Gay rights activists protest N. California mall

[epan]

Human nature and human sexuality do not change. Homosexuality (by it’s very unnatural state) is contrary to our natural design: physically, cognitively, and spiritually.

What exactly IS natural about it?

No. 2% is accurate.

And it is still a natural evolutionary dead-end. That is not subject to trends. That is immovable biological fact. So are you implying that it will increase in percentages? If so, then that is further proof that it is a learned dysfunction.

Ah, so you admit it is a social trend. Therefore it is a learned psychological dysfunction.

Thank you for inadvertently admitting that.:tiphat:

“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G. K. Chesterton

So when incest, pederasty, and eventually pedophilia and bestiality become the trends, you’ll be fine with that on principle, right?

“A dead thing goes with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it.”

• G.K.Chesterton

All of this is the results of an alliance between the aggressive gay-rights fascists and their allies in the entertainment industry the media and the Far-Left socialist now running and ruining this country. And none of that makes it natural.

Oh and, there is no similarity between the Civil Rights movement and this movement. Race is a passive and insignificant difference of skin pigment. Homosexuality is a dysfunctional behavior that is a radical rejection of our natural design.

And again, what exactly is natural about homosexuality?

Oh and, you’re not Catholic are you?

Being Catholic, or not, has nothing to do with this. The thread is about a security guards reaction to a PDA in a shopping mall.

The Catholic Church, and Catholics have adapted for many centuries. When you consider this in the light of history, it is a small thing.

This should be a small adaptation.

 

[Biblepoe]

Biblepoe;10476005:

Since homosexuality occurs in nature, it is natural in the conventional sense of the word “natural”.

Since you clearly aren’t using the word “natural” in the conventional sense, please tell us what you mean by “natural” when you claim homosexuality isn’t natural.

Scroll down to where it describes Natural Law as it relates to homosexuality:

catholic.com/tracts/homosexuality

“People have a basic, ethical intuition that certain behaviors are wrong because they are unnatural…”

As a circular definition (the definition uses the word it defines) it doesn’t really tell me what you mean by “natural”. However, base on reading the article, it seems that by “natural” and “unnatural” you mean you have an “ethical intiution” (a.k.a, gut feeling) that something is morally good/bad.

If you are going off of your gut feeling, then you are just saying that you find it icky.

 

[Biblepoe]

Actually, since homosexuality is an anomaly

Old Faithful is an anomaly, but it’s still natural.

[Homosexuality is] a natural evolutionary dead-end

Genes that increase odd of being homosexual (or bisexual to degrees) can have evolutionary benefits. For example, studies suggest that mothers and maternal aunts of gay men tend to have significantly more offspring than the maternal relatives of straight men. Aside from that, evolutionary dead-ends produced by evolution are still natural.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

Being Catholic, or not, has nothing to do with this. The thread is about a security guards reaction to a PDA in a shopping mall.

The Catholic Church, and Catholics have adapted for many centuries. When you consider this in the light of history, it is a small thing.

This should be a small adaptation.

This is a Catholic Site, so yes, being Catholic has EVERYTHING to do with it.

The Catholic Church will not “adapt” to an intrinsically disordered act that is contrary to our natural human design and thus the antithesis to Natural Law, and then magically adopt it as natural and morally acceptable. If you think it will, you’re delusional.

And taken in the light of history, no civilization in the course of all human history has ever adopted gay “marriage” as an acceptable counter part to the heterosexual union of man and woman. And no civilization has ever tolerated homosexuality as an acceptable norm of expression without ultimately suffering from the degrading effects in other areas of their society. So no, this is hardly a small thing.

And oh BTW: Group of psychiatrists wants to redefine pedophilia to promote tolerance

The inevitable moral decay is already on the loose.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

As a circular definition (the definition uses the word it defines) it doesn’t really tell me what you mean by “natural”. However, base on reading the article, it seems that by “natural” and “unnatural” you mean you have an “ethical intiution” (a.k.a gut feeling) that something is morally good/bad.

If you are going off of your gut feeling, then you are just saying that you find it icky.

No, it means that it is the antithesis to our natural design.

But tell me, what exactly is natural about homosexuality?

 

[Cor_Cordis]

Old Faithful is an anomaly, but it’s still natural.

So homosexuality is tantamount to an irrepressible mindless force of nature?

Really?

So it really is an intrinsic dysfunction isn’t it.

Genes that increase odd of being homosexual (or bisexual to degrees) can have evolutionary benefits. For example, studies suggest that mothers and maternal aunts of gay men tend to have significantly more offspring than the maternal relatives of straight men.

Uhm… science has yet to identify a gay gene. So that entire hypothesis is theoretical bunk.

Aside from that, evolutionary dead-ends produced by evolution are still natural.

Yes. Natural anomalies which are the antithesis to the natural paradigm of healthy design.

Cancer is also “natural”.

 

[Biblepoe]

No, it means that it is the antithesis to our natural design.

But tell me, what exactly is natural about homosexuality?

“Natural” means produced non-artificially. Persons who are homosexual are produced non-artificially.

Of course, something being natural (i.e., not artificial) has nothing to do with it being good/bad (remember, I’m not arguing that homosexuality is good because it’s natural, I’m contesting Denise1957, who in post 27 said, “Two homosexuals kissing each other is offensive because it is unnatural.”).

Biblepoe;10476895:

Genes that increase odd of being homosexual (or bisexual to degrees) can have evolutionary benefits. For example, studies

suggest that mothers and maternal aunts of gay men tend to have significantly more offspring than the maternal relatives of straight men. Aside from that, evolutionary dead-ends produced by evolution are still natural.

Uhm… science has yet to identify a gay gene. So that entire hypothesis is theoretical bunk.

Apparently, you neither read my post carefully nor looked at the study I linked too. Neither I nor the study mention a “gay gene” (as in, a single gene that causes homosexuality). Instead, like many studies in genetics, it refers to “genetic factors in the maternal line [that] promote homosexuality,” which have been found in other studies. For more info, actually read the study and see its references.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

“Natural” means produced non-artificially. Persons who are homosexual are produced non-artificially.

Of course, something being natural (i.e., not artificial) has nothing to do with it being good/bad.

Homosexuality is the antithesis to our natural design, it is also an anomaly to the natural paradigm of human reproduction. That is why it is bad. Whether it occurs “naturally” or not is irrelevant.

Apparently, you neither read my post carefully nor looked at the study I linked too. Neither I nor the study mention a “gay gene” (as in, a single gene that causes homosexuality). Instead, like many studies in genetics, it refers to “genetic factors in the maternal line [that] promote homosexuality,” which have been found in other studies. For more info, actually read the study and see its references.

That is ridiculous on it’s premise. Even if there is a connection, homosexuality cannot cause fecundity. Homosexuality is at best, only a possible byproduct of it in some cases. And even still, it is an anomaly. Cause and effect is everything.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

Apparently, you neither read my post carefully nor looked at the study I linked too. Neither I nor the study mention a “gay gene” (as in, a single gene that causes homosexuality). Instead, like many studies in genetics, it refers to “genetic factors in the maternal line [that] promote homosexuality,” which have been found in other studies. For more info, actually read the study and see its references.

Actually, I don’t think YOU actually read you’re own source:

“Conclusions. ** Our findings are based on a small sample and would benefit from a larger replication**, however they suggest that** if** sexually antagonistic genetic factors that induce homosexuality in males exist, the factors might be maintained in the population by contributing to increased fecundity greater reproductive health, extraversion, and a generally relaxed attitude toward family and social values in females of the maternal line of homosexual men.”

This isn’t science, it’s pseudo-scientific social-tolerance-psychobabble dressed up as “science”.

Please.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

"Apparently, you neither read my post carefully nor looked at the study I linked too. Neither I nor the study mention a “gay gene” (as in, a single gene that causes homosexuality). Instead, like many studies in genetics, it refers to “genetic factors in the maternal line [that] promote homosexuality,” which have been found in other studies. For more info, actually read the study and see its references.

BTW There is no consensus on what causes homosexual attractions despite research into different possible explanations. The consensus is that it is a mixture of nature/nurture in one form or another but not exclusive to either in all cases. And there is certainly no consensus of “gentic factors”.

Therefore, this “study” is pure rubbish on several levels.

 

[epan]

This is a Catholic Site, so yes, being Catholic has EVERYTHING to do with it.

The Catholic Church will not “adapt” to an intrinsically disordered act that is contrary to our natural human design and thus the antithesis to Natural Law, and then magically adopt it as natural and morally acceptable. If you think it will, you’re delusional.

And taken in the light of history, no civilization in the course of all human history has ever adopted gay “marriage” as an acceptable counter part to the heterosexual union of man and woman. And no civilization has ever tolerated homosexuality as an acceptable norm of expression without ultimately suffering from the degrading effects in other areas of their society. So no, this is hardly a small thing.

And oh BTW: Group of psychiatrists wants to redefine pedophilia to promote tolerance

The inevitable moral decay is already on the loose.

The Catholic Church has adapted over the centuries. This social and scientific phenomenon will be one more example, in my opinion.

Please don’t make me recite the history of adaptations, ranging from not burning heretics, to accepting that the solar system is heliocentric, and some things which are truly to shameful mention … it is a long list of change. A very long list, and one which spans centuries.

This is just one more change.

To put it into a more recent time frame, how is it that the Catholic Church can’t even figure out how to handle a child abuse scandal in the space of 40 years? How can that be? These events which keep on haunting the Church in today’s headlines happened 20, 30, 40 years ago. How can it be that a moral leader of a moral organization cannot find the courage to deal with its own internal debauchery? How is it, that this issue lingers for decades after it comes to light? How is it that the world wonders if the next pope will be able to deal with an issue which has festered for decades? How can this be? Why has this continued for decades, literally? How can anyone accept such an organization as a moral authority, when it cannot clean itself up? Any other comparably sized and endowed organization would have cleaned it up and moved on in a couple of years. What sort of example is this?

But more than this, keep in mind the place of the Church. Its place is to give advice to those who seek advice from it. Its place is not to try to impose its views on those who disagree. It has a place as one voice, and only one of many, in a pluralistic society such as ours.

Further, it would appear from polls, that most Catholics in the western world reject the social agenda of the Church. You might say that these people are turning their backs to the Church. I would suggest to you that the Church has turned its back on them, and is doing so at its own peril.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

The Catholic Church has adapted over the centuries. This social and scientific phenomenon will be one more example, in my opinion.

Please don’t make me recite the history of adaptations, ranging from not burning heretics, to accepting that the solar system is heliocentric, and some things which are truly shameful to admit to … it is a long list of change. A very long list. This is just one more. To put it into a more recent time frame, the Catholic Church can’t even figure out how to handle a child abuse scandal in the space of 40 years? How can that be? These event which keep on haunting the Church in today’s headlines happened 20, 30, 40 years ago. How can it be that a moral leader cannot find the courage to deal with its own internal debauchery. Explain that, before you explain how it can lead anyone in the area of sexual morality. Explain how Cardinal Maloney is still a cardinal, and what he is doing voting in the conclave. When you can explain that, then you can begin to give advice on sexual morality to others.

Newsflash: Human design and human nature does not change. Therefore the moral theology will never change. Not in our lifetime and not in future lifetimes.

In the 2000 years the Roman Catholic Church has been in existence, homosexuality has come and gone in societies. And the Church’s stance has been steadfast. And it always will.

As far as the corruption of the clergy, I agree with you in principle as far as each individual priest and Bishop. They have lost their individual moral authority. But the moral authority of the Church is far bigger than a few rotten apples in it’s collective whole.

A meditative lesson:

During a frustrating argument with a Roman Catholic cardinal, Napoleon Bonaparte supposedly burst out: “Your eminence, are you not aware that I have the power to destroy the Catholic Church?” The cardinal, the anecdote goes, responded ruefully: “Your majesty, we, the Catholic clergy, have done our best to destroy the church for the last 1,800 years. We have not succeeded, and neither will you.”

 

[epan]

Newsflash: Human design and human nature does not change. Therefore the moral theology will never change. Not in our lifetime and not in future lifetimes.

In the 2000 years the Roman Catholic Church has been in existence, homosexuality has come and gone in societies. And the Church’s stance has been steadfast. And it always will.

As far as the corruption of the clergy, I agree with you in principle as far as each individual priest and Bishop. They have lost their individual moral authority. But the moral authority of the Church is far bigger than a few rotten apples in it’s collective whole.

A meditative lesson:

During a frustrating argument with a Roman Catholic cardinal, Napoleon Bonaparte supposedly burst out: “Your eminence, are you not aware that I have the power to destroy the Catholic Church?” The cardinal, the anecdote goes, responded ruefully: “Your majesty, we, the Catholic clergy, have done our best to destroy the church for the last 1,800 years. We have not succeeded, and neither will you.”

News Flash: We learn more about human nature over time. It’s called science. We also know that the sun is the center of your universe. This concept was a tough one for the Church. There is nothing immutable about a 13th century philosopher and theologian’s interpretation of Greek and Roman philosophers, which the Catholic Church refers to as Natural Law. It is neither “natural”, nor is it “law”. It is 13th century science/philosophy. The two were often conflated together as one, at the time.

A meditative lesson: The next time you or a loved one needs serious high tech medical attention, why don’t you try a jar of leeches? That was the state of the art of understanding in medical science when Natural Law was invented. That was the understanding of human biology and physiology. I would propose that we have advanced in other areas, as well.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

Further, it would appear from polls, that most Catholics in the western world reject the social agenda of the Church. You might say that these people are turning their backs to the Church. I would suggest to you that the Church has turned its back on them, and is doing so at its own peril.

So what?

Moral theology is not a popularity poll.

You might recall: Christianity wasn’t too popular when it first started out. In fact, it started out with a public execution at the whims of popular public opinion.

“Right is Right even if nobody does it. Wrong is Wrong even if everybody is wrong about it.” - G.K.Chesterton

 

[epan]

So what?

Moral theology is not a popularity poll.

You might recall: Christianity wasn’t too popular when it first started out. In fact, it started out with a public execution at the whims of popular public opinion.

“Right is Right even if nobody does it. Wrong is Wrong even if everybody is wrong about it.” - G.K.Chesterton

Now you try to switch games to moral theology set centuries ago from what is known about human nature. End game.

I have never argued the moral position of the Church. I question its authority, of course. But I have never questioned its right to a moral position.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

News Flash: We learn more about human nature over time. It’s called science. We also know that the sun is the center of your universe. This concept was a tough one for the Church. There is nothing immutable about a 13th century philosopher and theologian’s interpretation of Greek and Roman philosophers, which the Catholic Church refers to as Natural Law. It is neither “natural”, nor is it “law”. It is 13th century science/philosophy. The two were often conflated together as one, at the time.

Newsflash: There is no scientific discovery that could possibly make homosexuality magically conducive to human design. It is immutable.

The example you are citing has nothing to do with human design or our understanding of human nature per se. It is only relative to our metaphysical understanding of the cosmos in an age when the science was unsettled.

But tell me, what scientific discovery is going to change the observable fact that homosexuality is contrary to our natural design?

What?

And again, what exactly IS natural about homosexuality? Please tell me.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

Now you try to switch games to moral theology set centuries ago from what is known about human nature. End game.

That makes no sense whatsoever.

I’m not switching games. That has been my point all along. Human nature has not and will not change. And neither will our basic human design, in all it’s facets. And thus, the moral theology that follows our design is immutable.

I have never argued the moral position of the Church. I question its authority, of course. But I have never questioned its right to a moral position.

The Natural Law premise (our human design) of the Church’s moral position on this specific issue IS the basis of it’s moral authority.

 

[Biblepoe]

Homosexuality is the antithesis to our natural design.

The “natural design” of humanity (i.e., the way humanity has become without artificial causes) include many humans being gay, so you’re wrong.

Even if there is a connection, homosexuality cannot cause fecundity.

I’m not arguing that homosexuality causes fecundity, I’m arguing that there is a reason to suppose that homosexuality is created by natural evolutionary processes, which you seem to say may be the case:

Homosexuality is at best, only a possible byproduct of it in some cases.

In that case, homosexuality is natural. So you agree with me that homosexuality can be natural under the definition of “natural” that most people use.

About the study, it is one of many regarding the relationship between homosexuality and fecundity. It’s purpose was to build off of the studies that have been done on homosexuality and genetic (which is why it states in the conclusions, “if sexually antagonistic genetic factors that induce homosexuality in males exist”). To find references to the studies it builds, on, you’ll have to see the full article. It having a comparatively small sample size simply just means that the results should be accepted tentatively, not reject outright as useless.

BTW There is no consensus on what causes homosexual attractions despite research into different possible explanations.

I never said there was, nor does the study I referenced require, such consensus. It only requires some genetic influences. Note that this does not mean a “gay gene” that single-handedly makes one gay, but rather evidence of some genes being correlated with homosexuality.

 

[OxygenMan]

I’m not arguing that homosexuality causes fecundity, I’m arguing that there is a reason to suppose that homosexuality is created by natural evolutionary processes, which you seem to say may be the case:

This would be odd, seeing as how it is an evolutionary dead end.

 

[epan]

That makes no sense whatsoever.

I’m not switching games. That has been my point all along. Human nature has not and will not change. And neither will our basic human design, in all it’s facets. And thus, the moral theology that follows our design is immutable.

The Natural Law premise (our human design) of the Church’s moral position on this specific issue IS the basis of it’s moral authority.

OK. So your premise is flawed. Because you confuse human nature with an understanding of human nature. The former may be immutable, but the latter is the position of the Church, and individually also what that which we all understand to the best of our ability. The problem here is that the Church decided that such understanding became immutable in the 1200’s or so. In the meantime, the rest of us continued to improve our understanding.

Let me switch to something simpler by analogy. The Catholic Church was so convinced that the Earth was the center of the universe that they convicted Galileo of heresy for advocating a provable theory of heliocentrism. The only way he could avoid a capital sentence was to recant and be subjected to house arrest for his remaining years. This was a case of the Church misunderstanding the nature of our solar system. The confusion then was as today. There was a disconnect between reality and the Church’s perception of reality. Since then, we have learned still more. But without Galileo and subsequent astronomical discovery, the Church would still be teaching that the Earth was the center of the universe. We would be stuck.

What you call immutable human nature is only a 12-13th century understanding of human nature. While human nature is immutable in terms of our lifetimes, though not in terms of evolution, our understanding is mutable.

This is known as progress.