Gay rights activists protest N. California mall

[Cor_Cordis]

You really should read more on evolution. Homosexuality is self evidently, not an ‘evolutionary dead end’

Uhm…what?

“Self-evident” disproves “evolutionary dead-end”?

How exactly do those two terms negate one another in your mind?

This is obvious:

It is self-evident that the paradigm of homosexuality cannot produce offspring.

Therefore, homosexuality, by it’s very nature, IS an evolutionary dead-end.

Or, to put it in your vernacular: Homosexuality is self evidently, an evolutionary dead end.

How is it not?

 

[aprilfloyd]

Uhm…what?

“Self-evident” disproves “evolutionary dead-end”?

How exactly do those two terms negate one another in your mind?

This is obvious:

It is self-evident that the paradigm of homosexuality cannot produce offspring.

Therefore, homosexuality, by it’s very nature, IS an evolutionary dead-end.

Or, to put it in your vernacular: Homosexuality is self evidently, an evolutionary dead end.

How is it not?

Because homosexuals exist - self evident

 

[Cor_Cordis]

I was trying to show cor the irrationality of his discrimination, by comparing to other irrational discriminations. Also if he wants to refute evolution he has a lot of work ahead of him.

I actually explained to you the logical fallacy of your comparison of homosexuality to race.

And, why on earth do you think I’m refuting evolution?

I’m not.

I’m simply pointing out the obvious fact that homosexuality is incapable of reproduction. And that fact (in and of itself) IS an evolutionary dead-end.

Are you seriously not comprehending that?

Or are you trying to obfuscate by feigning obtuseness?

 

[Cor_Cordis]

Because homosexuals exist - self evident

Newsflash:

They do not exist as a result of their own dysfunctional nature.

They exist solely BECAUSE of the natural evolutionary process of heterosexual reproduction.

 

[scipio337]

I was trying to show cor the irrationality of his discrimination, by comparing to other irrational discriminations. Also if he wants to refute evolution he has a lot of work ahead of him.

You’ve yet to show that opposition to open homosexuality is “discrimination”, much less conflate race and national origin to sexual behavior.

I’m not sure what you deem “irrational”, but your argument seems illogical.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

What exactly is your definition of homosexuality? You seem to have very strong feelings about it and I’d like to be clear on what you mean by it.

I actually asked you that question several pages back:

Point of fact: Most are not turning to the Church for guidance.

Rather, they are relentlessly attacking the Church with all the open mindedness of the Brown Shirts during Kristallnacht.

But how exactly are you suggesting we should define “homosexual” and “homosexuality”?

And are you suggesting that a sizable portion of this inclination and or behavior, is effected or possibly even induced by societal influence?

After all, you are the one who keeps implying that we should have some sort of new open-minded understanding of these terms.

 

[aprilfloyd]

I actually explained to you the logical fallacy of your comparison of homosexuality to race.

And, why on earth do you think I’m refuting evolution?

I’m not.

I’m simply pointing out the obvious fact that homosexuality is incapable of reproduction. And that fact (in and of itself) IS an evolutionary dead-end.

Are you seriously not comprehending that?

Or are you trying to obfuscate by feigning obtuseness?

I was comparing the unacceptability of homosexual discrimination to the unacceptability of racial discrimination.

I don’t understand why you are stating the obvious fact that two homosexuals can’t reproduce. I think you will need to search far to find someone who disagrees with you.

I don’t understand your ‘evolutionary dead-end’. Homosexuals will continue to be ‘produced’ and is therefore not a 'dead-end

 

[Cor_Cordis]

You’ve yet to show that opposition to open homosexuality is “discrimination”, much less conflate race and national origin to sexual behavior.

I’m not sure what you deem “irrational”, but your argument seems illogical.

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

I’m beginning to think it’s intentional.

Because I hate to believe that anyone could be that slow on the uptake.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

I was comparing the unacceptability of homosexual discrimination to the unacceptability of racial discrimination.

I don’t understand why you are stating the obvious fact that two homosexuals can’t reproduce. I think you will need to search far to find someone who disagrees with you.

I don’t understand your ‘evolutionary dead-end’. Homosexuals will continue to be ‘produced’ and is therefore not a 'dead-end

Yeah, and I clearly explained that there is no rational comparison between the passive nature of skin pigmentation with the willful actions of deviant behavior.

How can homosexuals reproduce inside the paradigm of homosexuality?

Homosexuals by the very nature of their dysfunction do not reproduce.

Or have the laws of human biology changed recently?

 

[Cor_Cordis]

I don’t understand why you are stating the obvious fact that two homosexuals can’t reproduce. I think you will need to search far to find someone who disagrees with you.

I don’t understand your ‘evolutionary dead-end’. Homosexuals will continue to be ‘produced’ and is therefore not a 'dead-end

Reproduce and “be produced” are two vastly different things.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

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.

On the surface they want forced validation sanctioned by the state.

But under the surface, their neurosis is hellbent on punishing Christianity for making them feel bad about themselves.

There is a strong correlation between homosexuality and narcissism.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

Arguing biology is fine, but somewhat irrelevant as far as the Church goes.

Actually, human biological nature is an observable rejection of homosexuality.

Humans are not designed for homosexuality, and in fact, many of the practices are detrimental to our biological well-being.

So no, the biology is not irrelevant at all. In fact it is indicative of our overall design and purpose. Therefore it is very relevant, on it’s own.

 

[aprilfloyd]

Yeah, and I clearly explained that there is no rational comparison between the passive nature of skin pigmentation with the willful actions of deviant behavior.

How can homosexuals reproduce inside the paradigm of homosexuality?

Homosexuals by the very nature of their dysfunction do not reproduce.

Or have the laws of human biology changed recently?

I think I have made it clear that I don’t think you will find anyone that thinks two homosexuals can reproduce.

Homosexuals don’t engage in deviant behaviour any more than heterosexuals, I was comparing discriminations, not skin colour. Homosexuality is produced in nature and is normal, it is hardly a dysfunction. You would not call heterosexuality a dysfunction.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

I think I have made it clear that I don’t think you will find anyone that thinks two homosexuals can reproduce.

Yeah. I know. Therefore homosexuality is (by it’s own dysfunctional nature) an evolutionary dead-end.

Thanks for recognizing that obvious fact.

Homosexuals don’t engage in deviant behaviour any more than heterosexuals, I was comparing discriminations, not skin colour. Homosexuality is produced in nature and is normal, it is hardly a dysfunction. You would not call heterosexuality a dysfunction.

Homosexuality in and of itself is a deviant behavior which is not conducive to our natural design.

Cancer is also produced in nature. But is it “normal”? No.

So what exactly is normal about homosexuality?

 

[aprilfloyd]

Yeah. I know. Therefore homosexuality is (by it’s own dysfunctional nature) an evolutionary dead-end.

Thanks for recognizing that obvious fact.

Homosexuality in and of itself is a deviant behavior which is not conducive to our natural design.

Cancer is also produced in nature. But is it “normal”? No.

So what exactly is normal about homosexuality?

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!!)

 

[Cor_Cordis]

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!!)

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:

 

[PRmerger]

Because homosexuals exist - self evident

Discrimination exists. Self evident.

Does that mean that discrimination ought to be tolerated? :nope:

 

[epan]

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!!)

Wait, I’m confused, are you saying that gay guy make fabulous designers?

 

[Frank_Drebin]

Hi Frank,

I think discrimination and equal rights does matter.

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.

 

[Frank_Drebin]

Actually, human biological nature is an observable rejection of homosexuality.

Humans are not designed for homosexuality, and in fact, many of the practices are detrimental to our biological well-being.

So no, the biology is not irrelevant at all. In fact it is indicative of our overall design and purpose. Therefore it is very relevant, on it’s own.

I agree, biology supports our claims, and taken to its logical conclusion, homosexuality is simply a dead end. If we had two divergent human societies that did not rely on science’s intervention, where one was men reproducing with only women, and the other was men having intercourse solely with other men, one would carry on, and one would die once the youngest male ceased to exist. I don’t care how learned someone thinks they are, to go beyond this is silly. This isn’t 1996, and we aren’t living in the movie “Junior.” Generally people who want to defend human reproduction using only men breeding with me, want to introduce sciencetific help to enable some “miracle.” How convenient. Labs and this sort of science do not exists for lions, and did not exist a century ago. Go put a thousand men on an island or put 100 women (who aren’t already pregnant by a man) on one, and come back and tell me how many are left 200 years later.

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.