an entire generation has been robbed blind and witless. The idea is not unfounded. The truth is not malleable, nor is it a matter of opinion.Conflating your opinion with “the truth” does not actually strengthen your position, you know.
Do you think that’s the only way to view same-sex marriage? It’s not, even if you accept the idea that homosexuality is somehow disordered (which is a big “if” itself):
And that’s just off the top of my head.
- personal freedom: my right to live as I please despite what others may think implies a moral duty on me to allow others to live as they please despite what I may think.
- harm reduction: these people will be homosexual no matter how the law treats them, so they may as well have somewhat less misery inflicted on them here on Earth before they spend their eternity in Hell.
- protection of innocent parties: I disagree with how this couple conducts their life, but I won’t punish them in a way that also hurts their children, who I have no issue with at all.
Even if you accept the (IMO unfounded) idea that homosexuality is a sin, there are still plenty of reasons founded in actual love, charity and justice to support same-sex marriage.
Neat. You managed to respond without actually addressing the central point of my post at all.In the unholy name of ‘tolerance,’ an entire generation has been robbed blind and witless. The idea is not unfounded. The truth is not malleable, nor is it a matter of opinion.
Thank God Holy Mother Church still teaches the Truth. We can never, ever cheer on anyone in their sin.
I trust you don’t recognize the irony in this statement.“Blessed are you when they persecute you for My sake.”
Conflating your opinion with “the truth” does not actually strengthen your position, you know.
Not to speak for him–but I think he might argue it is not his “opinion” per se but as a teaching on faith and morals of the Catholic Church – it is protected from error by the Holy Spirit–this moves it to the realm of truth. This is something that you, apparently do not hold to be true
Do you think that’s the only way to view same-sex marriage? It’s not, even if you accept the idea that homosexuality is somehow disordered (which is a big “if” itself):
And that’s just off the top of my head.
- personal freedom: my right to live as I please despite what others may think implies a moral duty on me to allow others to live as they please despite what I may think.
Your personal freedom – your right to live as you please despite what others may think–is limited by many laws. You cant be married to more than one person, you cant be married to an animal, you can’t run around killing people you don’t like, you cant steal, you cant take illegal drugs --your right to live as you might please is subject to a whole lot of rules imposed on you by society. So as a member of society–there are lots of people you are not letting live as they might wish. Anything else is called chaos.- harm reduction: *these people will be homosexual no matter how the law treats them, so they may as well have somewhat less misery inflicted on them here on Earth before they spend their eternity in Hell. *
- protection of innocent parties: I disagree with how this couple conducts their life, but I won’t punish them in a way that also hurts their children, who I have no issue with at all.
Even if you accept the (IMO unfounded) idea that homosexuality is a sin, there are still plenty of reasons founded in actual love, charity and justice to support same-sex marriage.
In that case, it’s his opinion the teaching is protected from error by the HS.Not to speak for him–but I think he might argue it is not his “opinion” per se but as a teaching on faith and morals of the Catholic Church – it is protected from error by the Holy Spirit–this moves it to the realm of truth. This is something that you, apparently do not hold to be true
Yes, our freedom has legal limits, but in a free society these limits must have reasonable justification.Your personal freedom – your right to live as you please despite what others may think–is limited by many laws. You cant be married to more than one person, you cant be married to an animal, you can’t run around killing people you don’t like, you cant steal, you cant take illegal drugs --your right to live as you might please is subject to a whole lot of rules imposed on you by society. So as a member of society–there are lots of people you are not letting live as they might wish. Anything else is called chaos.
On an island with 100 people, 97 people want to do something and 3 disagree. What are you going to do? I have watched the gradual, methodical poisoning of sociey in the West for the last 40 years. Everything has become sexualized. Prostitute was relabeled porn star. Stripper was relabeled exotic dancer.Yes, our freedom has legal limits, but in a free society these limits must have reasonable justification.
And there’s quite a wide gap between the exact situation that we have now and “chaos”. The mere fact that the laws are what they are now does not necessarily mean that we will descend into anarchy if those laws are modified somewhat.
The point I was trying to get at is that people are granted personal freedom all on the same basis. It would be hypocritical for me to deny one person or group freedom based merely on my distaste for or offense at what they do if *I *do things that others find distasteful or offensive as well… and everybody does things that others find distasteful or offensive.
Nobody cares about universal acceptance. SSM advocates want access to civil marriage, not your mind. Think whatever you want.On an island with 100 people, 97 people want to do something and 3 disagree. What are you going to do? I have watched the gradual, methodical poisoning of sociey in the West for the last 40 years. Everything has become sexualized. Prostitute was relabeled porn star. Stripper was relabeled exotic dancer.
Right now, around the world, people are doing whatever they want behind closed doors. It is another thing entirely to ask to legalize something and to demand universal acceptance. Plans are being made for what happens Beyond Gay Marriage. It is interesting that one of the signatories for this document is the same Gloria Steinem who said, “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.”
firstthings.com/onthesquare/2006/08/robert-george-beyond-gay-marri
And what was shown at this year’s Cannes Film Festival? A movie called Zoo about bestiality. Yep, the Polys (polygamists) and Zoos (sex with animals) are standing in line, waiting for everyone to say: “Hey. What’s the big deal?” Is MANBLA (Man Boy Love Association) far behind?
The Sexual Revolution was about sex, not love.
Peace,
Ed
School boards are elected.Here is what’s happening in Massachussets:
massresistance.org/docs/marriage/effects_of_ssm.html
Little kids in school are forced to read a story book called King and King. Parents cannot opt out. It is not a parental notification issue. This is not about what two adults do in their own home but an invasion of the public school system and the denial of rights of parents of kids who are below the age of puberty being taught something they object to.
Peace,
Ed