The Homosexual Agenda

[larkin31]

You do not face these arguments every time. For example, you still have not responded to my post #299. You can repeat ad nauseum that there is no such thing as Natural Law, yet there is a world of evidence that there is.

There is no “evidence” of any empirical kind of any such idea. The idea exists, surely. But as objective fact, no. None. Zilch. None whatsoever. If you have some, please provide.

Over on this thread, Gay Marriage - who cares, there is enough argument plus evidence to sink a ship

This is all based on the assumption–without any empirical evidence–that God exists. As such, I reject this as faith-based, having NO PERSUASIVE OBJECTIVE evidence.

, as there is on this thread, to show that Natural Law is real , yet you continually just say “no there isn’t” and in the process you are whitewashing at least half the intellectual enquiry of the human race over many millenia

I don’t care for how many millenia people have professed a “Man on the Moon” or “God.” I am simply stating that there is no persuasive OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE for either.

Many of us have traced the intellectual development of Natural Law showing that it did not begin with a theological base, but a metaphysical, ontological, cosmological and epistomological one. Theology came later

This is false, and irrelevant. I am claiming that “natural law” exists ONLY as a human idea. I don’t care how far back the idea began. Although your claim is intellectually interesting.

In all of that enquiry, using reason, humanity has formulated certain moral truths which are held as universal and ordered

I don’t deny this claim about human thinking. I entirely agree with this summary.

It is rather obvious that a good deal of the homosexual agenda is breaking down that obvious universality and its accepted norms. Even that agenda proves the existence of Natural Law!

“Accepted norms” is NOT the same as “natural law.” You need to be more precise with your terms and ideas.

This is off my point. My claim is about “objective existence” of this thing called “Natural Law.” All of what you keep saying, basically, is that lots of people disagree with me. Well, fine! I just say that there is no persuasive objective evidence of this thing called “natural law” except as a human idea.

But maybe you will actually at some point provide some. Or someone will. And then I will say, “Finally, some persuasive objective evidence.”

 

[larkin31]

You do not face these arguments every time. For example, you still have not responded to my post #299.

Oh yeah. The post that called my reply “rediculous” in the opening line. I did in fact respond: I loved the irony of that misspelling and called it “perfect.”

You did not ask a single question in that post. I saw no need to respond to that post except with a healthy dose of indifference. Maybe you would like to ask me a specific question without first insulting my response. You might get a more mature reply by asking for one in a more mature manner.

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

sexual orientation is not a behavior. Not in heterosexuaals any more or any differently than homosexuals.

This discussion has been about the genetics of the orientation, not whether you or I ever actually have sex of whatever kind.

This is in no way a conversation about orientation. It is a conversation about the homosexual agenda (read the title of the thread).

Homosexuality is the proof that aberrant things happen. That wires can get crossed. Just like xenosexuals.

And the 3% was based upon your statement: “This reply does not account for the twin studies and the studies of prior-male-sibling patterns, both of which suggest a genetic component (as yet undetermined). Clearly, environment, socialization, family, religion, also have clear influence on human sexual behavior. No one denies this. But does this also explain a 97% heterosexual demographic factor also? We just socialize straights into being straight? Treat them “normally” so that they come out “normal”?”

It is a valid response based upon the fact that you are asserting a genetic factor for a personality trait that has not been determined (in fact, none to my knowledge have been for any personality trait) and asserting that a vast minority (3%) have this non-mendellian genetic trait. Thus making them the “freaks” of today, much like albinos of the last millennium. Granted, I took my response a bit too far, but I was taken aback by your statement. It struck me as “kooky”, much like I am sure that mine struck you.

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

There is no “evidence” of any empirical kind of any such idea. The idea exists, surely. But as objective fact, no. None. Zilch. None whatsoever. If you have some, please provide.

This is all based on the assumption–without any empirical evidence–that God exists. As such, I reject this as faith-based, having NO PERSUASIVE OBJECTIVE evidence.

I don’t care for how many millenia people have professed a “Man on the Moon” or “God.” I am simply stating that there is no persuasive OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE for either.

This is false, and irrelevant. I am claiming that “natural law” exists ONLY as a human idea. I don’t care how far back the idea began. Although your claim is intellectually interesting.

I don’t deny this claim about human thinking. I entirely agree with this summary.

“Accepted norms” is NOT the same as “natural law.” You need to be more precise with your terms and ideas.

This is off my point. My claim is about “objective existence” of this thing called “Natural Law.” All of what you keep saying, basically, is that lots of people disagree with me. Well, fine! I just say that there is no persuasive objective evidence of this thing called “natural law” except as a human idea.

But maybe you will actually at some point provide some. Or someone will. And then I will say, “Finally, some persuasive objective evidence.”

lol, I do enjoy your posts. Honestly, they are very fun to read, even when you are mocking mine (and I know this isnt mine, but still). You are correct in your assertions and I will make no attempt to insult you by trying to show you proof for what is, in essence, a theological principle considering your “agnosticism” (I dislike that term, by the way, dont be lukewarm sir, dive into one side of the pool or the other). The only persuasive objective evidence for Natural Law, taken in piecemeal, is anecdotal at best.

I will, however, state that there is no empirical, measurable, data showing that homosexuality is genetic.

 

[stephe1987]

The homosexual gene is actually a double-edged sword.

If no gene is ever found, then people cannot say homosexuality is genetic. So it must come from somewhere else (environment?).
If a gene is found, there will suddenly be a race for a cure, which will upset many people who say that being homosexual is who they are.

The biggest worry is, other than the souls issue, is how far will this go? There are actually MANY sexual orientations. The homosexual agenda teaches that there are only two: heterosexual and homosexual. But there are people who experience sexual attraction to animals, adolescents, and even young children. Should they have the “right” to marry the kid or animal of their choice? Or sleep together? Of course not. People think this will end when gays have their “rights” but that is just the tip of the iceberg. Condoms are already being distributed in elementary schools. This isn’t some issue that will just go away.

---

No evidence for God? Are you serious?! What about Jesus and all those eyewitnesses? Those who knew Him, crowd of 500 who saw his ascension, etc.? Or all those people (hundreds?) who saw the Marian apparitions; Mary giving a message from God? And the millions of people who can feel the presence of the Holy Spirit in their everyday lives?

If those evidences aren’t enough, I suggest you look into yourself. Why don’t you believe? What do you need for you to believe? Are your expectations realistic from what religious people saw about God and how He reveals Himself to people? Is it automatically fake because YOU personally didn’t witness these events, and neither did your atheist/agnostic friends? Maybe you should look into books by former atheists; you are lost.

I also suggest you look to Jesus and stop expecting God to bow Himself down to YOUR demands. Open yourself up to Him, and He will reveal Himself to you in His time in HIS way. In this “me” age, it’s hard to think that there is something bigger/better than ourselves because we are used to instant gratification (food, credit card purchases, pleasure, etc.). But once you do, you will see that there is a God. You just need to be patient and open your heart and mind. There are people who feel the Holy Spirit, God works through other people, etc. It’s very amazing, and not what people who are looking for science classroom (repeatable experiments) expect. God is far more powerful than we initially expected.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

This is in no way a conversation about orientation. It is a conversation about the homosexual agenda (read the title of the thread).

Homosexuality is the proof that aberrant things happen. That wires can get crossed. Just like xenosexuals.

Would that be someone like Amanda, Spock’s mother who married a Vulcan? Or John Sheridan who married a human-Minbari hybrid?

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

Would that be someone like Amanda, Spock’s mother who married a Vulcan? Or John Sheridan who married a human-Minbari hybrid?

lol, actually, Spocks mother. John Sheridan’s wife’s(?) mother would be the xeno…

 

[LCMS_No_More]

The homosexual gene is actually a double-edged sword.

If no gene is ever found, then people cannot say homosexuality is genetic

This is a kind of either/or thinking that fails to take into acount things like nuance. I don’t think a “gay gene” will ever be found, but I do believe that genetics plays a factor in predisposing a person’s temperament towards developing SSA.

So it must come from somewhere else (environment?).

Environment is a pretty good macro term for it. It’s about relationships, usually unhealthy ones which all work together to cause SSA to develop in the victim.

If a gene is found, there will suddenly be a race for a cure, which will upset many people who say that being homosexual is who they are.

Or, for many fundamentalists, a possible exception to their anti-abortion stance. No Catholic could go for that, but I have no doubt that certain fundamentalists would make this an exception considering their overt hatred towards homosexual persons. I’m talking Phelps, Hagee, et al, not your every day podunk fundie preacher at the local fundie church.

The biggest worry is, other than the souls issue, is how far will this go? There are actually MANY sexual orientations. The homosexual agenda teaches that there are only two: heterosexual and homosexual.

Actually, this isn’t even close to true. Some people believe that there are only two sexual orientations, but the fact that they call themselves “Lesbian, Gay, Bi-Sexual and Transgendered,” I’d say that there are four right there.

But there are people who experience sexual attraction to animals, adolescents, and even young children. Should they have the “right” to marry the kid or animal of their choice? Or sleep together? Of course not.

Ah, the old slippery slope thing. Even criminals are deeply offended by sexual crimes against children. There’s also a nearly universal ick factor relative to bestiality. I’m sure it exists in some cultures, but it’s usually considered perverted in those places, too. If we keep it to two consenting adults of majority age, then unless they’re doing it in a public place, then the state has no interest in stopping or preventing it.

People think this will end when gays have their “rights” but that is just the tip of the iceberg.

As though it’s some conspiracy? Are there any serious, preferably first-source articles you can point to to show this is what is planned?

Condoms are already being distributed in elementary schools.

Yes, and it’s for two specific reasons: to prevent unwanted pregnancy and the spread of STDs. I don’t say that it’s moral or that I don’t agree with it, but I don’t make up reasons for why people are doing things. I believe that they think they’re doing the right thing and I would be careful about imputing evil intentions to anyone without good evidence.

This isn’t some issue that will just go away.

Well, the fact is, homosexual persons will always be part of society. Maybe we can shoot to achieve the balanced approach the Church prescribes, as written. Both society and the homosexual person have a part to play: society accepts homosexual persons with respect, compassion and sensitivity while avoiding any signs of unjust discrimination in their regard and the homosexual persons live lives of chastity. Or is that all that lib’ral, wishy washy acceptance, compassion and sensitivity just too darned politically incorrect?

 

[Lutheranteach]

Gays got what they want by entering the corridors of power. In Australia a Gay member of Parliament holds the balance of power, so Gay marriage is on the agenda…

Sodomy is still wrong, what next bestiality,

How about we try going from A to B instead of A to Q

 

[John21652]

There is no “evidence” of any empirical kind of any such idea. The idea exists, surely. But as objective fact, no. None. Zilch. None whatsoever. If you have some, please provide. ;/quoye]

Here we absolute proof of your obfuscatory tactics.
In my post I specifically stated about the basis of Natural Law metaphysical, ontological, cosmological and epistomological one. Theology came later.
Now you state there is no empirical evidence?!! Obviously either you know nothing about ontology, or you are hoping the readers of this thread will not bother with its meaning. Ontology investigates and explains the nature and essential properties and relations of all beings and things. In cannot operate without real things. It uses empiricism as the beginning of intellectual enquiry. Ontology involves the nature of reality.

This is all based on the assumption–without any empirical evidence–that God exists. As such, I reject this as faith-based, having NO PERSUASIVE OBJECTIVE evidence.

I don’t care for how many millenia people have professed a “Man on the Moon” or “God.” I am simply stating that there is no persuasive OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE for either.

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

Snipped for brevity

This is a kind of either/or thinking that fails to take into acount things like nuance. I don’t think a “gay gene” will ever be found, but I do believe that genetics plays a factor in predisposing a person’s temperament towards developing SSA.

Absolutely. Just like I, having alcoholism be so prevalent in my family, am predisposed to alcoholism.

Environment is a pretty good macro term for it. It’s about relationships, usually unhealthy ones which all work together to cause SSA to develop in the victim.

just as unhealthy relationships can cause all sorts of personality and behavioral quirks.

Ah, the old slippery slope thing. Even criminals are deeply offended by sexual crimes against children. There’s also a nearly universal ick factor relative to bestiality. I’m sure it exists in some cultures, but it’s usually considered perverted in those places, too. If we keep it to two consenting adults of majority age, then unless they’re doing it in a public place, then the state has no interest in stopping or preventing it.

But thats the point. 50 years ago, publicly gay couples were all but unheard of. Now they are all over the TV. I know that the pedophilia topic is a bit (ok, a lot) of a stretch, but that is next on the agenda, being championed by NAMBLA, using the same tactics as the Gay lobby…

As though it’s some conspiracy? Are there any serious, preferably first-source articles you can point to to show this is what is planned?

See edwest’s post above

Well, the fact is, homosexual persons will always be part of society. Maybe we can shoot to achieve the balanced approach the Church prescribes, as written. Both society and the homosexual person have a part to play: society accepts homosexual persons with respect, compassion and sensitivity while avoiding any signs of unjust discrimination in their regard and the homosexual persons live lives of chastity. Or is that all that lib’ral, wishy washy acceptance, compassion and sensitivity just too darned politically incorrect?

The key here is the bolded portion above.

Here we absolute proof of your obfuscatory tactics.
In my post I specifically stated about the basis of Natural Law metaphysical, ontological, cosmological and epistomological one. Theology came later.
Now you state there is no empirical evidence?!! Obviously either you know nothing about ontology, or you are hoping the readers of this thread will not bother with its meaning. Ontology investigates and explains the nature and essential properties and relations of all beings and things. In cannot operate without real things. It uses empiricism as the beginning of intellectual enquiry. Ontology involves the nature of reality.

I and others have repeatedly pointed out to you that Natural Law is Objective in nature. That is its strength. Mankinds objective reason is how the Natural Law is discerned and arrived at. Surely your intellect can grasp the ‘nature’ of a flower, or of an apple? They are objective examinations. Extend that reasoning and you arive at discernible, universal, normative observations of the world and man’s place in it.

This is not 'false" as you assert. You are just plain wrong and in denial.
Let me quote from an eminent psychologist, one Leonard Carmichael - *"…because man has an unchanging and an age-old, genetically determined anatomical, physiological, and psychological make-up, there is reason to believe that at least some of the “values” that he recognized as good or bad have been discovered or have emerged as human individuals have lived together for thousands of years in many societies. Is there any reason to suggest that these values, once identified and tested, may not be thought of as essentially fixed and unchanging? *Carmichael, in “Absolutes, Relativism and the Scientific Psychology of Human Nature,” in H. Schoeck and J. Wiggins, eds., *Relativism and the *Study of Man (Princeton, N.J.: 1). Van Nostrand, 1961)

Good, then you cannot disagree with what I have written so far and certainly not with what Carmichael wrote.

here I now realise your limited understanding of Natural Law. It is here that I should point out to you the difference between Natural Law and Natural Law morality. Natural Law morality is those normative behaviours which are held to be self evident truths and which guide man in how he lives and how he relates to others. Your US Constitution recognises this. (It is in fact a document based on Natural Law principles). Accepted norms pertain to human beings and only human beings. They are values founded on universality, and that universality is the basis of Natural Law ethics and morality.

My advice to you is firstly do some reading on this subject and then step outside your caccoon and start looking at the world you live in. There is an objective reality out there just waiting for you to discover it.

The thing is, larkin is asking you to provide a grain of sand that proves he is on a beach. Without being able to back up a bit and look at the trillions of grains of sand around him, he will never know.

And, FTR, I cannot see Natural Law in any but a theological light since it presumes that all things were created with an inherent knowledge of this law. This would require a creator, and hence require BOTH observable evidence and invisible, theological, proofs that we live in a created universe. St. Thomas fleshed out the prime mover argument, so I wont repeat that, but we can know logically that we are in a created universe and as such that creator COULD have instilled in all of creation this natural law. But it is a big COULD, assuming you accept the evidence of creation followed by the evidence of the following of the natural law.

FSC

 

[larkin31]

This is in no way a conversation about orientation. It is a conversation about the homosexual agenda (read the title of the thread).

Homosexuality is the proof that aberrant things happen. That wires can get crossed. Just like xenosexuals.

And the 3% was based upon your statement: “This reply does not account for the twin studies and the studies of prior-male-sibling patterns, both of which suggest a genetic component (as yet undetermined). Clearly, environment, socialization, family, religion, also have clear influence on human sexual behavior. No one denies this. But does this also explain a 97% heterosexual demographic factor also? We just socialize straights into being straight? Treat them “normally” so that they come out “normal”?”

It is a valid response based upon the fact that you are asserting a genetic factor for a personality trait that has not been determined (in fact, none to my knowledge have been for any personality trait) and asserting that a vast minority (3%) have this non-mendellian genetic trait. Thus making them the “freaks” of today, much like albinos of the last millennium. Granted, I took my response a bit too far, but I was taken aback by your statement. It struck me as “kooky”, much like I am sure that mine struck you.

“vast minority”??

huh?

 

[larkin31]

lol, I do enjoy your posts. Honestly, they are very fun to read, even when you are mocking mine (and I know this isnt mine, but still).

I was not mocking him in that post. There was not a single note of ridicule.

The only persuasive objective evidence for Natural Law, taken in piecemeal, is anecdotal at best.

“anecdotal” evidence for Natural Law? I don’t even know what that would look like.

I will, however, state that there is no empirical, measurable, data showing that homosexuality is genetic.

This is why I write, REPEATEDLY, that the studies “suggest” the presence of a “genetic factor.” The patterns being found in the twin studies and in the studies looking at birth order suggest the possibility of both a genetic and a hormonal factor. I don’t write that “homosexuality is genetically determined.” THAT is a misstatement of our knowledge at this point. I am very careful about this, and I REPEATEDLY state that human sexuality is LIKELY a nexus of many factors (some biological, some environmental, some social) influencing both sexual orientation and sexual behaviors.

 

[larkin31]

larkin31;7177468:

There is no “evidence” of any empirical

kind of any such idea. The idea exists, surely. But as objective fact, no. None. Zilch. None whatsoever. If you have some, please provide. ;/quoye]

Here we absolute proof of your obfuscatory tactics.
In my post I specifically stated about the basis of Natural Law metaphysical, ontological, cosmological and epistomological one. Theology came later.
Now you state there is no empirical evidence?!! Obviously either you know nothing about ontology, or you are hoping the readers of this thread will not bother with its meaning. Ontology investigates and explains the nature and essential properties and relations of all beings and things. In cannot operate without real things. It uses empiricism as the beginning of intellectual enquiry. Ontology involves the nature of reality.

This is all based on the assumption–without any empirical evidence–that God exists. As such, I reject this as faith-based, having NO PERSUASIVE OBJECTIVE evidence.

I and others have repeatedly pointed out to you that Natural Law is Objective in nature. That is its strength. Mankinds objective reason is how the Natural Law is discerned and arrived at. Surely your intellect can grasp the ‘nature’ of a flower, or of an apple? They are objective examinations. Extend that reasoning and you arive at discernible, universal, normative observations of the world and man’s place in it.

This is not 'false" as you assert. You are just plain wrong and in denial.
Let me quote from an eminent psychologist, one Leonard Carmichael - *"…because man has an unchanging and an age-old, genetically determined anatomical, physiological, and psychological make-up, there is reason to believe that at least some of the “values” that he recognized as good or bad have been discovered or have emerged as human individuals have lived together for thousands of years in many societies. Is there any reason to suggest that these values, once identified and tested, may not be thought of as essentially fixed and unchanging? *Carmichael, in “Absolutes, Relativism and the Scientific Psychology of Human Nature,” in H. Schoeck and J. Wiggins, eds., *Relativism and the *Study of Man (Princeton, N.J.: 1). Van Nostrand, 1961)

Good, then you cannot disagree with what I have written so far and certainly not with what Carmichael wrote.

here I now realise your limited understanding of Natural Law. It is here that I should point out to you the difference between Natural Law and Natural Law morality. Natural Law morality is those normative behaviours which are held to be self evident truths and which guide man in how he lives and how he relates to others. Your US Constitution recognises this. (It is in fact a document based on Natural Law principles). Accepted norms pertain to human beings and only human beings. They are values founded on universality, and that universality is the basis of Natural Law ethics and morality.

More obfuscation. The fact is, it is you who disagree with lots of people!

My advice to you is firstly do some reading on this subject and then step outside your caccoon and start looking at the world you live in. There is an objective reality out there just waiting for you to discover it.

Human reason does not exist outside of the human mind. It does not exist objectively. I am claiming that Natural Law does not exist beyond the realm of human thought. All you are claiming here is that “Natural Law” is a long-held set of “norms.” I don’t disagree. I am saying that, that is ALL it is, and nothing more. Natural Law is a set of generalizations made to try to make sense of a complicated environment. As generalizations they are sometimes useful, sometimes accurate, and never objectively real outside human thought and discourse.

 

[John21652]

John21652;7178112:

Human reason does not exist outside of the human mind. It does not exist objectively. I am claiming that Natural Law does not exist beyond the realm of human thought. All you are claiming here is that “Natural Law” is a long-held set of “norms.” I don’t disagree. I am saying that, that is ALL it is, and nothing more. Natural Law is a set of generalizations made to try to make sense of a complicated environment. As generalizations they are sometimes useful, sometimes accurate, and never objectively real outside human thought and discourse.

After reading this response, I am trying very hard to figure out whether you are being purposefully obtuse, are genuinely discombobulated, or suffering from a pathological intellectual arrogance. Of course human reasoning does not exist outside the human mind! Where else could it possibly exist?! If, as you assert, it does not exist objectively, then there are thousands and thousands of philosophers, psychologists and nuero-psychologists who are all wasting their time. If you suggest that the human mind can not think objectively, then you have whitewashed almost all of science, medicine and philosophical enquiry and consigned it to the dustbin of human endeavours. Honestly, how are Doctors to objectivelt analyze a patient if Larkin 31 says it can’t be done? Or how will astronomers objectively study the universe of they take heed of larkin 31? Furthermore, human reasoning, which takes place in the heads of human beings, uses tools such as inductive and deductive reasoning to arrive at certain conclusions about the world we live in, but Larkin 31 says this can’t be happening! If it does, he tells us, it is all in the head!! What information is the human mind using, Larkin 31, when deductive and inductive reasoning takes place? Can’t guess? OK, I’ll tell you. The human mind uses empirical evidence gained from the environment with which it interacts. Using inductive and deductive reasoning, the human mind is able to objectively discern certain consistencies in that world with which it interacts. That is actually how the human race survived down through the millenia. The mind is able to ‘predict’ certain attributes about the world with which it interacts and so plan and plot for survival. What’s more, it can discern certain consistencies, regularities and rhythms that make the environment with which it interacts an ordered world. That’s right Larkin 31, the human mind can objectively order the world with which it interacts. From that order, a Natural Law is discerned. Natural Law philosophy is an objective study, just as is astronomy and physics and a host of other human endeavours. Using objective reasoning in all these fields of human endeavour, the nature of things is understood and a discernable universality is discovered. Natural Law is not a set of generalizations as you dismissively suggest. It is a coherent whole, made up of objectively discerned minutuae of observations about the nature of things. The human body included, which Doctors and scientists study objectively and the objective study of which helps homosexuals live longer, despite their disordered use of the body!

If, as you suggest, these things are not objectively real outside human thought and discourse, then that’s the end of human cognition. Larkin 31 killed it.

 

[larkin31]

larkin31;7178448:

After reading this response, I am trying very hard to figure out whether you are being purposefully obtuse, are genuinely discombobulated, or suffering from a pathological intellectual arrogance. Of course human reasoning does not exist outside the human mind! Where else could it possibly exist?! If, as you assert, it does not exist objectively, then there are thousands and thousands of philosophers, psychologists and nuero-psychologists who are all wasting their time. If you suggest that the human mind can not think objectively, then you have whitewashed almost all of science, medicine and philosophical enquiry and consigned it to the dustbin of human endeavours. Honestly, how are Doctors to objectivelt analyze a patient if Larkin 31 says it can’t be done? Or how will astronomers objectively study the universe of they take heed of larkin 31? Furthermore, human reasoning, which takes place in the heads of human beings, uses tools such as inductive and deductive reasoning to arrive at certain conclusions about the world we live in, but Larkin 31 says this can’t be happening! If it does, he tells us, it is all in the head!! What information is the human mind using, Larkin 31, when deductive and inductive reasoning takes place? Can’t guess? OK, I’ll tell you. The human mind uses empirical evidence gained from the environment with which it interacts. Using inductive and deductive reasoning, the human mind is able to objectively discern certain consistencies in that world with which it interacts. That is actually how the human race survived down through the millenia. The mind is able to ‘predict’ certain attributes about the world with which it interacts and so plan and plot for survival. What’s more, it can discern certain consistencies, regularities and rhythms that make the environment with which it interacts an ordered world. That’s right Larkin 31, the human mind can objectively order the world with which it interacts. From that order, a Natural Law is discerned. Natural Law philosophy is an objective study, just as is astronomy and physics and a host of other human endeavours. Using objective reasoning in all these fields of human endeavour, the nature of things is understood and a discernable universality is discovered. Natural Law is not a set of generalizations as you dismissively suggest. It is a coherent whole, made up of objectively discerned minutuae of observations about the nature of things. The human body included, which Doctors and scientists study objectively and the objective study of which helps homosexuals live longer, despite their disordered use of the body!

If, as you suggest, these things are not objectively real outside human thought and discourse, then that’s the end of human cognition. Larkin 31 killed it.

Is this written to me, or about me to some other people?

I did not claim that the mind cannot make observations and claims toward the objective end of the spectrum. I have simply, and repeatedly claimed, that there is no persuasive evidence of a thing that we term “Natural Law” beyond our thought and discourse. It is, simply put, a matter of faith.

If that is somehow so upsetting or arrogant, in your eyes, that you launch into a lengthy rant about me, then, I would suggest, that it is youwho has certain issues with your assumptions and beliefs being disputed. This is an old dispute, by the way. I am saying nothing novel.

There are, very very likely, “things” that exist materially outside our thinking. But “Natural Law” is not one of them. Look up; the ky is not falling when I say this. The world is still
intact.

 

[John21652]

larkin31:

Is this written to me, or about me to some other people?

It is a direct response to what you wrote.

I did not claim that the mind cannot make observations and claims toward the objective end of the spectrum. I have simply, and repeatedly claimed, that there is no persuasive evidence of a thing that we term “Natural Law” beyond our thought and discourse. It is, simply put, a matter of faith.

You specifically wrote “Human reason does not exist outside of the human mind. It does not exist objectively.” Now you backpeddle and try and tell us you didn’t say the mind cannot make observations and claims towards the objective end of the spectrum.
Despite an earlier denial of the existence of objective reasoning, you now suggest there is actually a “spectrum” of human knowledge and understanding, with “objectivity” at one end. Well, which is it? Objective reasoning doesn’t exist, or it does exist?
Or will continue with this obfuscation?

If that is somehow so upsetting or arrogant, in your eyes, that you launch into a lengthy rant about me, then, I would suggest, that it is youwho has certain issues with your assumptions and beliefs being disputed. This is an old dispute, by the way. I am saying nothing novel.

I did not enter into a lengthy rant about you. I went into a lengthy rebuttal of your thinking, of what you wrote. Your illogicalities are becoming evident and you are being precious about it.

In the first quoted paragraph, you wrote *"… there is no persuasive evidence of a thing that we term “Natural Law” beyond our thought and discourse." In my last post, I pointed out that the human mind needs to interact with its environment so it can have fodder for reasoningabout the environment with which it interacts. In an earlier post you wrote There is no “evidence” of any **empirical kind of any such idea. The **idea exists, surely. But as *objective fact, no. None. Zilch. None whatsoever. If you have some, please provide…The natural world, the environment with which our minds interacts, provides the empirical evidence that you say does not exist. Taking the empirical evidence, we use our reasonsing to objectively discern certainty and universality in that environment. You have concede that we do this and you have conceded that we interact with a physical world. Therefore you cannot deny that the universality which can be objectively discerned, through reason, can be called the Natural Law, or whatever else we so choose to call it. It represents a defined certainty about the nature of things.

There are, very very likely, “things” that exist materially outside our thinking. But “Natural Law” is not one of them. Look up; the ky is not falling when I say this. The world is still
intact.

To prove to yourself that things do really, really , really do exist outside your thinking, turn off the lights in your house, shut your eyes and walk from one end of the house to the other while thinking about,say, the TV. Now tell me how it feels when you bump into the table.However, with the lights on, your eyes open and a good look around the house, your mind can objectively measure a safe passage from one end of the house to the other, because of the predictability of your environment. Now go outside into the big wide world and do the same thing. Include all the animals and plants and even human nature into your interactions, into your reasoning and I gaurantee you will discern certain attributes of things that are certain, universal and ordered. Welcome to a “Discovery of the Natural Law- 101”.

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

“vast minority”??

huh?

I was not mocking him in that post. There was not a single note of ridicule.

Oh come on, I said I enjoy reading your posts even when they mock me. Perhaps I should have said “I enjoy reading your posts. When they are intended to mock my posts I find them enjoyable as well.” Would that have been clearer?

“anecdotal” evidence for Natural Law? I don’t even know what that would look like.

Clearly.

This is why I write, REPEATEDLY, that the studies “suggest” the presence of a “genetic factor.” The patterns being found in the twin studies and in the studies looking at birth order suggest the possibility of both a genetic and a hormonal factor. I don’t write that “homosexuality is genetically determined.” THAT is a misstatement of our knowledge at this point. I am very careful about this, and I REPEATEDLY state that human sexuality is LIKELY a nexus of many factors (some biological, some environmental, some social) influencing both sexual orientation and sexual behaviors.

What you do, and I dont know if you are aware of this, is say “you are ignoring the fact that gay is genetic (some studies say)”, “Homosexuality is genetic (probably)”, “Homosexuality has a genetic factor (I believe)”. I know those are not direct quotes, but that is the… thrust of your arguments. Hence why people respond to that portion which you continually promote as fact while, as an aside, you allow that it is not proven that there is a “gay gene”. Heck, I could make the argument that my love of vegemite is genetic according to some of these opinions about the genetic cause for homosexuality. “Does your son have the vegemite gene?” “Buy vegemite, heck its in your genes!”

 

[LCMS_No_More]

lol, actually, Spocks mother. John Sheridan’s wife’s(?) mother would be the xeno…

Star Trek:
Spock son of Sarek of Vulcan and Amanda of Earth.

Babylon 5
Captain John Sheridan of Earthforce married Ambassador Delenn of the Minbari.

So, Amanda and John are both the xenos?

 

[edwest2]

It would be helpful to post factual information as opposed to opinions. Opinions do not lead to the truth. Opinions create two separate warring parties.

For those who do not like getting the Catholic Answer here, it’s not just the posters writing but what the Church teaches. This teaching is constant and has not changed.

Some in our society wake up one day and say, The time has come for this or that to change. According to who? The clock or calendar? No, people propose things that people either agree or disagree with. That’s what happens. There is no calendar marked “this year, we start promoting gay marriage.” I suggest everyone wake up to the fact that things change only because people change them, or not.

God bless,
Ed