Change is possible when change is desired. Change takes place when motivation exists. Absent motivation no change will occur. Change occurs when faciliatated with a plan that allows for fruition of the desired outcome. Many Homosexuals have sponataneusly reverted and literature supports this. No coercion involved.You believe that a homosexual can, by simple act of will, ‘convert’ to heterosexuality?
Ok then… I challenge you to do this: convert, just for a moment, to homosexuality and like it.
Oh, what’s that? You don’t like it?
What you’re talking about is ‘persuasion’: i.e. to be forced under some sort of influence or motivation to ACT differently. Now that motivation may well be religious, in that you are persuaded that your homosexual activity is sinful and will result in your mortal damnation, and that persuasion would therefore be rooted in fear, but your acts would still be contrary to your normal state. Just be acting in a way contrary to what you are doesn’t make you different. It just makes you a hypocrite. That itself may be right or wrong, depending on your moral viewpoint, but nothing is actually changing the essence of what or who you are.
I have read and know about it and it does not prove anything as yet about homosexuality, any reference to epigenitics and homosexuality is as you say conjecture.There is a difference between claiming conjecture and claiming consensus.
I’d like one person on this forum to read about “Epigenetics.”
There is no “gay gene.” It’s something physiologically different.
I suggest you go here for the information concerning homosexuality and animals…What a bunch of rubbish.
Humans ARE animals. We are descended from animals. We have the largest animal brains we can afford to push through a mother’s birth canal.
That is a simple fact. There is no debate. No controversy.
So the concept of a soul is merely a lie, leavened with conjecture over the years to seem more plausible. A lie, not in the sense that it’s untrue, end of story, but in the sense that it was told to people despite no other answers being consulted first.
Humans can perform metacognition, learn, and self reflective think and animals cannot.Those Homosexual Animals
Problem is, the Bible -is- tradition.
It’s traditionally kept as a canon part of the Church.
It’s traditionally read and interpreted by monks and scholars.
It’s traditionally copied and translated.
It’s traditionally held with high esteem.
And finally,
It’s traditionally held in people’s hands while shouting words of hatred at scapegoats.
This is traditionally what Protestants have doneIt’s traditionally held in people’s hands while shouting words of hatred at scapegoats
Help me please, as someone that has a degree in life science…prove for me how it is I did not know that animals are my cousins.Easy.
Humans did not descend from monkeys. They are cousins.
Let me clear that up.
There is an ancestor of creature that came before both chimps and humans, but we are both descended from them on separate branches of the binary tree of life.
It’s scientifically sound to assume that whatever predates the advanced creature of monkey and the advanced creature of Man was less advanced than both according to the indisputable science of evolution.
It can also be noticed from there that the creature predating both species was an animal.
So the only things that can descend from IT are animals.
Humans and chimps are those two animals, since they are descendants.
Evolution cannot be disputed as a whole. Even Pope John Paul II could accept this.
What the remarkable thing is though, is that the Church, recognizing this fact, still kept it’s old traditions that relied solely on Creationism for any logical basis. Such as:
Baptism against original sin of Adam.
The belief that humans are not animals.
The book of Genesis.
The sacrament of matrimony.
The belief in immortality.
That Jesus died for Adam’s sin.
The belief in resurrection of a dead body. (Not Jesus, but the people Jesus resurrected.)
The belief that diseases spontaneously leave a body.
The belief that pig-demons willingly throw themselves off cliffs.
The belief that snakes can talk.
The belief that fish prefer certain sides of boats when Jesus is around.
I could go on.
which version?I read the entire bible.
It is probably the most disturbing book I’ve ever read in my life.
Let’s go Natural…yipeeIf you can find something in nature, it is natural.
That’s how nature works. You can’t define it. It is what it is observed as.
No way…you mean none of this occured anywhere except in the Bible? It did not happen or is not described anywhere outside the Bible?Murder, rape, pedophilia, incest, torture, infanticide, genocide, slavery, bloodlust, cannibalism, demons, human sacrifice, megalomania, crucifixion, starvation, betrayal, scourging…
My standard of morality is whether another creature suffers from my actions.
Homosexuality does not provoke suffering from heterosexuals.
Abortions do not provoke suffering to zygotes. They only provoke suffering to the woman getting them if she already has a preconditioned negative feeling towards it
Contraception does not provoke suffering to anything.
…
Let me list some things Christians approve of that provoke suffering.
Others.
Now that would be the Jews, you say you read the Bible…do you recall what was said about Circumcion in the New Testament?Circumcision.
A point of view is a point of view. We believe that Homosexuality is not natural and is immoral. With that belief we do not approve. Our moral differ from yours and are not relative they are absolute.Discrimination against homosexuals.
Got me on that oneDiscrimination against it’s own members.
We are not existensialists and believe in the value of life, if you deny that then ask for a mercy killing.Keeping a terminally ill person alive as long as possible.
We believe the gift is our and not ours to destroyDenying assisted suicide.
Source?You’re going to be sorry if you don’t conform to assembled hatred of a bronze-age scapegoat" is pretty much what you just said.
Because it is epigenetically “installed” into the a fetus in the womb, you cannot “become” homosexual. You only discover it later, usually at puberty when the testosterone starts flowing (or in the case of homosexual males, fails to start flowing).
Likewise, you cannot become straight after that discovery. Every single thing in your body points in the other direction. It is quite literally, unnatural to make a homosexual become straight.
No, they are not allowed.Are mercy killings allowed in Catholicism? I have never thought about it.
Euthenasia would be what you should look at…Ok thanks.
Euthanasia
2276 Those whose lives are diminished or weakened deserve special respect. Sick or handicapped persons should be helped to lead lives as normal as possible.
2277 Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable.
Thus an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator. The error of judgment into which one can fall in good faith does not change the nature of this murderous act, which must always be forbidden and excluded.
2278 Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of “over-zealous” treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one’s inability to impede it is merely accepted. The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected.
If you live in a large city with a large public library like Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, New York or if you happen to visit one…go to the public library and look at the old dictionaries and compare to the newer ones the definition of Euthanasia…2279 Even if death is thought imminent, the ordinary care owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted. The use of painkillers to alleviate the sufferings of the dying, even at the risk of shortening their days, can be morally in conformity with human dignity if death is not willed as either an end or a means, but only foreseen and tolerated as inevitable Palliative care is a special form of disinterested charity. As such it should be encouraged.