come on now, you can't possible believe showing these people proof of anything will sway their sensitive feelings do you.

Skeetor,

I don't know what I was thinking.

Pass me some kool-ade.

So wait, if it turns out homosexuality is a genetic mutation, and thus, "God made them that way," will you still think homosexuality is wrong?

Yes, God gave us free will. Catholic teaching tells us that chastity is a virtue throughout life. Celibacy is also a virtue until the sacrament of marriage is involved. Since marriage is between a MAN and a WOMAN, then people with this 'mutated' gene remain chaste AND celibate their entire lives if they choose not to accept the sacrament of marriage (of course with the opposite sex.)

Sean, I'm so glad that you are able to grasp this simple yet dogmatic truth of the Catholic faith!

Cheers!

If it were a genetic mutatation and thus "God made them that way" doesn't change the fact that it's intrinsicly disordered, and the practice is contrary to God's law. Genetic mutations are disorders by definition.

Sometimes facts get in the way for guilty white liberals. He may not be able to digest the truth.

Matt wrote:
"Genetic mutations are disorders by definition."

Actually, no. In fact, only a small percentage of mutations are considered genetic disorders.

And why would God make someone contrary to his own law?

Dogma indeed.

Sean: "only a small percentage of mutations are considered genetic disorders"

I simply stated that a mutation is a disorder in layman's terms. Disorder meaning abnormality to the right order, a mutation is by definition contrary to the right ordering of the DNA. Therefore if there is a homosexual gene it is a disorder.

As far as God "making" someone contrary to His law. Disorder occurs in the world due to the fall of Adam and Eve, not due to God. He permits disorder in the world for the greater good that may result when we overcome the disorder.

Even from a logical atheistic perspective, homosexuality can only be defined as a disorder, as it confounds the nature of sexuality which is procreation for the survival of the species. The god of the atheists "Natural Selection" eliminates homosexuals as bringing no value to the species. It is only Christian humanism which recognizes the dignity of all humans regardless of their potential to contribute to the survival of the species.

This is just simple reason, it's not hard to figure out.

Keep trying though Sean, you will eventually realize that the only consistent worldview is Catholic Christianity. I pray it will occur before your soul leaves your body and ends up in a hot place.

Hmmm, is that the sound of another guilty-white-liberal losing an argument on pure logic again!?

Matt, if you don't like homosexuality, that's fine. Lots of people don't for a number of reasons. But this business of trying to use a convoluted understanding of science to justify that belief is just silly.

Nothing you wrote squares with the research or even the common definitions of the terms. This may reflect the way you think of genetics, but it's not scientifically sound.

But leaving all of that aside... I'm not convinced that homosexuality is genetic and not environmental. But for the sake of this discussion (which is founded on that premise) it absolutely baffles me that Christians would face the possibilty that homosexuality is predetermined at birth and still find a way to lay the blame on the homosexual as you and Condi and the article in question do.

Condi even equates it to being born with one arm... as if we're supposed to condemn people born that way. That stikes me as grossly unjust.

Tito wrote:
"Hmmm, is that the sound of another guilty-white-liberal losing an argument on pure logic again!?"

Well, you got 1 out of 3 right. I am white.

And since when does faith have anything to do with logic?

Sean understands little about logic, reason, or Faith. Read some Thomas Aquinas and you'll learn much. In fact the scientific method is almost entirely a fruit of laymen and clerics of the Catholic faith.

As far as your little diatribe against me, you refute nothing, but only give generalities. Please argue against the specific points or admit defeat.

Nonetheless you made a couple of points and I will refute them herewith.

Homosexuality is predetermined, strictly environmental, or based on the actual evidence is more likely environmental with genetic predisposition. Regardless of what the mechanism, it is objectively a disorder, as it confounds the true nature of sexuality from a biological and spiritual sense. This does not say that the person who has this disorder is inherently sinful or damaging to society. What is sinful and damaging to society, is engaging in homosexual behavior, promoting it as "normal", and demanding privileges which are afforded only to married couples for the good of society.

Being born with or developing homosexuality is a tremendous difficulty for an individual. There is significant evidence that this can in many cases be cured. If this is not attempted or not possible, then it remains as a disorder which one must live with. In the same way those who develop alcoholism must abstain from alcohol, people with homosexual orientation must avoid sinful and damaging behavior for the good of themselves and society.

Sean,

Your argument has poor logic in it.

If a baby is born predisposed to be an alcoholic or worse yet, a serial rapist because of his genetic makeup; does that give him the right, or more correctly, the license to indulge in that behavior?

Matt, I am quite familiar with St. Aquinas, thank you. He's to be commended for reintroducing Aristotelean Logic.

You first wrote:
"Genetic mutations are disorders by definition."

Then you backpedaled:
"I simply stated that a mutation is a disorder in layman's terms." You said "by definition" which is pretty definitive. And anyway, "layman's terms" is not an excuse to be wrong.

...which you are when you say:
"Disorder meaning abnormality to the right order"- that's not what disorder means.

But then you conclude from this:
"Therefore if there is a homosexual gene it is a disorder."

And this is a classic case of equivocation where you use the word "disorder" to mean two different things. In one sense, you labor to make the point that disorders (as you mean it) are just differently ordered sets of DNA. But you switch it's meaning by claiming (incorrectly) that all mutations are disorders and conclude that homosexuality is therefore a genetic disorder.

Like I said, you basically got nothing right. Not the definitions, not the science, not the logic and certainly not the conclusion.

As to the rest of it, do you not see that you are assuming your faith-based conclusion in the premises?

"In the same way those who develop alcoholism must abstain from alcohol, people with homosexual orientation must avoid sinful and damaging behavior for the good of themselves and society."

Why do you get to decide that for them? That may be your belief, but we don't live in a theocracy. If they are only engaging in those behaviors with other consenting adults, what gives you the right to step in and assert your faith and opinions on them?

Pretty typical of the left and the theocratic right to assume they know better than you what's good for you because of some mythical benefit to "society."

Tito said:
"If a baby is born predisposed to be... a serial rapist because of his genetic makeup; does that give him the right, or more correctly, the license to indulge in that behavior?"

No, Tito, it does not.

But if a baby is born predisposed to be homosexual, then, yes, he has the right to "indulge" in that. The two are not the same.

If a baby is born with two heads should it be called an abomination to God's Law and told not to engage in two-headed activity?

Sean,

St. Thomas is not simply an Aristotelean philosopher. He is a man of great faith, to which he applies tremendous reason to aid in understanding. His understanding of homosexuality is precisely the Church's.

Disorder is a "condition in which there is a disturbance of normal functioning". It can be applied to a physical ailment, or specific behavior. I apply it definitively to homosexuality and homosexual acts, while the former may or may not be due to a physical ailment, the latter is a chosen behaviour.

Logically this disorder is detrimental to society as it is a serious violation of the natural law. If you are a believer then you also understand it as a violation of the revealed word of God and opposed to the Christian faith. The faith upon which this nation was founded.

"assert your faith and opinions on them" I have every right to assert my faith and opinions, as do you, isn't that what we're all doing here?

The problem lies in that they seek to impose their disorder as a norm on society, teaching it to children and establishing a level of equality to rightly ordered behaviour, such as marriage.

I am generally opposed to restrictions on private behaviour which do not have manifest effect on society at large. I am strongly opposed to elevating this behaviour to be "good".

Sean,

What is your reasoning and logic for giving license to homosexual behavior but condemning rape?

Is this based on your 'feelings' that those that engage in homosexual behavior are more human than a serial rapist?

If you can answer that question, then you may be on a growth spurt of spiritual proportions.

"His understanding of homosexuality is precisely the Church's."

What? Stuck in the Middle Ages? Never mind.

You are still equivocating on the meaning of disorder, but I'm moving on.

mutations are NOT "disorders by definition" and a disorder is not just "abnormally ordered DNA."

You wrote:
"Logically this disorder is detrimental to society as it is a serious violation of the natural law."

Logically, if homosexuality is "in the genes" then it is an expression of natural law and not a contradiction to it.

The "revealed word of God" notwithstanding, most people understand that if a person is born with an abnormality, it is NOT their fault and they should receive support in achieving the most normal and fulfilling life possible given their circumstances.

"I have every right to assert my faith and opinions, as do you, isn't that what we're all doing here?"

I meant assert as in impose... through discriminatory laws.

And you prove my point when you say:
"I am generally opposed to restrictions on private behavior which do not have manifest effect on society at large."

And I suppose you'll decide for the rest of what behaviors have a manifest effect on society and pass laws accordingly. No thanks.

Tito asked:
"What is your reasoning and logic for giving license to homosexual behavior but condemning rape?"

Is that a serious question?

Well, let's see... one involves consenting adults in a mutual expression of love for one another and the other is a violent act of oppression.

Consent VS. Force
Happiness VS. Violation
Hurts no one VS. Violates someone's rights

Is your thinking so convoluted that you cannot see the difference?

Sean wrote:

Well, let's see... one involves consenting adults in a mutual expression of love for one another and the other is a violent act of oppression.

Consent VS. Force
Happiness VS. Violation
Hurts no one VS. Violates someone's rights

Definition according to Sean of what 'CONSENT' is: FORCING Americans to accept a depraved lifestlye when in popular referendums in 18 states the People have voted overwhelmingly to keep marriage (as it has been for almost 6000 years) as defined between a man and a woman.

Definition according to Sean of what 'HAPPINESS' is: Having homosexual sex which contributes to 90% of an incurable disease which is a clear VIOLATION of telling the American people the Truth. The Truth that homosexual sex does not benefit society in any degree, shape, form, or fashion besides fulfilling deviant desires to a high risk activity such as homosexual sex.

Definition according to Sean of what 'HURTS NO ONE' is: AIDS, an incurable disease that has claimed millions because it VIOLATES natural law, reason, and logic. Natural law because man and woman come together for the propagation of Man. Reason because if those engaging in homosexual sex understand that they are involved in a high risk activities that claims more people than cancer then they would reason to abstain from it. Logic, read the afforementioned.

Still want to propagate the fallacy of 'it hurts no one'. Yet it is harmful to everyone by practice, example, and compulsion.

Practice because it contributes nothing to society, especially to the two involved in satisfying lust.

Example because having children, the vulnurable, and weaker individuals see a depraved lifestyle that only contributes to their own self demise.

Compulsion. 'If it feels good do it.' Falling to the darker pleasures in life leaves those involved empty, depressed, and ultimately dead in spirit and in life (figuratively and literally).

IS YOUR thinking so convoluted that you cannot see the 'slippery slope' of sexual license contributing to the demise of society in general?

Tito,

how very Ann Coulterish of you

Sean,

You wrote:
"Logically, if homosexuality is "in the genes" then it is an expression of natural law and not a contradiction to it."

So you consider any genetic disease/disorder to be an expression of natural law????

"I meant assert as in impose... through discriminatory laws."

Assert is not the same as impose, though it's a common liberal tactic to equate them. In any event, here we agree. There should be no discriminatory laws against persons suffering from homosexuality. They may marry members of the opposite sex, exhibit morally acceptable behaviour in public, and practice morally unacceptable behaviour in private provided there is no compelling reason for the state to intervene. They may not seek to force society into accepting the normalcy of their disorder, any more then we would allow pedophiles, necropheliacs, or the like to do so. Speaking of which are you aware that NAMBLA is well accepted among mainstream homosexual organizations?


"And you prove my point when you say:
"I am generally opposed to restrictions on private behavior which do not have manifest effect on society at large.""

No, in a democratic society the majority will do so by electing leaders, whether it be right or wrong. What the homosexuals want, is for a minority (judges) to impose their will on the people.

Sean,

by the way discriminatory laws would be ones that attack people for being homosexual, not ones that apply equally to homosexuals and heterosexuals in regulating moral behaviour.

Tito, is that you're idea of a rational argument? I'll leave you to it then.

(and shame on Matt for encouraging that nonsense)

"So you consider any genetic disease/disorder to be an expression of natural law????"


As opposed to what? Maybe I don't know what you mean by natural law but it seems to me that what ever nature causes must be according to nature's laws. A is A.


"Assert is not the same as impose, though it's a common liberal tactic to equate them."

Actually, they can be synonyms. And I thought the context made it clear.



"In any event, here we agree. There should be no discriminatory laws against persons suffering from homosexuality."

But there are.


"They may marry members of the opposite sex, exhibit morally acceptable behavior in public"

And you'll let us know what is morally acceptable I'm sure.



"...and practice morally unacceptable behavior in private provided there is no compelling reason for the state to intervene."

And you'll let us know what "compelling" reasons the state could possibly have for interfering with consensenting adults on private property as well?



"They may not seek to force society into accepting the normalcy of their disorder, any more then we would allow pedophiles, necrophiliacs, or the like to do so."

Except both of those offenses involve doing something to someone else against their will. It's really poor form to bring up offensive straw men in hopes of scoring guilt-by-association points. It just shows how vacuous your argument is to begin with.


"Speaking of which are you aware that NAMBLA is well accepted among mainstream homosexual organizations?"

What a crock. It's not true but moreover, that's like saying "are you aware that Islamofascism is well accepted among mainstream black organizations?" If true, does that mean we should treat ALL black people like terrorist sympathizers? Of course, not.



"No, in a democratic society the majority will do so by electing leaders, whether it be right or wrong."

Allow me to disabuse you of the notion that we live in a democracy. We live in a constitutional republic because are Founding Fathers were as dubious about democracy as they were about dictatorship. That's why the American system has such respect for minorities... and the smallest minority is ONE.


"What the homosexuals want, is for a minority (judges) to impose their will on the people."

No they don't, but how incredibly bigoted of you to say so. Do you judge all individuals by the liberal organizations that claim to represent them? Do you judge women based on the actions of N.O.W.?

I originally made a comment hoping to flush out some underlying hypocrisy in Condi's post about genetics. Since then, the level of homophobia (in the prejudice sense) displayed by you and Tito has been astounding. Once you're "scientific" argument was shown to be without merit, you resort to these irrelevant ad hominem attacks.

Do you judge everyone according to their stereotype or just homosexuals?

"As opposed to what? Maybe I don't know what you mean by natural law but it seems to me that what ever nature causes must be according to nature's laws. A is A."


From Wikipedia:
"According to natural law ethics, the moral standards that govern human behavior trace to the nature of human beings, to a supreme being, or to the cosmos in general."

Homosexuality is contrary to human nature. Homosexual behaviour is a violation of natural law ethics.
=============================================
""Assert is not the same as impose, though it's a common liberal tactic to equate them."
Actually, they can be synonyms. And I thought the context made it clear."

assert

v 1: state categorically [syn: asseverate, maintain] 2: to declare or affirm solemnly and formally as true; "Before God I swear I am innocent" [syn: affirm, verify, avow, aver, swan, swear] 3: insist on having one's opinions and rights recognized; "Women should assert themselves more!" [syn: put forward] 4: assert to be true; "The letter asserts a free society" [syn: insist]

I can find nothing that implies they are synonymous. The context is clear that they are not being used in that way. I will say that it is for the authority in a society to determine what is to be imposed, provided it's consistent with the natural law.

=============================================
""In any event, here we agree. There should be no discriminatory laws against persons suffering from homosexuality."

But there are."

can you name a law that refers in any way to a person who suffers from homosexuality, as distinguishable from a law which addresses homosexual behaviour?


=============================================
""They may not seek to force society into accepting the normalcy of their disorder, any more then we would allow pedophiles, necrophiliacs, or the like to do so."

Except both of those offenses involve doing something to someone else against their will. It's really poor form to bring up offensive straw men in hopes of scoring guilt-by-association points. It just shows how vacuous your argument is to begin with."

You have to be honest Sean, I didn't associate anybody with anybody, other than that homosexual activists and pedophile activists propose to force society into accepting the normalcy of their disorder. That is trying to make us do something against our will, and contrary to natural law.

=============================================
""Speaking of which are you aware that NAMBLA is well accepted among mainstream homosexual organizations?"

What a crock. It's not true but moreover, that's like saying "are you aware that Islamofascism is well accepted among mainstream black organizations?" If true, does that mean we should treat ALL black people like terrorist sympathizers? Of course, not."

It is true that NAMBLA is affiliated with a number of homosexual organizations. I don't think Islamofascism is well accepted among mainstream black organizations. I do know that Farrakahn's group does, and I treat that organization like a terrorist sympathizer. This has nothing to do with blacks, or individuals suffering from homosexuality, only with organizations which support such evil acts.


=============================================
""What the homosexuals want, is for a minority (judges) to impose their will on the people."

No they don't, but how incredibly bigoted of you to say so. Do you judge all individuals by the liberal organizations that claim to represent them? Do you judge women based on the actions of N.O.W.?"

If I offended you by referring to homosexuals instead of homosexual activists (not all of which are homosexual) then I apologize for a stereotype, it's hardly a bigotted sterotype. You really can't be offended, since you are by definition a homosexual activist. By the way, how many homosexuals do you know which don't fall into this stereotype?

"I originally made a comment hoping to flush out some underlying hypocrisy in Condi's post about genetics. Since then, the level of homophobia (in the prejudice sense) displayed by you and Tito has been astounding. Once you're "scientific" argument was shown to be without merit, you resort to these irrelevant ad hominem attacks."

What irrelevent and ad hominem attacks have been resorted to? (aside from you calling me a bigot). What expression of "homophobia" (in the made up sense of prejudice) was displayed by me?

Tito's posts are satirical in nature, that doesn't mean they aren't true, or rational... just that they are funny and emphasize the foolishness of the opposition.

""We aimed to stop the ballot measure with this lawsuit, but the legislature can still do the right thing and allow marriage equality to continue in Massachusetts," said Lee Swislow, executive director of the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD).
In their lawsuit, GLAD lawyers argued that citizen-initiated amendments cannot "reverse" a judicial ruling. Since the proposed amendment would essentially overrule the high court's Goodridge decision, which allowed same-sex "marriage," the amendment was illegal, they said. "

It seems that GLAD doesn't think that citizens should be able to reverse a judicial ruling.

From Wikipedia:
"According to natural law ethics, the moral standards that govern human behavior trace to the nature of human beings, to a supreme being, or to the cosmos in general."


You never said "natural law ETHICS." And anyway, my point still stands because if homosexuality is genetic then it is in the homosexual's nature to behave as such.

Ethics are the province of free will. In other words, the opposite of genetics and *congenital* disorders. If one does not chose to be a certain way then one cannot be held morally responsible for being that way. This entire conversation has been based on the premise that homosexuality is NOT a choice. That has been stipulated repeatedly and was, in fact, the point of the original post.

______________

"Homosexuality is contrary to human nature."

Are homosexuals not human? If they are born that way then they did not CHOOSE to be homosexual and it would be against their nature to act any other way.


______________

"can you name a law that refers in any way to a person who suffers from homosexuality, as distinguishable from a law which addresses homosexual behavior?"

All laws address behavior, don't they? That's kind of the point, right?


______________

"It is true that NAMBLA is affiliated with a number of homosexual organizations."

You'll pardon me if I don't take your word for it. If you have a site, feel free to share it.


_____________


"If I offended you by referring to homosexuals instead of homosexual activists (not all of which are homosexual) then I apologize for a stereotype, it's hardly a bigoted stereotype."

Interchanging "homosexuals" and "homosexual activist" is as dishonest as it is collectivist.

That's like saying "Blacks are ruining this neighborhood." And then when someone calls you a racist you say "I only meant the ones in gangs, not all blacks." Only a racist would make such a gaffe. People who judge others as individuals and not as part of some group don't tend to think in such terms.

It should give you pause that you allow your thinking to be so sloppy.


_____________

"You really can't be offended, since you are by definition a homosexual activist."

You call a half dozen posts on this blog activism??? So now you are lumping me in with the same "activists" you disparaged before?



_____________

By the way, how many homosexuals do you know which don't fall into this stereotype?

Plenty.

_____________

"What irrelevant and ad hominem attacks have been resorted to?"

It is ad hominem qua "guilt by association" to try and make any point about the biological nature of homosexuality by referring to pedophiles and necrophiliacs.

_____________

(aside from you calling me a bigot).

That is not an ad hominem. I am saying that you are wrong AND a bigot. Not that you are wrong BECAUSE you are a bigot.



_____________

"What expression of "homophobia" (in the made up sense of prejudice) was displayed by me?"

I don't like that word either but if you know of a better word then feel free to self apply it. If we were talking about race, you would clearly be a racist. As we are talking about homosexuality you are a -what?... homosexualist.

"It seems that GLAD doesn't think that citizens should be able to reverse a judicial ruling."

What does GLAD have to do with anything? What about those homosexual activists that are fighting for just the opposite? Why do you insist on judging all homosexuals by the policies of some homosexuals?

Should I consider all Catholics pedophiles? Of course not, but then I don't subjugate individuals to a group.

Anonymous = sean

"What about those homosexual activists that are fighting for just the opposite"

If you can name a few I might reconsider.

Regardless of that, the fact that someone is a pro homosexual activist, is like someone being a "pro necrophiliac activist", or a "pro bigamist activist", how about a "crack cocaine addict activist", or a "pro alcoholic activist".

The point is I'm labelling by the definition of what they do (homosexual activism), not their identity as persons suffering from homosexuality, in fact not all homosexual activists are homosexual sufferers.

The number of pro pedophilia Catholics or Catholic priests is infinitessimal, and activism is completely different from a personal sin. Bringing this up is a red herring, you really need to argue from logic not emotion.

You never said "natural law ETHICS." And anyway, my point still stands because if homosexuality is genetic then it is in the homosexual's nature to behave as such.

Ethics are the province of free will. In other words, the opposite of genetics and *congenital* disorders. If one does not chose to be a certain way then one cannot be held morally responsible for being that way. This entire conversation has been based on the premise that homosexuality is NOT a choice. That has been stipulated repeatedly and was, in fact, the point of the original post.

The natural law is commonly referred to by Catholics who gave these disciplines to the western world in the middle ages, nonetheless I will accept your distinction of referring to "natural law ethics". Ethics is the province of free will, regardless of a propensity for behaviour which violates it (which we all possess, it's called concupiscence), human nature is to overcome such behaviors which are not worthy of humanity. Some are born, due to defect, with a greater propensity to certain immoral behaviour, that does not make their behaviour acceptable, or reduce it's affect on society, but it may reduce their moral culpability for it.



______________

"Homosexuality is contrary to human nature."

Are homosexuals not human? If they are born that way then they did not CHOOSE to be homosexual and it would be against their nature to act any other way.

Homosexual humans are human. You accuse me of labelling all homosexuals rather than those who practice immoral (homosexual behaviour), now you do the same. Nevertheless, just because someone is born with a defect which causes a propensity for such behaviour doesn't make it acceptable.


______________
"can you name a law that refers in any way to a person who suffers from homosexuality, as distinguishable from a law which addresses homosexual behavior?"

All laws address behavior, don't they? That's kind of the point, right?


So you concede that there are no laws that discriminate against someone because he suffers from homosexuality?


______________

"It is true that NAMBLA is affiliated with a number of homosexual organizations."

You'll pardon me if I don't take your word for it. If you have a site, feel free to share it.


So you concede that you really don't know whether what I said was true? I'll get back to you on the proof.



_____________

"If I offended you by referring to homosexuals instead of homosexual activists (not all of which are homosexual) then I apologize for a stereotype, it's hardly a bigoted stereotype."

Interchanging "homosexuals" and "homosexual activist" is as dishonest as it is collectivist.

That's like saying "Blacks are ruining this neighborhood." And then when someone calls you a racist you say "I only meant the ones in gangs, not all blacks." Only a racist would make such a gaffe. People who judge others as individuals and not as part of some group don't tend to think in such terms.

It should give you pause that you allow your thinking to be so sloppy.


And to think only a few lines after you did the very same thing. There is a flaw in your logic. You're making a false comparison between blacks and homosexuals, they are apples and oranges. A black by definition is not suffering from a disorder which causes a propensity for immorality, a homosexual is.


_____________

"You really can't be offended, since you are by definition a homosexual activist."

You call a half dozen posts on this blog activism??? So now you are lumping me in with the same "activists" you disparaged before?


You may not be very active, but you advocate for acceptance of homosexual behaviour, and so you are an activist.


_____________

By the way, how many homosexuals do you know which don't fall into this stereotype?

Plenty.

They don't advocate for the full acceptance of homosexual behavior? Or they just don't do it publicly?




_____________

"What irrelevant and ad hominem attacks have been resorted to?"

It is ad hominem qua "guilt by association" to try and make any point about the biological nature of homosexuality by referring to pedophiles and necrophiliacs.


Actually that's not an ad hominem attack, I'm attacking homosexual behaviour, and activists for their behaviour. You know this. Homosexual behaviour, even if it's consensual is immoral, just as is pedophilia and necrophilia, even if they are consensual.



_____________

(aside from you calling me a bigot).

That is not an ad hominem. I am saying that you are wrong AND a bigot. Not that you are wrong BECAUSE you are a bigot.



So you calling me a bigot is not ad hominem????? Wow, you can just change any definition you like, can't you. In any event, if you can prove me a bigot then feel free to try.


_____________

"What expression of "homophobia" (in the made up sense of prejudice) was displayed by me?"

I don't like that word either but if you know of a better word then feel free to self apply it. If we were talking about race, you would clearly be a racist. As we are talking about homosexuality you are a -what?... homosexualist.


Since I'm talking about morals and ethics, you could call me a moralist or ethicist. Racists hate blacks because of their race. I don't hate homosexual activists, and practicers at all, I hate their behavoior.

Connections between homosexual activism and NAMBLA:

See the "1972 Gay Rights Platform"

David Thorstad, a founding member of NAMBLA and former president of New York's Gay Activists Alliance

Harry Hay - the man who first organized homosexuals as a political minority - no mainstream media outlets reported that Hay was an advocate of pedophile rights and the notorious group NAMBLA.

lots more out there, but it does appear there is much suppression.

I think Sean is GAY or a GAY lover

homosexuality is abnormal from any point of view, just like imbecility, homosexuality is a HANDICAP that we have to tolerate and cure, NOT TO PROMOTE !

-homosexuality is abnormal from any point of view, just like imbecility, homosexuality is a HANDICAP that we have to tolerate and cure, NOT TO PROMOTE !

Anon,

Please be charitable when making a point. There's no need to denigrate someone when you can make a point.

- homosexuality, though an abnormality according to this obviously biased article, is negative only to those who do not understand discipline vs. nature.
Despite what God says, even if you consider this an abnormality, I would find it rather severe to restrict human beings from acting on their "abnormal" natural urges because it makes you uncomfortable. Furthermore, for you to say something that is a mutation is unnatural would be to undermine evolution in its entirety. I think homosexuality needs to prosper because at least that way we'd stop reproducing in an already populated world and people like Tito wouldn't exist.

Anon,

Apparently you had nothing new to contribute to the discussion except an ad hominine... which is typical of many liberals when they are losing or have lost an argument.

Another point is world population is stabilizing and to promote an anti-life lifestyle, especially when it goes against God, would severely undermine morality and contribute to the already plummeting populations in Europe.

Probably because Europe celebrates homosexuality is the reason why they are dying off.

God bless anon.

so in your justification above you propose that gay marriage is an abnormality and is therefore wrong, so you think that people who are born with down syndrome, heart disorders, hunington's disease, neurofibromatosis or spina bifida (all abnormalities) should not have the same rights as people who are born "normal".

Allie,

You lost me on your comparison.

I believe you think that marriage is a 'right'. It is not a right. For 6000 years marriage has been defined as being between a MAN and a WOMAN.

To change that so two people who don't want to recognize their disorder for what it is, is to do a diservice to them by indulging them in their disorder.

Matt writes that mutations are deviations from the "right ordering of DNA."

Would the "right ordering of DNA" code for blue or brown eyes, blond or brown hair, white or brown skin?

YOu've masterfully demonstrated that Catholic natural law philosophy supports the nazi "science" of race.

Does the Church really need "defenders" like you?

frank said...
Matt writes that mutations are deviations from the "right ordering of DNA."
Would the "right ordering of DNA" code for blue or brown eyes, blond or brown hair, white or brown skin?
YOu've masterfully demonstrated that Catholic natural law philosophy supports the nazi "science" of race.
Does the Church really need "defenders" like you?


Ummm, so you think that skin pigmentation differences are mutations???? Well, I'm not a genetic biologist but, let's look at the definition of mutation:


American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary - Cite This Source
mu·ta·tion (my-tshn)
n.

The act or process of being altered or changed.
An alteration or change, as in nature, form, or quality.
A sudden structural change within a gene or chromosome of an organism resulting in the creation of a new character or trait not found in the parental type.
The process by which such a sudden structural change occurs, either through an alteration in the nucleotide sequence of the DNA coding for a gene or through a change in the physical arrangement of a chromosome.
A mutant.


So you see, that the traits you identify can not be understood as mutations, since they result from inheriting particular genes from their parents (which may or may not be dominant traits).

You've demonstrated your ability to develop the "straw man" logical fallacy, by attacking an untenable position which I did not hold, typically because your own position holds no water whatsoever.

Catholic natural law philosophy is diametricly opposed to the nazi "science", although evolutionary science is pretty cuddly with such notions (survival of the fittest and all). In Catholic natural law philosophy, grasshopper, all human life is sacred, it is to be protected, and treated with dignity... even if it is disordered by it's own fault, or by a genetic mutation.

God Bless,

Matt