But marriage is a benefit offered by the state and so, the Courts will probably decide this issue for us.Who decides? We decide because a marriage license is not a natural right. And Catholics should oppose Gay marriage for the reasons in the argument below.
There’s no charity in advancing error.And everyone should support Gay marriage it in the name of charity, which is far closer to social justice, the forum we are in, than any of the objections.
Approving of the sinful can’t be done in the name of “charity”.But marriage is a benefit offered by the state and so, the Courts will probably decide this issue for us.
And everyone should support Gay marriage it in the name of charity, which is far closer to social justice, the forum we are in, than any of the objections.
No, it doesn’t. I was addressing an issue of why this is not contra-survival in terms of evolutionary biology.Your rationale lies in assuming that gay men are especially helpful in the raising of children related to them, but you don’t demonstrate that they actually are.
You remember why Jesus said God allowed Jewish men to divorce their wives?There’s no charity in advancing error.
**Catholics should all oppose gay marriage because promoting a “gay lifestyle” is contrary to the mandates of their Church, its Sacred Tradition, and the natural law. **But marriage is a benefit offered by the state and so, the Courts will probably decide this issue for us.
And everyone should support Gay marriage it in the name of charity, which is far closer to social justice, the forum we are in, than any of the objections.
But it’s not promoting a gay lifestyle. It’s promoting what had been a straight lifestyle, to gays.**Catholics should all oppose gay marriage because promoting a “gay lifestyle” is contrary to the mandates of their Church, its Sacred Tradition, and the natural law. **
Promoting hatred, prejudice, and the marginalization of people should also be. No one is suggesting any Catholic gay weddings. This is not a Catholic issue, this is a legal civil issue.Simply spoken, promoting sin is against our very being.
I’m one of the ones who suggested it in the first place. That was a couple-three decades ago. Yes, I do believe in love in action. Yes, I believe this is love.As far as charity, what do you think you are giving to these gay people? Are you loving them by giving them what they want?
I think this issue is more complicated than who should and who shouldn’t have sex with whom. And that would bring us to the actual topic of the thread which, so far, I have not seen discussed: the social implications of same sex marriage, which are all incredibly positive, IMO.** Or is love more complicated than that?**
**Previously **3) The laws concerning marriage licenses and the associated benefits were written to encourage/promote marriage according to society’s Christian beliefs. Gay marriage in the same way would promote/encourage gay marriage in the same fashion.But it’s not promoting a gay lifestyle. It’s promoting what had been a straight lifestyle, to gays. .
Legal issuePromoting hatred, prejudice, and the marginalization of people should also be. No one is suggesting any Catholic gay weddings. This is not a Catholic issue, this is a legal civil issue. .
Social ImplicationsI’m one of the ones who suggested it in the first place. That was a couple-three decades ago. Yes, I do believe in love in action. Yes, I believe this is love.
I think this issue is more complicated than who should and who shouldn’t have sex with whom. And that would bring us to the actual topic of the thread which, so far, I have not seen discussed: the social implications of same sex marriage, which are all incredibly positive, IMO.
Okay. Please link me to a few pages on Facebook of kids thinking they are gay who were compromised at one time. I’ll look at these social implications in person.Social Implications
You do great harm by encouraging such behaviour. Go onto facebook… there are more and more young kids being convinced they are gay. They were compromised at one time (maybe drinking with friends) and someone tempted them to “try it out”. Now they think they are gay. This is not love; this is about wordly self praise. If you want to see what true freedom and love look like, read the lives of the Saints.
That argument only works if homosexual orientation is genetically determined. And that has never been shown. At best, it seems that the data is pointing toward a *possible *genetic predispostion that can be influenced by a number of factors including psychological temperment and environment (including in vitro).No, it doesn’t. I was addressing an issue of why this is not contra-survival in terms of evolutionary biology.
Once a trait enters the population and becomes genetically stabilized, it remains unless something selects against it. This is an ancient system, not something new, that spans the vertebrate world. From fish to chickens to horses, chimps and people, we find this same sex behavior. So, we are going to need a powerful force to select against gayness for it to die out.
But that’s not going to happen because selection acts on individuals and traits, but that action must change the proportion of genes in the population.
The reason this would be difficult is the relationship referred to before in the articles I linked that show that gayness in men comes from women. Genetically and biochemically. The same gene complex that makes it more likely a boy will be born gay, also makes women “superbreeders” - very fertile, fast-breeding, able to bear many children far into middle-age. When they do this, they are most likely to produce a gay male.
Genetics doesn’t care if he grows up and moves away and never writes or calls. They are the woman’s genes, and we select for women who can produce many healthy offspring, thus keeping a stable appearance of gayness trait in the human population.
I think the problem is, people think “genetically determined” means a gene that makes something be that way. ALL traits have influences from things besides a gene. That’s phenotype: the result of the interaction of genes and environment. Your eye color is the same way, but you wouldn’t say it wasn’t inherited, would you? You can make a gay person without the genetic make-up to be gay regardless of other influences. You can’t make people have brown eyes without the genes to make the right amount of melatonin.That argument only works if homosexual orientation is genetically determined. And that has never been shown. At best, it seems that the data is pointing toward a *possible *genetic predispostion that can be influenced by a number of factors including psychological temperment and environment (including in vitro).
I would not do that. I don’t even know you. NO offense.Okay. Please link me to a few pages on Facebook of kids thinking they are gay who were compromised at one time. I’ll look at these social implications in person.
Faithdancer,I’m curious as well to know her position on absolute morality, since she brought up “altruistic traits.” Unbelievers often bring up the “altruistic trait” rationale to explain away morality grounded in natural law.
Isn’t it easier to test for bisexual males than homosexuals? “Gayness” is a cultural phenomenon, while bisexuality is something that is easier to find in the historical records. Such a person is attracted to both males and females. What he is attracted to is certain qualities in a person that can be found in either sex.No, it doesn’t. I was addressing an issue of why this is not contra-survival in terms of evolutionary biology.
Once a trait enters the population and becomes genetically stabilized, it remains unless something selects against it. This is an ancient system, not something new, that spans the vertebrate world. From fish to chickens to horses, chimps and people, we find this same sex behavior. So, we are going to need a powerful force to select against gayness for it to die out.
But that’s not going to happen because selection acts on individuals and traits, but that action must change the proportion of genes in the population.
The reason this would be difficult is the relationship referred to before in the articles I linked that show that gayness in men comes from women. Genetically and biochemically. The same gene complex that makes it more likely a boy will be born gay, also makes women “superbreeders” - very fertile, fast-breeding, able to bear many children far into middle-age. When they do this, they are most likely to produce a gay male.
Genetics doesn’t care if he grows up and moves away and never writes or calls. They are the woman’s genes, and we select for women who can produce many healthy offspring, thus keeping a stable appearance of gayness trait in the human population.
Fair enough. So let’s stay off the personal, and try this:I would not do that. I don’t even know you. NO offense.
Why would you think that according gay folks civil rights and benefits of marriage under the law is not giving them God?As far as charity, what do you think you are giving to these gay people? If you don’t give them God, what do you give them?
The part of DNA outside the genes clearly has to do with a lot of human development, and of course, whatever environment in which cells find themselves. A lot of claims about homosexuality are speculations or logical leaps, something like historical theories based on scant evidence.I think the problem is, people think “genetically determined” means a gene that makes something be that way. ALL traits have influences from things besides a gene. That’s phenotype: the result of the interaction of genes and environment. Your eye color is the same way, but you wouldn’t say it wasn’t inherited, would you? You can make a gay person without the genetic make-up to be gay regardless of other influences. You can’t make people have brown eyes without the genes to make the right amount of melatonin.
The fact that gayness in males is genetically-linked has been clearly demonstrated.
Once you select-out the genes, gayness in males would be a very rare condition, a mutation. I don’t think it can happen, though.
The bisexuals I’ve known like women’s anatomy and men’s. And not things they have in common. Bisexuals come in both genders.Isn’t it easier to test for bisexual males than homosexuals? “Gayness” is a cultural phenomenon, while bisexuality is something that is easier to find in the historical records. Such a person is attracted to both males and females. What he is attracted to is certain qualities in a person that can be found in either sex.
Jesus never said God allowed Jewish men to divorce their wives. He said,You remember why Jesus said God allowed Jewish men to divorce their wives?
Nice. And one cannot deny absolute morality and be a Christian, let alone a Catholic Christian.Faithdancer,
There are two sources of information in our minds. The first is stored information that comes from the outside world and the other is imagination. Other than imagination I cannot understand where the notion of altruistic traits emanates from.
Moses was God’s Prophet. Mosaic Law is considered the Word of God. Under Mosaic Law there was divorce. You said:Jesus never said God allowed Jewish men to divorce their wives. He said,
“It was because of your hardness of heart that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives. But from the beginning it was not this way. 9I tell you that whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” (Matt 19:8)
Moses is not God.
Sometimes there is.Originally Posted by markeverett49 forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
There’s no charity in advancing error.