Gay Professor has my class convinced that Gay marriage is good!

[Voco_proTatiano]

That is overly simplistic. Physical evils such as mutations and deviations that lead to loss of health and proper function are the result of God’s permitting will.

Or more likely, a deliberately installed variability.
Consider sickle cell anaemia. it is a nasty disease, causing great pain and suffering, and early death to double possitive sufferers, but single positive carriers suffer no symptoms.
However, sickle cell anaemia gives protection against malaria, which when uncontrolled is greater than 75% fatal.
Sickle cell anaemia only harms 25% of an infected population, and then only when the sufferer becomes annoxic.
In an area where malaria is endemic, sickle cell anaemia is then a benefit to a population, even though it causes suffering and early death to a portion of that population. What appears evil, is actually beneficial.

Again, a permitting will and an ordaining will.

Or designed in flexibility.

We are not talking about statistics. We are talking about health and disease.

Every time you talk about normal and abnormal, you are, maybe unconciously, talking statistics.

Right order and disorder. That statistics can quantify how often something occurs or not,

More important, they signify whether a deviation from normal is significant.

but that does not answer why it occurs or what is health.

The body, and its defence mechanism is constantly under attack. Much of the food we eat contains poisons designed to protect that which is being eaten, from the eater. That is, its defence mechanism. This is kill or be killed on a micro-scale.
When your body’s defence mechanism is coping with the attacks it is constantly under, that is seen by you as good health. When the invaders get the upper hand, that is then bad health. Various physical and dietry regimes can enhance the defence mechanisms, and those are healthy regimes, likewise, some can damage the mechanism, and they are unhealthy. And yes, statistics can go a long way towards defining these regimes. Medicare insurance companies are aware and use statistics to assess your health. Just look at the questions on the proforma.

Truth is a person, Jesus Christ.

That is a statement of faith, and I would not presume to answer it.

 

[fix]

Or more likely, a deliberately installed variability.
Consider sickle cell anaemia. it is a nasty disease, causing great pain and suffering, and early death to double possitive sufferers, but single positive carriers suffer no symptoms.
However, sickle cell anaemia gives protection against malaria, which when uncontrolled is greater than 75% fatal.
Sickle cell anaemia only harms 25% of an infected population, and then only when the sufferer becomes annoxic.
In an area where malaria is endemic, sickle cell anaemia is then a benefit to a population, even though it causes suffering and early death to a portion of that population. What appears evil, is actually beneficial.

Again, you are over simplifying things. Sickle cell trait may be beneficial in certain circumstances and pathologic in others. Such variability does not mean we cannot define health and pathology.

Or designed in flexibility.

So-called flexibility needs to be consistent with health. If it manifests itself in a pathologic way it is not health. That imperfections exist does not mean that was intended before the fall of man.

Every time you talk about normal and abnormal, you are, maybe unconciously, talking statistics.

Not always. I am talking about man’s end as designed by God and right reason. You want a slippery scale to fit in the homosexual apologetics. I get it.

More important, they signify whether a deviation from normal is significant.

Yes, they can be true. But so what?

The body, and its defence mechanism is constantly under attack. Much of the food we eat contains poisons designed to protect that which is being eaten, from the eater. That is, its defence mechanism. This is kill or be killed on a micro-scale.
When your body’s defence mechanism is coping with the attacks it is constantly under, that is seen by you as good health. When the invaders get the upper hand, that is then bad health. Various physical and dietry regimes can enhance the defence mechanisms, and those are healthy regimes, likewise, some can damage the mechanism, and they are unhealthy. And yes, statistics can go a long way towards defining these regimes. Medicare insurance companies are aware and use statistics to assess your health. Just look at the questions on the proforma.

I am well aware of that and more, but that does not answer my argument at all. What you attempt to describe is the current simple definition of infection. That assumes we know what health is in the first place, and we do know.

That is a statement of faith, and I would not presume to answer it.

Faith and reason. Rationalism excludes faith and leads one to deny truth.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Again, you are over simplifying things. Sickle cell trait may be beneficial in certain circumstances and pathologic in others. Such variability does not mean we cannot define health and pathology.

So-called flexibility needs to be consistent with health. If it manifests itself in a pathologic way it is not health. That imperfections exist does not mean that was intended before the fall of man.

In most cases, a varient is only pathological, when the carrier is in the wrong place.
With sickle cell anaemia, the endemic zone is low-lying swamp, where malaria is endemic, and due to the low lay of the land, anoxia is uncommon.
Consider also, the white skinned person living in Australia, and the prevalence of skin cancer there.
Also, consider a Dark skinned person living in the North lands, and there, among them, you will find vitamin D deficiency.
Dark skin protects against skin cancer, but impedes vitamin D production and V.V.
All these varients in their proper location are beneficial. The evil is not in the design, but in its misuse.

Not always. I am talking about man’s end as designed by God and right reason. You want a slippery scale to fit in the homosexual apologetics. I get it.

Absolutely not.
I just tell you what is, and what you cannot change, and so how you can better live with it. Perhaps that comes from Buddhism. There is though a Christian prayer which says much the same.

Yes, they can be true. But so what?

If you do not know if a deviation is significant, how can you know it is important?

I am well aware of that and more, but that does not answer my argument at all. What you attempt to describe is the current simple definition of infection. That assumes we know what health is in the first place, and we do know.

Faith and reason. Rationalism excludes faith and leads one to deny truth.

Faith without rationalism is irrational faith.

 

[Chancellare]

The problem with an absolute minority of people being allowed to impose THEIR new interpretation of Marriage on the rest of us via the courts, is that by doing so, they will establish in law the right of ANY minority to insist on and obtain judicial fiat imposition of THEIR new re-definition of marriage too…until the time comes when Marriage has been redefined to be totally subjective.

The problem is that a single human nature exists which means certain activities lead to harm and others to health. Social constructs such as gay marriage or plural marriage or temporary marriage while ‘THINKABLE’ aren’t therefore “naturally good for you”.

It won’t be long now before “plural marriages” will be approved following the same thinking of the gay marriage crowd. Soon the age of consent will be lowered as well to whatever age is appropriate for a girl to be ‘autonomous’ in the abortion decision (8 years old) by the same logic.

Since - by the logic being invoked - there is no human nature, no “norm that is good” but all is grey, who is to say extreme age differences is wrong and not merely ‘novel’? Thus we’ll get men marrying boys - but marriage will be temporary too - since who’s to say it must be permanent? If we can open the definition to ANY MINORITY, why not allow people - couples, groups, or even corporations to “marry” for only an hour?

There is no 40 year longitudinal study PROVING that corporate marriages lasting only 60 minutes (hitherto called orgies) is harmful to children, thus by the gay logic of “no past study is proof positive that no future study will prove our whim negative”, we will redefine marriage to include orgies lasting any period of time.

Ah but what’s the big deal and how does this affect my marriage you say? It’s not about me - or you - it’s about society as a whole. Millions of real people - many as yet unborn who will suffer the social consequences.

The emotional debris of pan sexualism took Western civilization nearly a thousand years to overcome and the costs of pan sexualism is coming home to roost even now with higher rates of suicide, depression, ennui, and child abuse than ever before, to say nothing of the damage being done to the gene pool by the rapid spread of hereditary STDs.

It’s not a coincidence that every great empire collapsed within a few generations of the explosion of sexual promiscuity among their elites and lower classes.

Men have been playing with social constructs from the beginning but you can’t fool nature.

I agree. The collapse of all dead civilizations way back into hazy history, from etruscans to mayans to romans, etc, even to present times (some existing civilizations are imploding as we speak) all trace their downfall on either moral decay or low regard for the value of life.

 

[perez639]

WOW, soooooooooooo many have replied since I was last on!!! Wonderful, now if only I could finish this paper I am currently doing and get thru several tests this week so that I sould read them all!!! Later this week I will start replying, but let the debates continue:thumbsup:

Peace be with you all,

Neomi

 

[fix]

In most cases, a varient is only pathological, when the carrier is in the wrong place.
With sickle cell anaemia, the endemic zone is low-lying swamp, where malaria is endemic, and due to the low lay of the land, anoxia is uncommon.
Consider also, the white skinned person living in Australia, and the prevalence of skin cancer there.
Also, consider a Dark skinned person living in the North lands, and there, among them, you will find vitamin D deficiency.
Dark skin protects against skin cancer, but impedes vitamin D production and V.V.
All these varients in their proper location are beneficial. The evil is not in the design, but in its misuse.

Please start a new thread and I will happy to discuss this further. The point here is that deviations, beneficial or not, do not determine morality. Morality exists above these things.

Absolutely not.
I just tell you what is, and what you cannot change, and so how you can better live with it. Perhaps that comes from Buddhism. There is though a Christian prayer which says much the same.

The Church has given us the answer. It was alluded to in your link to the Vatican document.

If you do not know if a deviation is significant, how can you know it is important?

Again, we start from a correct understanding of physical and moral health. That can be known. Why do you deny that?

Faith without rationalism is irrational faith.

It is faith and reason, not Rationalism.

Please see here as a start:

ENCYCLICAL LETTER
***FIDES ET RATIO ***

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Please start a new thread and I will happy to discuss this further. The point here is that deviations, beneficial or not, do not determine morality. Morality exists above these things.

I was not intending to lecture on genetics, merely to enlighten that what is seen as evil, may not be intrisicly evil, but just misused, or misunderstood.

The Church has given us the answer. It was alluded to in your link to the Vatican document.

The church condemns, and here I do not argue, carnal knowledge between same sex couples, who are male and/or famale.
The church does not condemn association between members of the same sex, except where its spewcific purpose is as above.
Thus, whereas ‘Gay Marriage’ is anathema, civil partnership does not need to be.

Again, we start from a correct understanding of physical and moral health. That can be known. Why do you deny that?

I do not deny, I just say that our moral health is not perfect: 'Let him without sin cast the first stone.

It is faith and reason, not Rationalism.

Reason and rationality are the same.

Please see here as a start:

ENCYCLICAL LETTER
***FIDES ET RATIO ***

Thankyou, I will read this, but it will take several minutes!

 

[fix]

I was not intending to lecture on genetics, merely to enlighten that what is seen as evil, may not be intrisicly evil, but just misused, or misunderstood.

Genetic variation that results in physical or mental dysfunction is a type of evil. That evil entered into the world with the fall of man. Your distinctions do not prove that good and evil are simply on a type of continuum. What they show is that pathology may exist. Again, all things that are disordered were not intended that way from the beginning. Scientific oberservations show variability what they do not show is moral truth.

The church condemns, and here I do not argue, carnal knowledge between same sex couples, who are male and/or famale.
The church does not condemn association between members of the same sex, except where its spewcific purpose is as above.
Thus, whereas ‘Gay Marriage’ is anathema, civil partnership does not need to be.

Part true, part false. The Church condems so called civil partnerships. Read the documentments from Rome. They are very clear.

I do not deny, I just say that our moral health is not perfect: 'Let him without sin cast the first stone.

What does that have to do with knowing moral truth with certainty?

Reason and rationality are the same.
Thankyou, I will read this, but it will take several minutes!

No Rationalism is a philosophical system that excludes faith. It is not identical with reason.

 

[Digger71]

It is not about taxes. It is about legitimizing what is illegitimate. People want that mantle of legitimacy from the state to further their agenda of normalization.

Ah, but it is about taxes, civil rights, equality, next of kin status for many. It is easy to see things excusively from a religious perspective, but western societies are seldom seen from that perspective alone. Legal rights mean something, regardless of assertion otherwise.

It may not be about civil rights and benefits to the religious types, but from the otherside, it’s always been about that.

 

[LittleDeb]

Ah, but it is about taxes, civil rights, equality, next of kin status for many. It is easy to see things excusively from a religious perspective, but western societies are seldom seen from that perspective alone. Legal rights mean something, regardless of assertion otherwise.

It may not be about civil rights and benefits to the religious types, but from the otherside, it’s always been about that.

I disagree. If it were only about those things then the agenda would be about supporting the rights of single people.

The petitions would be about making it possible for single people to more easily and cheaply name their next of kin and pass on money to a person of their choosing. They aren’t. The petitions are to make couples of the same sex viewed identically as married couples.

A lot if us are in support of helping the many celibates we know have an easier time declaring their next of kin. But to make a 90-year-old nun’s next of kin a 60-year-old, doesn’t make sense on the reciprocal.

 

[Digger71]

I disagree. If it were only about those things then the agenda would be about supporting the rights of single people.

The petitions would be about making it possible for single people to more easily and cheaply name their next of kin and pass on money to a person of their choosing. They aren’t. The petitions are to make couples of the same sex viewed identically as married couples.

A lot if us are in support of helping the many celibates we know have an easier time declaring their next of kin. But to make a 90-year-old nun’s next of kin a 60-year-old, doesn’t make sense on the reciprocal.

You know, i think that’s the best point I have ever seen made on these forums. Really.

However, the original activities, such as equal age of consent, protection from discrimination, etc were about individual equal rights, it seems that you’ve missed part of the story.

 

[Joe_Stong]

Western Civilization has always defined marriage as a permanent union between 1 man and 1 woman.

YES, other ‘arrangements’ have been made, but they WEREN’T CALLED MARRIAGE.

They were called concubinage, adultery, fornication, polygamy, etc.

So to RE-DEFINE a word VIA THE COURTS, is going to open a Pandora’s box of further Court imposed RE-DEFINITIONS of marriage and OTHER words.

If an absolute minority can get their whim imposed on the majority via courts, what’s to stop another minority to get the courts to impose a re-definition of the word “Public” or “People” to mean something “we the People” never intended it to mean?

If you want to give yourselves new rights, there’s a way to go about it: a Constitutional Amendment. We, the majority should not have to get one to maintain the status quo - that’s totally backward from the Constitutional design. It’s those who would CHANGE the fundamentals that need to go that super-democratic route, not majorities.