Dear Friends,Please start another thread on this topic. It is not helpful in advancing the dialogue regarding the OP question.
Vern,I repeat:
What’s the point of this debate?
This is a Catholic forum. The Church has spoken on the subject – it is not a sin to have SSA, it is a sin to perform homosexual acts.
The ananlogy is flawed. Psychological and physical dependence to some narcotic may be treated in a variety of ways with a variety of success. The issue here is homosexual attraction and conduct. It is insulting to all to claim each person is simply a summation of their desires and inclinations while denying that they have a free will. Each case is different and a absolute deterministic approach to life contradicts right reason and even science.You insist on trivialiizing.
This is NOT trivial.
…but does not come close to the measure of the seriousness or the pain.
I am not going to take the time to parse out all that propaganda. The foundation of these many false assertions have been debated here many times.No! Do you deliberately miss the point?
Being gay is of negative value to society, as it is to the sufferer. This is not an excuse for queer bashing. These people do have positive (name removed by moderator)uts to society, but at great cost to themselves.
If missguided people force these unfortunates to live a normal life, and take an ‘appropriate’ heterosexual partner, and then possibly, breed, they will procreate young bearing the defective genotype that causes their own suffering, and the stress of the artificial partnership will inevitably result in its dissolution, resulting in a single parent child, with a genotypical tendency to SSA.
But, this is too simplistic an equation. The problems are multifactorial. It is not like there is one viral pathogen and we get one vaccine and the condition is resolved. There are many factors to be considered and many confounding variables that we are not even discussing.If on the other hand, a homosexual alliance is tolerated, and that alliance is encouraged to be a faithful alliance, then this will result in the effective sterility of both members of that alliance. This will thus prevent the transmission of the defective genotype of both partners. This is beneficial to society, and to mankind.
If you think animals have personhood then please offer proof other than sentimentalism.So when animals show signs of nascent humanity, it is mere instinct. In effect you devalue humanity in humans, for humans are also animals.
Of course wolves can speak. They of course have a limited vocabulary. If it were not so, how could a shepherd control his dog?
Have you never seen adoration in the eyes of a dog?
Then you have never had the honour of being the guardian of such a wonderful creature.
Prove mathematically blue is my favorite color.Math is a branch of philosophy. Read Newton’s ‘Principia’.
Reason while excluding faith is limiting. Man needs both to find answers.What you say might be true of yesterday and today, where science is in a wood, examining trees. In the fullness of time, science will perceive that the wood is made of trees, and the interaction of the trees makes the forest. Science is already moving in this direction.
Never say ‘never’.
It is by no means the “least worst sin.” And most especially in the AIDS epidemic. Given the failure rate of condoms, using condoms is simply self-deluding. One who has homosexual sex under those conditions is not only sinning but putting his life and his partner’s life at risk.OK, I admit it is a sin.
But surely it is a least worst sin.
In the same way, the use of condoms, and other forms of birth control is a sin, but the lack of use of condoms in a scenario where AIDS is endemic is a greater sin.
Thus in that scenario, it is a least worst sin.