The homosexual state of mind: Marriage isn't about a man & woman but love & love

[Regular_Atheist]

Regular,

Provide scientific proven data that a fetus has no feeling…at what stage?

Well, as an embryo it does not have a fully functioning brain, so it stands to reason that it does not have the feelings or conciousness of an adult human being. In fact, no sign of all the vital organs are even present until the 10th week.

 

[CrimsonThorn]

You’re missing the point. That is true, but someone who is mentally ill can physically survive on their own, and their body can do all the nessecary functions to keep the person alive, but the person is unable to feed themselves, or look after themselves. The same applies to a baby.

However, the fetus cannot physically survive outside of the body. The problem isn’t, unlike the example of the mentally ill man, that the fetus is unable to look after its needs but that the vital organs cannot function as they are not developed. A fetus will die as it does not have working vital organs - a mentally ill person will die because they cannot care for themselves.

What about cases in which fully formed humans have deformities of their organs that cause them not to function properly? Are they zombies or living beings?

 

[Regular_Atheist]

What about cases in which fully formed humans have deformities of their organs that cause them not to function properly? Are they zombies or living beings?

If the deformities allow them to survive outside of the womb, then they are capable of living and are therefore living beings. It’s not the fact that the fetus is unable to function properly, but the fact that it is unable to function at all.

 

[CrimsonThorn]

If the deformities allow them to survive outside of the womb, then they are capable of living and are therefore living beings. It’s not the fact that the fetus is unable to function properly, but the fact that it is unable to function at all.

So are people on life support living beings or are they biologically dead? The point isnt whether they can live at all on their own, the issue is that they are alive. Period.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

The Catechism may or may not use heterosexual…it doesn’t have to. Does the word “inferred” mean anything to you…

I would think the history of the development and explication of Christian doctrine and theology would suggest a strict construction approach to the catechism. I believe the Jesuits teach strict construction as well. In such an approach, nothing is inferred as inferences may lead one farther afield than one should go and one may come to believe that the catechism says more or less than it actually does. We must give the writers and compilers of the catechism the benefit of the doubt in this regard: words (even in translation) were carefully chosen, and they included exactly what they meant to include and excluded exactly what they meant to exclude. To believe otherwise would be to suggest that the enterprise was slapdash or unconsidered. I would not make this suggestion. Perhaps you would?

Particularly in light of the fact that the catechism’s own definition of “homosexuality” does not square with how the word is usually understood, I think it’s reasonable to believe that the exclusion of any reference to “heterosexuality” as it is usually or commonly understood was no accident.

The Catechism discusses Homosexuals in the section concerning the 6th commandment…

I’m familiar with the section, Coptic. Thanks!

Male and female. Do you understand this to mean heterosexual? It is called an inferrence.

I don’t understand the catechism to be talking about heterosexuality as it is commonly understood, namely, as a sexual orientation in which a person is romantically, emotionally and/or sexually attracted to a member of the opposite sex. What I understand the catechism to be saying is that there is a basic human sexuality which finds it’s fulfillment not in attraction to the opposite sex, but in a sacramental relationship known as marriage.

You can have heterosexuality without marriage. You can have sex without marriage. You can do a lot of things and be attracted to lots of stuff without marriage being involved. But you can’t have the sort of basic human sexuality which the catechism imagines without marriage.

Now, knowing that the first part of the section declares “male and female he created them” and then there is a section called Chastity and Homosexuality, would you have preferred…

Would I have preferred what?

Male and female he created them…we call this heterosexuality

Not really. We call that sexual differentiation. Moreover, no one before the late 19th century would have called anything “heterosexuality” as the word (an infelicitous mishmash of Greek and Latin) was only invented within the last 150 years or so. In refusing to use the word “heterosexuality” and in redefining the word “homosexuality,” one could easily understand the catechism as shifting the whole sexual identity discussion back onto more solid theological ground by precluding the use of loaded contemporary jingoisms. It’s a bold move.

…and when you look at the section on Chastity, when you get to the section on Chastity and Homosexuality understand that since male and female he created them, knowing that this is a hetersexual statement, for those not in the know…and homosexual issues are attractions and actions of the male and female he created them that you all know is heterosexual.

I don’t know if you intended this paragraph to be the word salad that it turned out to be, but I’ll be honest: I have no clue what you’re trying to say here.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Dawnia]

In the current state of maturity is it unable to have feelings or conciousness. That means that, until it develops to a point where it can, it is not a human being.

That sounds eerily like the reasoning used by every group in history as the excuse for slaughtering another group. Blacks aren’t really people, neither are Jews, or Native Americans, or the Irish, etc etc etc

 

[CopticChristian]

Well, as an embryo it does not have a fully functioning brain, so it stands to reason that it does not have the feelings or conciousness of an adult human being. In fact, no sign of all the vital organs are even present until the 10th week.

Regular,

You are an embryologist, ethicist and I would like you to respond to the prior posting about your understanding of Natural Law…

 

[Regular_Atheist]

So are people on life support living beings or are they biologically dead? The point isnt whether they can live at all on their own, the issue is that they are alive. Period.

Some people are kept on life support machines despite the fact that they are unable to survive without it. I suppose it depends on how severe the damage is. If someone on a life support system is going to remain unconcious without any chance of pulling through, then I’d say they’re dead. And, in a fetus, there isn’t any pre-existing (dormant) consciousness, as there’d be in the case of a sleeping or comatose person.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

That sounds eerily like the reasoning used by every group in history as the excuse for slaughtering another group. Blacks aren’t really people, neither are Jews, or Native Americans, or the Irish, etc etc etc

That’s asinine and ludicrous. Blacks and Jews are completely concious, and have a fully functioning brain. Don’t be stupid. The two situations are in no way similar. :tsktsk:

I think that, by the time you start comparing me to Hitler, you’ve lost the argument.

 

[Stephen168]

I’d also like to empthasize the fact that there are atheists who are pro-life (you have one of these people on this very forum). There are also atheists who oppose homosexuality. My moral compass, what I believe to be right or wrong, has nothing to do with my disbelief in a god or gods.

So logically you don’t believe people who do believe in God have their moral compass set by that belief.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Regular,

You are an embryologist, ethicist and I would like you to respond to the prior posting about your understanding of Natural Law…

From other sources I’ve read, it’s a system of law determined by nature and is universal, and generally requires the use of reason to determine what should be considered moral by human beings. Under this definition, it seems completely subjective.

Buffalo, however, seems to have a different definition, but I’m not quite sure what it is.

 

[CrimsonThorn]

Some people are kept on life support machines despite the fact that they are unable to survive without it. I suppose it depends on how severe the damage is. If someone on a life support system is going to remain unconcious without any chance of pulling through, then I’d say they’re dead. And, in a fetus, there isn’t any pre-existing (dormant) consciousness, as there’d be in the case of a sleeping or comatose person.

Notice how I asked if they were BIOLOGICALLY (in reality) dead, not if you thought if they were dead or if their life had any meaning or quality

 

[Regular_Atheist]

So logically you don’t believe people who do believe in God have their moral compass set by that belief.

If ‘God’ referring to the Abrahamic God, yes, as they get it from the scripture that accompanies the belief in that God. But I don’t believe that they get it from the belief in a god itself, because they don’t.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Notice how I asked if they were BIOLOGICALLY (in reality) dead, not if you thought if they were dead or if their life had any meaning or quality

Biologically, I suppose they would be living, but that doesn’t really mean anything. A fetus (depending on the age) is only biologically living thanks to the mother - it is not really it’s own person.

I’m coming off for tonight now, anyway. I’m sure this is a discussion we can continue tommorow. See you for tonight, and take care.

 

[CrimsonThorn]

Biologically, I suppose they would be living, but that doesn’t really mean anything. A fetus (depending on the age) is only biologically living thanks to the mother - it is not really it’s own person.

I’m coming off for tonight now, anyway. I’m sure this is a discussion we can continue tommorow. See you for tonight, and take care.

Ok nice talking, good night.

 

[JimG]

I’m not sure how this thread went from homosexuality to human development. In any case, it is a biological fact that every human being has a beginning–a starting point where a new individual of the human species begins and starts its developmet. That beginning point for every human being is conception. It is impossible to deny the humanity of a human being from conception to death without resorting to entirely artificial paramenters–parameters which can be applied to any human being, not just unborn human beings. Doing so gives a purely utilitarian ethic and puts every one of us at risk–not just the unborn, but the disabled, the sick, the elderly, the comatose, the inconvenient. Shall we determine who gets to live and who must die?

 

[ricks1948]

We all heard this almost misguided and very secular broad logic from the gay community. But I feel that in some way they are only “Scratching the surface” on the topic of marriage and it’s sacred nature. How can I tackle this whole idea that marriage is between “love and love” without being judgmental or mean but at the same time showing it’s weakness on describing the courtship of marriage?

The Truth is not being “judgmental or mean”. Truth taken to its logical conclution is God, and God is love. To say that Marriage is other than one man and one woman is a lie, a lie or (lies) taken to its logical conclution is the devil.

 

[CopticChristian]

Grace & Peace!

I would think the history of the development and explication of Christian doctrine and theology would suggest a strict construction approach to the catechism. I believe the Jesuits teach strict construction as well. In such an approach, nothing is inferred as inferences may lead one farther afield than one should go and one may come to believe that the catechism says more or less than it actually does. We must give the writers and compilers of the catechism the benefit of the doubt in this regard: words (even in translation) were carefully chosen, and they included exactly what they meant to include and excluded exactly what they meant to exclude. To believe otherwise would be to suggest that the enterprise was slapdash or unconsidered. I would not make this suggestion. Perhaps you would?

Particularly in light of the fact that the catechism’s own definition of “homosexuality” does not square with how the word is usually understood, I think it’s reasonable to believe that the exclusion of any reference to “heterosexuality” as it is usually or commonly understood was no accident.

I’m familiar with the section, Coptic. Thanks!

I don’t understand the catechism to be talking about heterosexuality as it is commonly understood, namely, as a sexual orientation in which a person is romantically, emotionally and/or sexually attracted to a member of the opposite sex. What I understand the catechism to be saying is that there is a basic human sexuality which finds it’s fulfillment not in attraction to the opposite sex, but in a sacramental relationship known as marriage.

You can have heterosexuality without marriage. You can have sex without marriage. You can do a lot of things and be attracted to lots of stuff without marriage being involved. But you can’t have the sort of basic human sexuality which the catechism imagines without marriage.

Would I have preferred what?

Not really. We call that sexual differentiation. Moreover, no one before the late 19th century would have called anything “heterosexuality” as the word (an infelicitous mishmash of Greek and Latin) was only invented within the last 150 years or so. In refusing to use the word “heterosexuality” and in redefining the word “homosexuality,” one could easily understand the catechism as shifting the whole sexual identity discussion back onto more solid theological ground by precluding the use of loaded contemporary jingoisms. It’s a bold move.

I don’t know if you intended this paragraph to be the word salad that it turned out to be, but I’ll be honest: I have no clue what you’re trying to say here.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

Deo,

You can read the Catechism, I suggest you incorporate it into your being and live it…

let’s see Homosexuality is disordered…if it is disordered what is not disordered?

 

[buffalo]

A fetus cannot survive outside of the mother’s womb until around 23 weeks. Essentialy, it is not it’s own living human being, as it requires the mother to survive.

The environment is different. The baby is still human inside or outside the womb. To be consistent you must now claim a baby is only human when it sees the light of day and the umbilical cord is cut.

 

[PRmerger]

A fetus cannot survive outside of the mother’s womb until around 23 weeks. Essentialy, it is not it’s own living human being, as it requires the mother to survive.

That is thanks to modern medicine.

Decades ago a fetus wouldn’t have survived at 23 weeks, so are you saying that decades ago this fetus wasn’t a human being, but today he is?

Also, a man who is attached to a ventilator cannot survive without it. So are you saying he is not a living human being as he requires a ventilator to survive?