Z
- Status
S
St_Pancake
Guest
Words to live by.
S
St_Pancake
Guest
There were no blacks lynched in this country in 1967. There was one black lynched in 1961, 1 in 1963 and 1 in 1964 but none in 1967. That was it for the decades.
D
David_Goliath
Guest
I need some time to think before I even consider coming back after this post.I have read and enjoyed a good many of your posts. I never considered you “snarky” much less the Queen of the Snark Kingdom. Oh, you have tossed out a few really good “zingers” but I didn’t see much “snark”.
If you read “DR” David’s post you will have to admit that it was more condescending to me and the Catholic members of the forum…than informative. His closing with “Goodbye CAF” seemed like he was in a snit. I simply wished him a “goodbye” in return.
Zoltan has no problem accepting scientific facts from educated people…as long as I can understand the science. I am not a scientist so statements like: make me want to ask: What do you mean by “etc.”…because I have no idea what “RNA, Rrna, siRNA” means.
But, be assured, if David didn’t mean it and does continue to post I will be kind to him.
This forum is just to bizzare for me. Then again, I am not Catholic and Catholicism, compared to even orthodox Judaism is much more absolutist (ask a two Rabbis a question, expect at least three answers). I am not accustomed to a “one true Church” mindset but I think I “get it”.
By the way I never said I was a medical doctor (M.D or D.O., google it). There is a type of doctor called a pathologist (no, not just dead people). If you after had a specimen “sent to the lab or analysis” chances are a pathologists looked at it with a microscope or used some molecular biotechnology to diagnosis it. I am the person that looks at it before that that doctor, with the exception of cervical Pap smears as if I call it negative that is final.
Within the medical laboratory field there is a classification called “technician”. I am not just a “labtech”. “Technologists” falls under “scientist” which in this field is the closest assistant to doctor. And for the record I took the MCAT in college and was offered MD interviews but took another path.
“Proof” in medical sciences is a strange thing. Trends in clinical research are just that: trends that point to certain conclusion to an extent. Asking for “the one gene that causes SSA” is like asking for “the one gene that causes cancer”.“What is the gay gene” is such a ridiculous question. There is no such thing. Even individual genes encodes in human chromosomes differ slightly in their nucleotide sequence (the letters of DNA). SSA is likely “innate” in that it is a complex mix of genetics, environment, etc". There is also newer understanding of epigenetics: that is, proteins on top of DNA that undergo additional modifications which in turn modify DNA, this is also an explanation of why “identical” twins can differ ever so slightly later in life (I am a twin, BTW).
I’m a 30 year old heterosexual man. Show me gay pornography and I will not get an erection. Show me a good looking man and I will not be aroused. How hard is that to grasp? How is that not common sense to some people? I don’t get it. If you read an earlier post you’ll see that when I was growing some kids thought I was gay (because i like opera and play piano?). I went through a horrible time and nearly killed myself.
I get that you can view acting on SSA is a sin (that’s a non-issue to me) but to be so adamant that SSA is an active “choice” is an idea from the dinosaur age.
For some peer reviewed literature, play around with a tool called PUBMED.
**I maintain that a lot of people that are so against legal SSM have conflicted sexualities (like Cardinal Keith Obrien and George Rekers, etc). Closet cases?
**
I started this thread because I do not encounter people in real life
Maybe it’s because I’m 30 and my peers don’t care one way or the other? Maybe it’s because I’m Jewish and even the elderly in my faith community (a “conservative” synagogue) rally for SSM rights?
Whatever, I see the reactions I asked for now. It’s a wide spectrum and some views are “officially” against “official” Church teaching.
R
Rau
Guest
Oh dear, what a fig leaf! A gay person is a person, with the same civil rights as you and I. But there is only one marriage Zoltan. Logically, there is only 1 possible sexual Union that arises from the nature of man, forms natural family units and brings about growth in society through children. It’s called marriage.
If two persons have a case for State support for living together, sharing assets, mutual care and the like, well let the case be made. I don’t have a problem with that, do you? Regrettably, expedience will probably see your Supreme Court deem that marriage should fulfill this requirement.
Atheists typically have their plan B. Very wise.
J
Jeanne_S
Guest
Herein lies the crux of SSA being given the same consideration as heterosexual unions.
For those that see marriage as a right regardless of one’s sexual tendencies,the obvious,logical conclusion that marriage as God intends is between a man and woman is a nonissue.A basic understanding of biology( advanced degree not necessary) should lead even the most secular person to understanding two men or two women aren’t sexually compatible. In fact,without getting too graphic,data has shown a preponderance of anal cancer among gay men.
R
Rau
Guest
There is no possible decision that will have that effect. If the court finds that SSM is just fine on Constitutional grounds, then you may have a defect in your Constitution.I, for one, hope that SCOTUS really does take action that will end this debate.
Personally, I suspect the Constitution is fine, and anticipate the court will come up with nonsense - ie. a conclusion that could not possibly have been intended by the Constitution writers.
R
Rau
Guest
Surely, one man sharing his semen with another just screams “something is wrong here”?
D
David_Goliath
Guest
**Basic biology (not even community college level!) shows that some people experience SSA **(even the Catechism states that) and it is not their choice.
What two mature people decide to do about those feelings is none of my business just as me having (consensual, safe) sex with a woman is no one else’s business. It just requires a little more forward/progressive thinking to accept that two people of the same sex decide to have sex in whatever way…BTW some gay men do not engage in any intercourse…so I’ve heard. I don’t know about other people here, but when I see someone has a problem with SSA people making a decision to be a couple or whatever… i think…“what a dinosaur”.
Heterosexual sex has to potential lead to rampant cervical cancer (squamous subtype) due to HPV (subtypes 16, 18, 31). It was only the invention of the cervical Pap smear in the 20th century that decreased cervical
The best way to avoid cervical cancer is to never have sex. The Pap smear even detects even minor atypia ((ASCUS: Atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance) that is immediately treated, thereby saving many womens lives. Point being: there is cancer risk for homosexual and heterosexual sex. Perhaps the medical community developed the Pap smear because lets face it, most people are heterosexual and have heterosexual sex. BTW, I make most of my money diagnosing Pap smears…
Pork is also “linked” to increased risk (not direct cause) of various gastro-intestinal adenocarcinomas. I heard a lot of talk about banning this and that for the “common good” on this forum (usually referring to various Papal documets) ; should pork be banned for the common good, too? How about cigarettes? Cigars? McDonalds?
Are there any anti SSM people aged 30 or under on this forum? Just curious. I’m making no assumptions.
T
Thorolfr
Guest
Because you seem to assume that anal cancer is some kind of evidence that anal intercourse is wrong, should we also assume that cervical cancer in women is evidence that vaginal intercourse is wrong? According to Wikipedia, “Worldwide, cervical cancer is both the fourth most common cause of cancer and the fourth most common cause of death from cancer in women.” The most common cause of cervical cancer (up to 90% of cases) is the Human papillomavirus (HPV) which is usually spread through vaginal intercourse. Somehow, this kind of reasoning does not seem too convincing to me.
R
Rau
Guest
Seriously?
D
David_Goliath
Guest
It does not scream that to me and I am a 30 year old heterosexual man.
It does not scream that to me because I realize that in nature some humans experience SSA.
Someone thinking there is something wrong with two people with SSA choosing to couple up with each other or whatever screams one thing to me: “Dinosaur”.
My conservative (overlaps with reform) synagogue (all age groups) is praying for a pro-SSM SCOTUS decision. My friend’s orthodox synagogue is doing the same thing even though their recognition of religious SSM is “in transition”.
J
Jeanne_S
Guest
C’mon,the Church states SSA in and of itself is not sinful,acting on those desires is the sin.
Taking religion and even a God out of the equation,the fact still remains that certain parts of the an anatomy were not designed for sex.The Anal area is a hostile environment for semen,which BTY is designed to fertilize a female egg.It really is just that basic.
D
David_Goliath
Guest
I am well aware of that. I know the difference between SSA and “acting” on it.
What I do not “get” is some Catholics and Catholic leaders actively trying to stop SSM between two consenting adults. At least one of those leaders(Cardinal Keith Obrien) turned out to be a closet gay, making lives miserable for other gay people.
R
Rau
Guest
Opposition to state endorsement of sexual unions between persons of the same sex is not unique to Catholics.
D
David_Goliath
Guest
Of course it isn’t.
If a Jewish Rabbi believes he/she should officiate a marriage between two consenting adults of the same sex and have that marriage recognized civilly just as a heterosexual marriage (performed in or out of any religion) AND the state makes such unions illegal, is that not a violation of religious rights, too?
Can’t there be a balance? Yes, I know the cake business thing can get messy. That’s another issue.
Why should YOUR religious convictions supersede the Rabbi in question (or mine)?
In allowing SSM, the state will not force the Catholic Church to have priests perform SSM any more than force the Catholic Church to circumcise eight day old boys and/or change Confirmation to Bar and Bat Mitzvahs.
J
Jeanne_S
Guest
- Status