Racial discrimination vs. discrimination based on sexual orientation

  • Thread starter Thread starter tmellin
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

tmellin

Guest
Public officials (like Arnold Schwarzenegger), news anchors (Katie Couric) and even major companies (Google) publicly support homosexual marriage by presenting it as an equity issue morally equivalent to racial equity.

Since many in this debate do not recognize Genesis–or much less, the Catechism of the Catholic Church–as having legitimacy on this issue, I suggest the use of genetic science as a source of objective truth that may have influence:

Modern science has determined that human DNA (in every cell of every human being) is formed from the combination of the DNA of one male and one female human. In other words, the genetic identity of every cell in every human’s body is heterosexual, a fact easily proven by DNA-based paternity and maternity tests.

Since the genetic identity of every human being is inherited heterosexually (i.e. human reproduction is heterosexual), this creates an unchangeable genetic definition of parenthood that makes homosexual motherhood or fatherhood impossible. Indeed, even were a human clone to be produced and claimed as the child of a homosexual adult, the father and mother of the clone would be the one man and one woman whose DNA was present in the clone.

Our scientific understanding of DNA affirms the unity and equality of all races in the human family, and as well affirms the unchangeable nature of human reproduction: necessarily heterosexual inherited human genetic identity. The traditional definition of marriage–as existing between one man and one woman–corresponds to and is in harmony with this natural fact.
 
tmellin said:
Modern science has determined that human DNA (in every cell of every human being) is formed from the combination of the DNA of one male and one female human. In other words, the genetic identity of every cell in every human’s body is heterosexual, a fact easily proven by DNA-based paternity and maternity tests.
Click to expand...
Sort of, I am assuming that you mean everyone gets one X or Y from each parent? Except, not everyone has XX or XY. I am XXY/XX/XY mosiac. Some of my cells have a double dose from my mother.

There is a condition known as Turner’s Syndrome, where a female can have only little to none of one of the X chromosome, having almost no genetic information from the father in this case.

There are literally dozens of these sorts of conditions that cause ‘non-heterosexual genetics’ as you say.
 
pathia said:
Sort of, I am assuming that you mean everyone gets one X or Y from each parent? Except, not everyone has XX or XY. I am XXY/XX/XY mosiac. Some of my cells have a double dose from my mother.

There is a condition known as Turner’s Syndrome, where a female can have only little to none of one of the X chromosome, having almost no genetic information from the father in this case.

There are literally dozens of these sorts of conditions that cause ‘non-heterosexual genetics’ as you say.
Click to expand...
If you are implying that homosexuality is genetic, then you are also implying that Homosexuals cannot help being what they are, and beyond this,cannot help doing what they do. However, my experience is that even some very effeminate men are not homosexual. What it is that leads some men to prefer men over women is, I think, unknown, but psychological causes in men are as potent as physical ones.
 
RobbyS said:
If you are implying that homosexuality is genetic, then you are also implying that Homosexuals cannot help being what they are, and beyond this,cannot help doing what they do. However, my experience is that even some very effeminate men are not homosexual. What it is that leads some men to prefer men over women is, I think, unknown, but psychological causes in men are as potent as physical ones.
Click to expand...
No, I am stating that not everyone’s genetics is simply XY or XX. That just isn’t the case.
 
pathia said:
No, I am stating that not everyone’s genetics is simply XY or XX. That just isn’t the case.
Click to expand...
Ithink he was trying to argument thatbiologically each person is a male or a female, which is the safer generalization. The odd notion of a third and fourth sex, based on some intangible like sexual orientation, areproducts of efforts to reduce biology to culture, and reduce culture to mere convention, or to group identity. Somewhat as I see Durkheim’s treatment of religion.
 
tmellin said:
Since the genetic identity of every human being is inherited heterosexually (i.e. human reproduction is heterosexual), this creates an unchangeable genetic definition of parenthood that makes homosexual motherhood or fatherhood impossible.
Click to expand...
Only if you define parenthood purely in the animal sense. But certainly adoptive parents, who have no genetic link to their children, are not lesser parents.
 
So often overlooked in this debate: 90% of the legal benefits of marriage are currently available by writing wills, durable powers of attorney, etc: it is more trouble than a marriage license, but very doable for two people who want to take care of one another.

But 90% of equality isn’t equality: no legal instrument other than marriage conveys the tax advantages or the transfer of Social Security benefits, and some other pension plans.

I bow to the church on the issue of what constitutes a marriage, but ‘because the Church says so’ isn’t a good enough arguement in a secular society.

The Church is also opposed to non-marital sex and contraception, [for good reasons which I also accept] but neither oppostion is codified in civil law.

I believe the civil authority must have a compelling reason if it’s going to treat one group differently from another, and I’ve yet to see an arguement against gay unions that I would call compelling.

Yet some slopes are indeed slippery: if gay unions are sanctioned, how do we rationalize limiting a union to two people? I believe we should, I’m just not sure how…

Perhaps it’s time for the government to get out of the marriage business altogether. Offer a one size fits all contract, let the couple go elsewhere for the actual ceremony.

But I think people my age [still in my 40s, for a while yet] are going to have to get used to the idea: the voter exit polls I saw claimed something like 70% of voters under 30 support gay unions. Unless someone comes up with an arguement that will change those numbers, gay marriage is a matter of when, not if.
 
There is a condition known as Turner’s Syndrome, where a female can have only little to none of one of the X chromosome, having almost no genetic information from the father in this case.
Click to expand...
There are literally dozens of these sorts of conditions that cause ‘non-heterosexual genetics’ as you say.
Click to expand...
Point well taken, but not a good argument for non-heterosexual inherited human genetic identity. If we look back enough generations (usually only one) we’ll find the DNA inherited from one male.
genome.gov/19519119
 
Dale_M said:
Only if you define parenthood purely in the animal sense. But certainly adoptive parents, who have no genetic link to their children, are not lesser parents.
Click to expand...
To the question, “Who is the father of this child?” the first proper answer is and should remain, “the child’s genetic father”. While another person may play the role of the father in the child’s life (indeed, even with the genetic father in daily contact with the child), this can be so only in conjunction with the genetic father’s death, abandonment or explicit permission.

I think we are getting a preview of one potentially likely path to “state sanctioned homosexual parenthood”.
  1. Genetic parents somewhere in the world give up their parental rights to a child (this happens frequently)
  2. State laws allow the adoption of the child by a pair of homosexual adults who have a state-recognized “marriage” license
I think it easy to support the argument that a child raised in a homosexual household will be less likely to become married (implicitly heterosexual in my use of the term) and produce a family of his own.

I believe that every child’s normal sexual development and reproductive potential should be protected from the inherently non-reproductive homosexual adult relationship model.
 
tmellin said:
I think it easy to support the argument that a child raised in a homosexual household will be less likely to become married (implicitly heterosexual in my use of the term) and produce a family of his own.
Click to expand...
Okay, let’s see your evidence.
 
Sam_Maloney said:
But I think people my age [still in my 40s, for a while yet] are going to have to get used to the idea: the voter exit polls I saw claimed something like 70% of voters under 30 support gay unions. Unless someone comes up with an arguement that will change those numbers, gay marriage is a matter of when, not if.
Click to expand...
First of all, these polls can be deceptive, depending on who you ask, how many, and how the question was phrased. Even so, can people under 30 never learn and grow into maturity and develop their consciences any further? Is there anything you believed under 30, that you don’t anymore? Is there anything you didn’t believe under 30, that you do now?

It’s not inevitable. We have to pray and do our duties as people who respect God.
 
Two items:

First: it has been discovered that gender is not always determined by XX or XY. This was the first evidence I could find easily.

pponline.co.uk/encyc/0858.htm

If you care to look for further information it is out there. It is rare that certain hormonal conditions within an individual can entirely reverse the expected gender of a person but it exists.

Second: to say that a child’s parent can only be determined by genetic material invalidates the concept of adoption.
 
Annn said:
According to one columnist, writing an opinion piece.
Click to expand...
And her point, despite the title of the article, is that the gay rights struggle is not comparable to the black rights struggle. I think she’s right, but both involve(d) the denial of civil rights.
 
MDK said:
First of all, these polls can be deceptive, depending on who you ask, how many, and how the question was phrased. Even so, can people under 30 never learn and grow into maturity and develop their consciences any further? Is there anything you believed under 30, that you don’t anymore? Is there anything you didn’t believe under 30, that you do now?

It’s not inevitable. We have to pray and do our duties as people who respect God.
Click to expand...
Certianly, polls can be deceptive, and deliberately so. However, this one was an abstract of just how the vote on California’s Prop 8 breaks down. If it had been up to voters under 30, it would have been rejected by more than 2 to 1.

Yeah, they may change thier minds, but with the media firmly on the side of same sex unions, I don’t know where they’ll even hear a contrary opinion.
 
Sam_Maloney said:
But I think people my age [still in my 40s, for a while yet] are going to have to get used to the idea: the voter exit polls I saw claimed something like 70% of voters under 30 support gay unions. Unless someone comes up with an arguement that will change those numbers, gay marriage is a matter of when, not if.
Click to expand...
I believe the Holy Spirit is alive and well. He will change those numbers through us. We are not called the Church Militant for nothing. There is no better time for the teaching of “Theology of the Body” to our young people. Sounds like a challenge to me. I’m up for the challenge. We are not called the Church Militant for nothing. My family has been very involved in the YES on 8 campaign in CA. and I have found that when the young people that I have come in contact with take a look past the rhetoric and hype of the civil rights hoopla the fog begins to clear. If someone just takes the time to explain the issue and that marital love is the cradle of life and that our special interest group should be the human race then they know there is no way that can be hate speech. The dictatorship of secularism is nowhere near as strong as our call to go out and make disciples of all nations. The desensitization of our youth by some college professors and our TVs in our homes have indeed taken a toll, but I see a renewed spirit in many of my Catholic bretheran and many of them are in their early 20s. Find them, reach out to them, praise them up. Pray, study and evangelize like never before. Hand out “Pillar of Fire;Pillar of Truth” found on this webpage. We’re fighting a media war. I pray people get their hands on some great media and exchange it for the media they are currently (name removed by moderator)utting on a regular basis.

There…I feel a little better now…and Sam Maloney, as you can tell I get a little fired up when I see those exit polls too!
 
Annn said:
According to one columnist, writing an opinion piece.
Click to expand...
Opinion Culture will collapse under the truth. In any contest of opinions, one side is right and the other side is wrong. Period.

This article was not written for some general publication but for a Harvard law newspaper. Its argument was well stated and true. Legalizing gay sex will only lead to other legalized sexual relationships outside the bounds of one man, one woman. To call it marriage is inaccurate, since a life-producing conjugal union can never occur.

People can do what they want in the privacy of their homes but they should not be telling the rest of the country that if gay marriage is legal, public schools are now forced to teach children that gay sex is OK without any possibility for the parents to remove their child from that situation. If anyone wants the right to choose, don’t force public schools to spread your lifestyle choice to kids without their parents having a say in it.

Peace,
Ed
 
Sam_Maloney said:
Certianly, polls can be deceptive, and deliberately so. However, this one was an abstract of just how the vote on California’s Prop 8 breaks down. If it had been up to voters under 30, it would have been rejected by more than 2 to 1.

Yeah, they may change thier minds, but with the media firmly on the side of same sex unions, I don’t know where they’ll even hear a contrary opinion.
Click to expand...
It’s not really an abstract, but a sampling. Yes, I understand statistics and math, as these have always been strong suits. I’m not fatalistic and without hope. People on their own tend to grow up and learn, and somehow even if the media is promoting evil. For instance, those who attend Church will likely be exposed to some kind of truth along the way. Rather than accepting it as inevitable, we can do something about it…, like praying for starters.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top