Gay rights activists protest N. California mall

[Cor_Cordis]

But to go down that path begins to miss the point. People will look for “facts” to support their endorsement of the harmlessness of pornography, gay adoption, contraception, and a host of other issues.

Depending on the source, we can argue facts all day. Stats can be skewed, and debated.

God cannot, and if you listen 100% to His word, there is never a slippery slope. Alpha, Omega, Beginning, End. Something is, or isn’t.

I simply don’t have the time or energy with a family and full time job to argue with people who refuse to listen to what God has already said through the Church.

If they are going to ignore God, what makes you think they’ll listen to us? People who show hurbis towards the Lord generally have no issue showing even more towards humans.

Frank,

I see it as just the opposite:

The simplest of facts are made self-evident in our very design.

Facts can be skewed by bias and agenda, and they frequently are with the same-sex advocates, especially the so-called “professionals” in the mental health fields.

But, it is advantageous to pursue and expose their biases and their manipulations.

And often, the more you do it, the easier it becomes. One begins to recognize the deviance of the methods from the deviance of the mindset. Truth always has a way of surfacing eventually.

But to the larger issue:

Their is a direct correlation between the societal acceptance of homosexuality and the growing moral relativism born out of our increasingly secular society. We are ultimately being dumbed down intellectually, and starved to death spiritually by reckless sentimentalism in the form of “tolerance” for the sake of tolerance.

And to that end, it would be advantageous for us to address the dysfunction of homosexuality on it’s factual level of observable self-evident realization. Otherwise the opponents will forever veil their resistance against (what they perceive to be) a close-minded set of religious superstitions that are seemingly at odds with reality.

They believe that religion (mostly Christian religion) is in and of itself a silly superstition that is little more than subconscious neurosis manifest into a codified spiritual form of bigotry. Or, as is the case with many in here, they are simply corrupting good theology with their own moral relativism.

In short, it would behoove us to attack one delusion of theirs at a time. And to separate their misguided preconceptions that they often tend to conflate into one irrational set of beliefs.

I suppose one could call it a strategy of ‘Divide and Conquer’ against the delusional mindset of relativism .

Oh and off topic: I loved your work in Police Squad.

I chuckle every time I see your avatar.

 

[livnlern]

OK Cor, I know that you are just having a laugh with these views of yours.

So go on explain why it’s a dead end, yet we still have homosexuals. (And please don’t tell me that you think we have a designer - sheesh!!)

Rather than just having a laugh, I think Cor Cordis is exasperated with you, april. You’re playing both sides of the fence here. First you argue in a half-hearted way in defense of homosexuality and then you give some off the cuff response when someone answers seriously to refute your defense. Are you serious about this? I have to wonder.

 

[aprilfloyd]

As a Catholic, I think I see the problem in bold. What you think is irrelevant. Something either is, or it isn’t.

There are folks who still think Loch Ness is real. Why is it when we deal with them, they are labled crazy, but when it comes to people who think things that God has said are untrue, we call them “free thinkers.”

What you think about it doesn’t really matter.

Hi Frank, Loch Ness is real - been there.

 

[aprilfloyd]

I have explained it.

Go back over the last several posts.

Oh and, of course we don’t have a “designer”. Things just pop into being and haphazardly fall into some random design of intelligent purpose all the time.

Why, we always get something more out of the original source than the source contained. sheesh!

Wait. No. what?:hypno:

Hi ,

You have not explained it - just stated it.

 

[aprilfloyd]

Rather than just having a laugh, I think Cor Cordis is exasperated with you, april. You’re playing both sides of the fence here. First you argue in a half-hearted way in defense of homosexuality and then you give some off the cuff response when someone answers seriously to refute your defense. Are you serious about this? I have to wonder.

Hi - I am not defending homosexuality per se, just trying to follow why Cor Cordis holds the position that it is an evolutionary dead end? I genuinely don’t think he is being serious. Why would Cor Cordis argue that two homosexuals can’t reproduce. Does anyone think they can? I appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut, but I think he is just having a laugh. I hope so at was he says could be interpreted as homophobic

 

[livnlern]

Hi - I am not defending homosexuality per se, just trying to follow why Cor Cordis holds the position that it is an evolutionary dead end? I genuinely don’t think he is being serious. Why would Cor Cordis argue that two homosexuals can’t reproduce. Does anyone think they can? I appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut, but I think he is just having a laugh. I hope so at was he says could be interpreted as homophobic

Looks like a dead end to me. Don’t the laws of evolution include survival of the fittest? How can people survive when they can’t reproduce?

 

[PRmerger]

Nothing that he/she/whatever has posted has made any logical sense.

I’m beginning to think it’s intentional

I think we should go easy on april. He sounds young. And, if I may be so presumptuous, it appears that he is impulsive in his thinking, and hasn’t exactly followed out the logical consistencies of what he’s arguing for.

It’s our job to charitably propose, so he starts to think…“hmm…I never thought about it before like that…”

 

[aprilfloyd]

Looks like a dead end to me. Don’t the laws of evolution include survival of the fittest? How can people survive when they can’t reproduce?

Humans do reproduce and survive and homosexuals are part of that process and they survive too - If it was a dead end, then homosexuals would no longer exist. I can’t believe you don’t know of any homosexuals.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

Hi ,

You have not explained it - just stated it.

Yeah, I just stated the explanation. Several times.

Hi - I am not defending homosexuality per se, just trying to follow why Cor Cordis holds the position that it is an evolutionary dead end? I genuinely don’t think he is being serious. Why would Cor Cordis argue that two homosexuals can’t reproduce. Does anyone think they can? I appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut, but I think he is just having a laugh. I hope so at was he says could be interpreted as homophobic

How can two homosexuals reproduce?

 

[aprilfloyd]

Looks like a dead end to me. Don’t the laws of evolution include survival of the fittest? How can people survive when they can’t reproduce?

What does the phrase ‘survival of the fittest’ mean to you ? Homosexuality has survived. It sounds like a lot of people on this forum - don’t like that fact.

 

[bellasbane]

The problem comes in when people with same sex attraction want to push their agenda on the rest of us. Those of us who object to their behavior shouldn’t have to accept it and say that it’s the new normal. I especially object to having my children taught in a public school that this is an alternative lifestyle.

When Catholics first arrived in the United States, their children were subjected to a lot of Protestant anti-Catholic propaganda in the public schools. They didn’t accept it as normal. Nor did they resort to demonizing Protestants. They created the Catholic School system and got their kids out of that environment.

My point is that there is more than one way to respond to elements of society who oppose what you believe. I don’t think same sex couples are trying to push their agenda on the rest of us, but I understand why you might feel that way. Nevertheless, it seems to me that the Church prohibits responding to anybody in a manner that undermines their dignity as human beings. I’m not saying you have done this personally, but it seems to be the agenda of others, and something the Bishops warn us to be aware of when they speak of “disguised forms of hatred”.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

I think we should go easy on april. He sounds young. And, if I may be so presumptuous, it appears that he is impulsive in his thinking, and hasn’t exactly followed out the logical consistencies of what he’s arguing for.

It’s our job to charitably propose, so he starts to think…“hmm…I never thought about it before like that…”

Well that would certainly be the charitable interpretation PR.

But after reading his/her responses… really?

Charity has it’s limits.

Eventually one has to shake the dust from one’s shoes.

“Behold, I am sending you like sheep in the midst of wolves; so be shrewd as serpents and simple as doves." - Matthew 10:16

 

[PetrusRomanus]

What does the phrase ‘survival of the fittest’ mean to you ? Homosexuality has survived. It sounds like a lot of people on this forum - don’t like that fact.

Murder, theft, lying, adultery, etc have all survived too, but these are all actions, not genetic. Same with sodomy.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

Humans do reproduce and survive and homosexuals are part of that process and they survive too - If it was a dead end, then homosexuals would no longer exist. I can’t believe you don’t know of any homosexuals.

We’re talking about homosexual humans and specifically the dysfunction of homosexuality.

Homosexuality in and of itself is an evolutionary dead-end.

All you have demonstrated is that homosexuality depends entirely upon the intended design of heterosexuality. Thus proving that homosexuality is a deviation from our naturally ordered design.

Homosexuality depends upon heterosexuality exclusively.

Heterosexuality carries on in spite of the deviance of homosexuality.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

Humans do reproduce and survive and homosexuals are part of that process and they survive too - If it was a dead end, then homosexuals would no longer exist. I can’t believe you don’t know of any homosexuals.

But homosexuals do not reproduce, and left to it’s own deviant devices, homosexuality IS a non-reproductive dead-end.

No?

 

[Cor_Cordis]

What does the phrase ‘survival of the fittest’ mean to you ? Homosexuality has survived. It sounds like a lot of people on this forum - don’t like that fact.

Homosexuality has survived like cancer has survived.

It is morally parasitic to it’s societal host.

 

[scipio337]

What does the phrase ‘survival of the fittest’ mean to you ? Homosexuality has survived. It sounds like a lot of people on this forum - don’t like that fact.

Actually, the “fittest” refers to biological fitness in regards to evolutionary theory. If you haven’t noticed, homosexual sex doesn’t result in reproduction, hence, it doesn’t contribute to biological fitness (the ability to pass on genes).

Just because a trait survives, doesn’t mean it benefits biological fitness.

This is assuming that homosexuality is purely a genetic trait, which science has not concluded.

 

[aprilfloyd]

We’re talking about homosexual humans and specifically the dysfunction of homosexuality.

Homosexuality in and of itself is an evolutionary dead-end.

All you have demonstrated is that homosexuality depends entirely upon the intended design of heterosexuality. Thus proving that homosexuality is a deviation from our naturally ordered design.

Homosexuality depends upon heterosexuality exclusively.

Heterosexuality carries on in spite of the deviance of homosexuality.

You do seem to be wilfully (or humorously) dancing around the point. Do you have a problem with homosexuality depending on heterosexuality?, if that is the case.

I don’t see how evolution can involve ‘spite’. Natural selection is a description of what happens in the natural world. You can’t change that, no matter how much you and by inference your church would like too. Why the church got involved in this matter escapes me. Natural selection does not confer ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ it merely describes.

 

[Lochias]

Humans do reproduce and survive and homosexuals are part of that process and they survive too - If it was a dead end, then homosexuals would no longer exist. I can’t believe you don’t know of any homosexuals.

1. There is what you would call a “natural inclination” for some people to murder other people, as well. Just because this desire, which is clearly aberrant in nature, appears on its own, do you think they should be allowed to go out and murder?
2. If your answer to #1 is “No”, then your argument that homosexual acts and marriage are ok because some people are naturally inclined to them does not hold up, because homosexual acts are a sin, as defined by the Church, like murder (how worse one of them is than the other is another discussion; sin is sin is sin).

Can you provide any evidence or proof that homosexual acts are not a sin? Are you familiar with why the Church considers them a sin, and can you refute the Church’s arguments?

Please respond with more than one sentence. You have, so far, had a bad habit of glibly shrugging off anything that you apparently don’t understand or don’t wish to understand, and I would like to have an actual conversation with you. Thank you.

 

[epan]

Actually, the “fittest” refers to biological fitness in regards to evolutionary theory. If you haven’t noticed, homosexual sex doesn’t result in reproduction, hence, it doesn’t contribute to biological fitness (the ability to pass on genes).

Just because a trait survives, doesn’t mean it benefits biological fitness.

This is assuming that homosexuality is purely a genetic trait, which science has not concluded.

Here is an argument for the evolutionary utility for homosexuality:

psychologytoday.com/blog/natural-history-the-modern-mind/200906/the-johnny-depp-effect-evolutionary-explanation-homosexu

And here is one arguing against it on evolution / natural selection grounds:

monomaniacy.blogspot.com/2010/12/evolutionary-argument-against.html