Gay rights activists protest N. California mall

[Cor_Cordis]

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

Wrong about what? How is homosexuality conducive to the natural human design? Based on your reasoning: because cancer occurs naturally it must be a healthy paradigm for the human condition.

But since you want to play semantics with the word “natural” - tell me:

what exactly IS natural about homosexuality relative to our human design?

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:

Well first of all, that is NOT what I am saying. Homosexuality could be caused exclusively by genetic factors (in theory). However, it would STILL be an anomaly (an antithesis) to our natural human design. Cancer occurs naturally too. What is it’s reason for being?

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.

Let me try this again. Yes. It is a natural occurring anomaly. It occurs naturally. But it **IS NOT **conducive to our natural human design. Just like cancer occurs naturally but yet, it is hardly conducive to our natural design.

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.]

]Yet again you need to read more carefully because I never said there was, nor does the study I reference 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.

And once again: there IS NO consensus in the scientific community on any genetic factors attributed to homosexuality. Therefore the very premise of this study is meaningless. It is nothing more than an unfounded theory based on unfounded theories.:whacky:

 

[Cor_Cordis]

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.

It’s not flawed at all.

Tell me, what can we possibly discover about homosexuality that will suddenly make it conducive to our human design? What?

 

[Cor_Cordis]

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.

Your analogy has just switched to the Church’s medieval understanding of the cosmos.

That’s not analogous to our observable human design and our human nature.

So again I ask: What can we possibly discover about homosexuality that will suddenly make it conducive to our human design? What?

 

[epan]

Your analogy has just switched to the Church’s medieval understanding of the cosmos.

That’s not analogous to our observable human design and our human nature.

So again I ask: What can we possibly discover about homosexuality that will suddenly make it conducive to our human design? What?

No, you claim that 12th century thinking is applicable. I moved the argument forward to Galileo. You can’t even catch up with that.

Without referring to 12th century philosophy, tell me what you mean by human design and human nature. So far, you have been unable to advance your argument even to the level of understanding with existed in the time of Galileo.

Keep in mind that we are talking about best evidence and progress, not about what a saint proclaimed without basis other than his intelligence and his limited knowlege 700+ years ago.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

No, you claim that 12th century thinking is applicable. I moved the argument forward to Galileo. You can’t even catch up with that.

No. I maintained that the 12th century moral theology on the immutability of human nature is the same now as it was 6000 years ago and it is now.

You simply tried to derive an analogy with the moral theology based on the relatively unknown cosmos of the 12 century. Apparently you have yet to catch up to your flawed reasoning.

Without referring to 12th century philosophy, tell me what you mean by human design and human nature. So far, you have been unable to advance your argument even to the level of understanding with existed in the time of Galileo.

Keep in mind that we are talking about best evidence and progress, not about what a saint proclaimed without basis other than his intelligence and his limited knowlege 700 years ago.

What? What do you think I mean by human design and human nature?

How many possible meanings can you derive from human design?

Are men and women specifically compatible BY design, sexually, cognitively, spiritually? Yes.

Are they capable of producing offspring. Yes.

Are same sex couples compatible on any of those levels by design? No.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

No, you claim that 12th century thinking is applicable. I moved the argument forward to Galileo. You can’t even catch up with that.

Without referring to 12th century philosophy, tell me what you mean by human design and human nature. So far, you have been unable to advance your argument even to the level of understanding with existed in the time of Galileo.

Keep in mind that we are talking about best evidence and progress, not about what a saint proclaimed without basis other than his intelligence and his limited knowlege 700+ years ago.

BTW I suggest you educate yourself on the history of Galileo and the Church:

The Galileo Controversy

"It is commonly believed that the Catholic Church persecuted Galileo for abandoning the geocentric (earth-at-the-center) view of the solar system for the heliocentric (sun-at-the-center) view.

The Galileo case, for many anti-Catholics, is thought to prove that the Church abhors science, refuses to abandon outdated teachings, and is not infallible. For Catholics, the episode is often an embarrassment. It shouldn’t be.

This tract provides a brief explanation of what really happened to Galileo."

 

[scipio337]

I’d find it equally offensive seeing heterosexuals passionately kissing in public, so I’m sorry your kids had to see that. However, a quick kiss or holding hands doesn’t compare to that. And no story I’ve read about this gay couple at the mall indicates they were carrying things too far.

Also, sorry but the comment you put in quotations marks is ridiculous. We kiss people and things we care about all the time. I kiss pictures of my mother who passed away, I kiss my rosary, I kiss the holy Gospel when I read it at Mass, I kiss my boyfriend, and I kiss my cat. I would assume your daughters have probably seen you kiss you wife from time to time.

Yes, of course, it’s all relative. Kissing a picture of your mother (as I do), or cat is the same as kissing a person of the same sex in public.

Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. - GK Chesterton

 

[fix]

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

Nothing. It is unnatural.

 

[fix]

Yes, of course, it’s all relative. Kissing a picture of your mother (as I do), or cat is the same as kissing a person of the same sex in public.

Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. - GK Chesterton

Relativism and false fairness rule the day.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

Relativism and false fairness rule the day.

This is “morality” based on the “democracy” of mob rule empowered by the moral relativism of the day.

This is the same immoral paradigm that led to Christ’s Crucifixion.

John 18:38 - “What is truth?” retorted Pilate

John 18:40 - They cried out again, “Not this one but Barabbas!” Now Barabbas was a revolutionary.

John 19:15 - They cried out, “Take him away, take him away! Crucify him!” Pilate said to them, “Shall I crucify your king?” The chief priests answered, “We have no king but Caesar.”

 

[Lochias]

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

You know, you say this a lot, and then blithely ignore what practically every Catholic poster here has told you: The Church has NOT changed its dogmas over the years. Our UNDERSTANDING of those dogmas has sometimes increased as a result of things like the sciences, but NEVER has it changed a dogma.

If you can’t understand or admit this, you will never be taken seriously on these forums.

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.

You’ve been corrected on these things multiple times, too. Time to take the blinders off, or simply be ignored as yet another face in the crowd with an old, tired axe to grind.

This is just one more change.

You are wrong. Wake up, and pay attention.

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?

This is also beating an old, tired and very dead horse. You accuse US of being stuck in the past? Take the log out of your own eye.

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.

The Church is here to save souls, and will never bow to any form of moral relativism, no matter how much it may make your (or anyone else’s) conscience squirm.

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.

Then they’re Catholics in name only. If people choose to turn their backs on the Church, the Church isn’t going to force them to turn back around, and most assuredly not by bowing to the immoral platitudes of the day. The Church is eternal; sin and wrong thinking are not.

 

[J_Peterson]

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

I’m not a scientist so excus my ignorance but does this phrase actually mean anything? If it does, how do you know it’s a dead end? It could play a role that’s not immediately apparent.

 

[epan]

No. I maintained that the 12th century moral theology on the immutability of human nature is the same now as it was 6000 years ago and it is now.

If I understand you correctly, then you would propose that science came to a screeching halt 6,000 years ago?

I must say that I disagree with you. In fact, I would characterize your point of view as abject lunacy, given the world in which we live.

 

[epan]

You know, you say this a lot, and then blithely ignore what practically every Catholic poster here has told you: The Church has NOT changed its dogmas over the years. Our UNDERSTANDING of those dogmas has sometimes increased as a result of things like the sciences, but NEVER has it changed a dogma.

If you can’t understand or admit this, you will never be taken seriously on these forums.

You’ve been corrected on these things multiple times, too. Time to take the blinders off, or simply be ignored as yet another face in the crowd with an old, tired axe to grind.

You are wrong. Wake up, and pay attention.

This is also beating an old, tired and very dead horse. You accuse US of being stuck in the past? Take the log out of your own eye.

The Church is here to save souls, and will never bow to any form of moral relativism, no matter how much it may make your (or anyone else’s) conscience squirm.

Then they’re Catholics in name only. If people choose to turn their backs on the Church, the Church isn’t going to force them to turn back around, and most assuredly not by bowing to the immoral platitudes of the day. The Church is eternal; sin and wrong thinking are not.

Your claims are simply false, and they ignore history. Your attacks are personal and not based on fact. That is why people tend to ignore you.

 

[scipio337]

If I understand you correctly, then you would propose that science came to a screeching halt 6,000 years ago?

I must say that I disagree with you. In fact, I would characterize your point of view as abject lunacy, given the world in which we live.

moral theology = science?

 

[epan]

moral theology = science?

That is what the Church is trying to claim, is it not?

 

[scipio337]

Your claims are simply false, and they ignore history. Your attacks are personal and not based on fact. That is why people tend to ignore you.

So burning heretics and an earth centered solar system were dogma of the Church?

 

[scipio337]

That is what the Church is trying to claim, is it not?

That’s not what the Church, or Cor Cordis’ post did. “12th century moral theology on the immutability of human nature”.

 

[epan]

So burning heretics and an earth centered solar system were dogma of the Church?

Are you sure that you want to rehash the behavior of the Church? Do you know the 7 century history of Jewish persecution? Hitler did not invent jewish ghettos. hitler did not come up with idea of identifying jews with a patch on their clothing. He only took ideas from the history of the Church, promoted by popes, and applied 20th century technology to the ideas.

Are you ignorant of Catholic history? Or do you simply accept the whitewash version which comes from hierarchy?

This is a very sordid path that you propose that we explore. It includes popes who owned slaves and enjoyed shopping in slave markets, and so on. I would prefer not to go down that path. Tell me if you insist. I would prefer to remain in the 21st century and consider what we know and believe today.

And yes, to answer you questions directly. Heretics were burned.*Galileo was convicted of heresy because he proposed a heliocentric solar system. How deficient are you in your education? Do you not know this?

 

[scipio337]

Are you sure that you want to rehash the behavior of the Church? Do you know the 7 century history of Jewish persecution. Hitler did not invent jewish ghettos. hitler did not come up with idea of identifying jews with a patch on their clothing. He only took ideas from they history of the Church, promoted by popes, and applied 20th century technology to the ideas.

This is a very sordid path that you propose the we explore. I would prefer not to go down that path. Tell me if you insist.

I’m full aware of some of the actions of the Church (or more specifically, people in the Church) in the past, but surely you can differentiate between action, and dogma?

We are discussing apples and rutabagas. It’s been (correctly) pointed out that Church dogma hasn’t changed.

EX: Taking Communion in the hand, or directly is a practice of the Church, which can change. Christ as the begotten Son of God is dogma, which can’t.