T
Timothy17
Guest
Nature itself instructs opposition to homosexuality ; in fact, if homosexuality were taken to its extreme, then there would be no humans.
Pax Christi,
Tim
- Status
Pax Christi,
Tim
S
Santi2
Guest
Most definitely phones would be ringing off the hooks because it would be dismantling the current trend towards “grey is the new black”.Can you imagine the hysteria??? The lawsuits???
R
rossum
Guest
Two points. Firstly, scientists have indeed started looking at the problem, see Why Gays don’t go Extinct. There is no problem for Darwin there.
Secondly, twin studies have been done. If your identical twin is gay then there is about a 50% chance that you are also gay. The usual interpretation is that genetics influences sexuality but does not completely determine it. If you don’t have a gay identical twin your chances of being gay are much reduced. See Gay Men in Twin Study for one example. Google “gay twin studies” for more references.
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
A very weak argument. “Nature itself instructs opposition to masculinity ; in fact, if masculinity were taken to its extreme, then there would be no humans.” An all male population will not be able to reproduce and will go extinct. Are you saying that being male is against nature?
rossum
T
Timothy17
Guest
rossum,
The “problem” is the gay mentality and lifestyle is anti-social, because it is and must be anti-nature, and we are social creatures by nature. The moment you begin to undermine nature itself, everything even nominally natural becomes questionable.
This is ridiculous. Of course people who are simply not (or even simply less exposed to) the scandal of homosexuality are going to be less likely to follow suit. That is the point of our argument ; furthermore, if there are underlying factors that are fostering (or, really, undermining) a child’s psychological sense of gender identity, as in their home, community or school(s), then obviously a twin will be exposed to those exact same forces that will work, less or more, to have the same detrimental effects.
Regardless, why are you wasting your own and our time here arguing with us Christians when you profess in your own signature that “there is no truth” ? What point would there be to even argue or analyze or seek conclusive findings if those findings cannot be called truth, and thus be held definitively ?
Pax Christi,
Tim
T
Timothy17
Guest
Get off your computer, then off the dope.
F
FightingFat
Guest
This seems an extraordinary position to take as far as I can understand it, it demonstrates how far the homosexual agenda has penetrated clear thinking! Masculinity, surely, by its very nature, values and desires femininity? The complementarity of the sexes is the very basis of life!
Gosh things are bad!
F
FightingFat
Guest
Thanks for that, it’s an interesting idea, but it is a theory that they seem to be attempting to fit a scenario, rather than a directly evidenced causal link.
R
rossum
Guest
Did you read the article? The evidence is there. In the Italian study female relatives of male gays had on average more children. Further down there is confirmation from a separate study in Samoa. There is direct evidence.
rossum
F
FightingFat
Guest
It says
“These genes work in a sexually antagonistic way — that means that when they’re represented in a female, they increase fecundity , and when they’re represented in a male, they decrease fecundity. It’s a trait that benefits one sex at the cost of the other.”
This data could fit a scenario where those males with decreased fecundity could be gay.
K
kenofken
Guest
Any argument that is rooted in assumptions about homosexuality (or any other trait) being “against nature” are ludicrous on their face. We went “against nature” 2.5 million years ago the first time one of our hairy ancestors chipped a rock into a crude knife and started a fire to roast his dinner. If we still “obeying” nature, we would still lost most of our offspring in the first year (and kill and eat some of them from time to time). Most of us would not live past our early 30s. And for all that, we’d still have homosexuality because it is rampant throughout nature and seems to have evolutionary value in certain circumstances. The “nature” used by the anti-gay crowd exists nowhere in the real world. It is a fantasy construct based on their reading of the Bible and their own preconceptions of what nature should be.
W
Windfish
Guest
When we talk about nature, we are not talking about some abstract notion of the wilderness. We are talking about telos - how things really are and how things are ordered to final ends for their good. With that in mind, the use of tools and of other technology (like fire) is by no means contrary to our nature. The use of fire to roast our dinner is not contrary to the nature of man.
When we speak of nature, we are talking about with the framework of Aristotelian and Platonic philosophy, which also happens to be encompassed within Christianity.
J
JW10631
Guest
Junk science gets plenty of traction in the “mainstream” media. Alfred Kinsey was an early purveyor of junk science. His “10% of the population is homosexual” is a load of cow manure, but the gay rights bunch shoves it down everyone’s throats.
Want more junk science? Global warming is more junk science. The whole thing has been disproven, but the Left will not give it up.
Colleges these days are more about indoctrination than education and it has been that way for a long time.
You don’t know what you are talking about, but that is nothing new.
T
Timothy17
Guest
I was explicitly taught and told that in High School. I will never forget that day in class when I looked around and wondered just how many people in my class were actually gay.
P
PAboy57
Guest
No, I have not seen the programs.
- seems to be more disease among the group
- doesn’t produce children/society will die/social security will go broke
- God said so a long time ago because He knows the answers to all the questions.
S
Samuel63
Guest
This last page of posts is really fantastic. What I observe is the gay agenda promoters have lost almost all common sense.
The rest of the group is trying to make a convincing argument, and doing a respectable and honorable job of it. Those of you on this side will be rewarded in heaven - I pray.
For those poor souls that are lost, and maybe only temporarily lost, to the gay lifestyle and the terrible effect of evil upon their souls, intellect, and will, I pray that you will become pure, holy, and a leader to your brothers and sisters showing them the way back to God.
The rest of the group is trying to make a convincing argument, and doing a respectable and honorable job of it. Those of you on this side will be rewarded in heaven - I pray.
For those poor souls that are lost, and maybe only temporarily lost, to the gay lifestyle and the terrible effect of evil upon their souls, intellect, and will, I pray that you will become pure, holy, and a leader to your brothers and sisters showing them the way back to God.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
(1) I’ve read an 11% correlation with identical twins where one of them tends toward homosexual attraction, not a 50% correlation.
(2) But the big question is, for those of you so determined to “prove” the Catholic Church wrong: You go on and on about its supposed ignorance and supposed distaste for science. Why, then, should the Church’s teachings concern you? Why should you care so passionately about what the Church believes, writes, and teaches its own members, since you have so little respect (apparently) for its intellectual tradition? If you’re convinced that the RCC is just so transparently wrong about every modern moral issue, including homosexual behavior, then surely you would be so confident of the Church being publicly discredited because of error, that you wouldn’t bother to doggedly stalk this subject for months and years on this discussion forum, repeatedly “proving” the arguments to be fallacious. The Catholic Church is a minority in this country. I’m just curious as to why, if you’re so confident that the Church has no credibility in secular society, you seem to feel so threatened by its teachings.
(2) But the big question is, for those of you so determined to “prove” the Catholic Church wrong: You go on and on about its supposed ignorance and supposed distaste for science. Why, then, should the Church’s teachings concern you? Why should you care so passionately about what the Church believes, writes, and teaches its own members, since you have so little respect (apparently) for its intellectual tradition? If you’re convinced that the RCC is just so transparently wrong about every modern moral issue, including homosexual behavior, then surely you would be so confident of the Church being publicly discredited because of error, that you wouldn’t bother to doggedly stalk this subject for months and years on this discussion forum, repeatedly “proving” the arguments to be fallacious. The Catholic Church is a minority in this country. I’m just curious as to why, if you’re so confident that the Church has no credibility in secular society, you seem to feel so threatened by its teachings.
C
colmcille1
Guest
Hi Elizabeth, my friend.(1) I’ve read an 11% correlation with identical twins where one of them tends toward homosexual attraction, not a 50% correlation.
(2) But the big question is, for those of you so determined to “prove” the Catholic Church wrong: You go on and on about its supposed ignorance and supposed distaste for science. Why, then, should the Church’s teachings concern you? Why should you care so passionately about what the Church believes, writes, and teaches its own members, since you have so little respect (apparently) for its intellectual tradition? If you’re convinced that the RCC is just so transparently wrong about every modern moral issue, including homosexual behavior, then surely you would be so confident of the Church being publicly discredited because of error, that you wouldn’t bother to doggedly stalk this subject for months and years on this discussion forum, repeatedly “proving” the arguments to be fallacious. The Catholic Church is a minority in this country. I’m just curious as to why, if you’re so confident that the Church has no credibility in secular society, you seem to feel so threatened by its teachings.
An excellent post, as usual!
I put the same question (though not as eloquently phrased, I hasten to add!) to a poster on another thread who seems to harbour the same embittered obsession as the fellow you addressed. Are they tolls? Are they real? Who knows?
One thing’s for sure: they do not wish to heighten their collective conscience on Catholic issues.
God Bless,
Colmcille.
G
Graubo3
Guest
Yep, year 2011 Anno Domini. Some things haven’t changed much. We have truly evolved into something great
.Rampant? Get out past the burbs and please tell us the evolutionary value you witness.
Peace, Graubo
R
rossum
Guest
- Status