Debate, and discuss, just dont Bore me.
Published on July 17, 2007 By Dr Guy In Religion

One of our esteemed members decided to post an article concerning a religion where he stated:

I should comment that I am pretty much against the Catholic Church

Some of the reasons he stated are historical, if somewhat prejudicial, and are ones that the Church in the modern era has had to deal with in their quest to return to its roots - that of being a faith based, and not a political based organization. And some are an attempt to bestow upon an fallible organization a measure of perfection that does not exist in this world.  And still others are a gross mis-interpretation of a teaching that many do not understand, yet continue to decry and denounce in their ignorance.

Let us look at these three different aspects of these accusations.

The first is easy enough to identify.  They deal with Historical facts.  The inquisition, the heresy of Galileo, and the Crusades.  All of these are historical facts, that are undeniable.  And to deny them would be akin to denying the holocaust.  But they are historical.  The implication in the linked article is that since these were done in the name of the Church, then all descendants must bear the shame of those forefathers.  That those descendants must renounce their faith, because the Church (not the faith) is imperfect and has done evil.  They are guilty, because their ancestors are guilty.  And not even necessarily their ancestors, but the acquaintances of some of their ancestors.

It matters not that the descendants have apologized for those deeds. It matters not that the descendants have repudiated the deeds.  It matters only that those deeds were committed by the fathers, and thus the sins must be visited upon the children.

Now we come to the point where this faith based organization must know not only all that has been, but all that will be.  In 1933, the Church signed a concordat with a sovereign nation stating they would get out of Politics.  Something they had been in since Constantine back during the Roman Empire.  Something they were never meant to be.  And something they should never have been.  And yet, into the 20th century, they were still involved with the remnants of the Holy Roman Empire.  So they got out.  By signing an agreement with the government of Germany.  At the time, a democratically elected government whose primary concerns were not with ruling the world (that would come later), but in getting the country out of the worst depression they had ever seen.

While this was a mistake, at the time, no one knew the evil that was to occur under the new leadership of Germany.  But we are to believe, again, that this is a heinous crime.  And the crime was in not being omniscient.  They should have known that the evil was to come, and never signed the agreement, and that they did sign it before the evil was perpetrated upon the world, is irrelevant.  For they must be omniscient.  Because people say they are.

And because they signed this agreement, then all the works of the Catholics throughout Europe,  those who sacrificed their lives for the persecuted, was just a dog and pony show.  Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.  hey!  They must have been pretending.

Finally we come to modern day deeds.  Yes, what WE do today WE are responsible for.  At least in most circles.  But what did the Church do in the current day?  There are 2 charges.

One: The participation in the genocide in Rwanda by priests and nuns,

Two: Hundreds of years (no kidding or exaggeration) of tacitly permitting the sexual abuse of parishioners, specifically including children, by priests

That is right.  The church and all 1.1 billion members participated in the genocide in Rwanda.  And not another soul in the world did so.  Nope, none of the other 5 billion people participated, just the 1 billion Catholics.  And how did they participate?  How many people were killed by Catholics?  Well, that gets kind of murky, since even the author does not indicate that a single Catholic raised up arms against the Hutus and Tutsis.  NO, the only allegation is that they did nothing.  But the other 5 billion people sure did a lot, right?  They sure stopped the massacre from happening!  I remember well, the brigades of Americans (non-catholic of course), Israelis, English, French, and Germans marching in there to stop this slaughter.  I remember it very well.  Maybe you do as well?

But not the Catholics.  Not a single Catholic sacrificed their lives for that massacre.

And the pedophilia?  Yep!  A crime that did not exist prior to it being discovered in the church, and what is even better, would not exist were it not for the church.  And its 1 billion members!  That is right!  You heard it here first!  The Church, and its 1 billion members are all pedophiles, or so we are to believe.  Because only Catholics are pedophiles, and they must all be because we have found some priests that are.

Forget those men behind the curtain: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,286153,00.html

Forget the hundreds of instances where headlines have blared that "This teacher and that teacher" is convicted of it (they must all be Catholics too). Forget all the felons rotting in jail (they are all Catholics too).  Just concentrate on the 13,000 charges (not all proven yet - except the fact they are Catholics) in the last 50 odd years against those evil Catholics.  Do away with those Catholics, and problem solved!  You do not need to worry about any one else!

No way is it possible that perhaps those inclined to pedophilia are attracted to occupations that put them in contact with children.  No, all those teachers are Catholics, all those Felons are Catholics, and all those Protestant ministers, Jewish Rabbis and Muslim Imams are really Catholics in disguise.  Problem solved.  The final solution is to kill all the Catholics.

Then we have this statement: When Ratzinger was a Cardinal, he helped conceal the severity of the problem. And this is the man that has the audacity to say that you are "wounded" in your beliefs if you do not acknowledge him?

Yes, the author now is an expert on theology, and knows more about interfaith dialog than any one else.  So he can now state the intent and reason for the claim of "wounded" irregardless of its context: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,288976,00.html

Let just pretend again that the Pope (who is all Catholics after all), is again saying that, now not only all Muslims are evil (Exact quote from Manuel Il Paleologus, a Byzantine Emperor, not a pope):

Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached

Since he quotes a historical text to a CLASS on theology, he must have originated the quote, and firmly believes in it.  Just like the statement he re-released recently that the experts in the media took to be a slam on protestant churches, instead of what it was.  A re-statement of a working paper for the reconciliation of all Christian faiths. "The wound" that is talked about is reflected in the Popes belief that his faith is the right one.  But as we can guess from these wanna-bee Theological experts in the mainstream media and elsewhere, ONLY Catholics believe that.  All other people of faith must then believe that their faith is not the right one, and they are just waiting on a street corner for a bus to come along with a better one.

I guess we have 5 billion people that just cant wait to find a better creed and faith.

And finally we get to the last item.  One corrected so many times, it truly boggles the mind that people would continue to perpetrate it.  I guess some just love to revel in their ignorance instead of trying to discern the truth, or even seeking it.  Even worse, when presented with the truth, they chose to ignore it, because ignorance is so much more fun.  But for the record:

Pope ... ....always correct and infallible...

Is incorrect.  The pope is only infallible when he goes Ex-cathedra, which means speaking for the faithful, and that has occurred only twice in the last 500 years.  All the other times, he is speaking as the leader of the faithful - much like Bush speaks for all Americans (ha ha).  He is the head teacher, as the role of priest has its roots in the Jewish faith, and that of the Rabbi - which means teacher, his words carry more weight than the other teachers and the students.  But last I checked, no teacher is right all the time, and no man is either.  And the Pope, outside of his role as head teacher, is just that.  A man.

So please, slam those 1 billion plus Catholics for all these sins.  We can even make a special place for them, since they are all evil and do only evil.  But at least get your facts right when you are marching them to the gallows.


Comments (Page 7)
8 PagesFirst 5 6 7 8 
on Aug 20, 2007
Dan Greene posts: #76
Read about something here...

An article, with citations and a reference to a physical difference between a homo-heterosexuals humans' brain.
http://allpsych.com/journal/homosexuality.html

It is my firm belief that this is nature and genetics and life. Our society has created plenty of opportunities for the weak and strong to intermix daily and in nature strength attacks weakness. We apply these struggles in war, in politics, in sports, in so many areas it's easy to just overlook the constant struggle of nature.



Dan, you say, "It's just so easy to overlook the constant struggle of nature".

Constant struggle? Nah. Nature, like her Maker, is good and perfect. It's only when man interferes with nature that a struggle ensues.

But getting back to the topic of nature and the differences between heterosexuality and homosexuality, I'd say that unlike homosexuality, heterosexuality is immutable. To define heterosexuality as merely sexual conduct between people of compatible genders is to suppress a fundamental truth about what it means to be human.

All human beings with the exception of hermaphrodites (people with genital deformities) are born with a reproductive system that is heterosexual by nature. The body parts fit; they are complimentary for their natural intended purpose and use...the chemical processes are rooted in our procreative heterosexual design.

In nature, a male to male or female to female oreintation is self-evidently abnormal and unnatural. This brings me to the conclusion that homosexuality is nothing more than same-gender sexual conduct among people who are innately and unchangeably heterosexual. The human being by nature is designed and rooted in heterosexual physiology.
on Aug 20, 2007
Let me remind you there is no known direct causation of either heterosexuality or homosexuality.


This is true of homosexuality, but not of heterosexuality as I have pointed out in previous posts.

It certainly isn't based upon science that the homosexual movement denies homosexuality is behavior based and instead insists that homosexuality is innate.

Homosexual activists are the ones making the claim 'they are born that way' but they can't prove it becasue to date there are no truly objective means of determining that. We must depend entirely upon a person's claim that his or her homosexuality is innate.

On the other hand, there is evidence that homosexuality is not innate. There are testimonies of tens of thousands of people who once lived as Homosexuals yet have renounced their former lifestyle in self identification and desire. Besides that there is overwhelming evidence that homosexual desire results form traumatic childhood experiences such as sexual abuse especially during the latency period, or a troubled family environment. For in-depth information citing numerous studies read, HOmosexuality and the Politics of Truth, by Dr. Jeffrey Satinover. Family Research Institute.org also has done scientific studies and empirical research on homosexuality.

I agree with Scott Lively, "7 steps to recruit proof your child", who wrote, "In the theory of special creation based on the Bible, God would not have created an entire class of people with no choice but to engage in a behavior He had condemned. ON the contrary, the Bible specifically states that God gives each person free will and holds him accountable for his choices."

Why is the question of immutability so important? Becasue if homosexuality isn't innate, it must be acquired and if it's acquired, we dare not allow homosexuality to be legitimized to our children. Thus far, homosexualists have been successful in trying to equate homo-sex behavior as biologically just the same as race or gender as far as obtaining same-sex partner health benefits and getting so called "gay rights" passed.
on Aug 21, 2007
"I don't like to talk about it, because it's always dismissed, but Satan is in fact at work in our lives."

You can believe that if you want, however if it is true Satan was in our lives, in the 40's and 30's and 20's, and this type of behavior did not manifest itself as prevalent or counter measures would have been taken before the incidents in the 60's.

"I read the whole article, Dan, but that doesn't make the conclusion valid."

I didn't assert that it did make a correct conclusion. Clearly if you read what I put into "" one could see that it does in fact, not draw conclusions, but show evidence, facts, which may or may not mean anything. I find your arguments to be increasing less valid, when you start asserting "Satan" as a cause yet deny evidence as valid which is a scientific fact found in the article, whether or not it makes a conclusion, you seem to think that it does. It's time for you to read it a third time, or stop discussing it because you have no ground to stand on regarding it.

Prove to me that Satan does anything, that could not be the actions of a chosen person. Prove to me Satan exists anyplace but beyond your mind. I have shown you an article in which scientific persons have found physical differences in brains between homosexuals and heterosexuals, but that doesn't mean for sure that is it a cause.

"No, I can't prove to you that Satan is working in your life."

Than you can't be using that as a fact, or suggesting it's Satan's fault.

Generally in science, you have to look at a combination of factors, in the case of priests abusing children it isn't one single thing. Homosexuality though in part, is not a direct cause of this.

You were the one asserting that a conclusion was drawn from the article and now you are saying it's wrong because it came to the wrong one. Again I remind you that I presented the article to show you that evidence exists to indicate homosexuality is not learned practice.

Your statement

"Stamp out the lust and you stamp out everything, pedofilia, homosexuality, and even heterosexuality, which isn't allowed for a priest either."

Just how do you propose you stamp out sexual evolution (LUST) in animals? Sex isn't a entirely a learned trait, it's instinctive, it's marketed in our society because it sells products, and because it stimulates us, we are stimulated because that's how you get procreation to happen between opposite sexes. In other societies sex progresses without near the fanfare. Homosexuality, heterosexuality, bisexuality, all types, even sex with minors in some other cultures is accepted.

If you will recall from history this nations grand idea of prohibition and ending alcohol sales/brewing/consumption, imagine trying that with cigarettes, and then imagine trying that with sex. Good luck.

What you need is law enforcement against sex offenders and any organization that would allow offenders to perpetrate crimes to be legally sanctioned.

"But, I figured since you all shared your beliefs, I could share mine. Dan Greene believes homosexuals are born that way, I believe it has a lot more to do with lust and demons. If it's his firm belief, does that make my firm belief less valid? No. As you said, it may even be true. It IS true. But provable does not equal truth, as many innocent people put in prison will tell you. Truth just IS. Perception is what makes something provable or not, not truth."

You are welcome and entitled to believe in whatever you want. My beliefs are no more valid than yours. However without proof of fact, of which you cannot even lend any to the existence of your force, (SATAN) which supposedly, as you assert, is the acting force on these people, you have to face responsibility for that.

I have no evidence to say that Satan does not exist, but show me what evidence exists to say Zeus does not exist? That Zeus, King of the Gods, is not throwing down lightning from the heavens because he can. Why is that religion treated as mythology today rather than fact? Just because your belief is different doesn't make it irrelevant but your assertion that homosexuals are acting on lust and because of demons is. Is your heterosexual conduct lust also?

Why must all homosexuals be guilty of demonic acts, lust, why must two people who love each other, who commit no crime, but are of the same sex not be characterized exactly as you and I?

Certainly acts in our society, between adults and minors are not right. But what of the 16 year old who loves her 19 year old lover. Is not that adult guilty of the same crimes someone of 30 or 40? The lines blur really quickly between these issues.

What is clear is that the church has chosen to keep some of the bishops and cardinals who made the decisions to shuffle these sex offenders around the church and that some of these offenders were able to repeat their offenses over and over because of their decisions and actions. That's not right.

As for homosexuals and heterosexuals, in our country you ought to have sex with whoever you want, who is of age, nobody need tell you how to live your life in your personal pursuit of happiness. Nobody ought be denying you the rights or privileges between your partner/spouse. Thats my opinion on it. We are a country of free people, free people don't deny people of their rights or of their privileges, nor should they.

"We know now that some bishops who unwittingly moved predators around did so based on the unsound advice of therapists who assured them that the individuals in question were safe."

Convenient excuse, unfortunately for lots of church communities, not good enough to keep the collections in the coffers in the church.

Lil pilgrim posts some stats on the numbers of homosexual/heterosexual cases, of course she did not cite her source beyond USA TODAY, please cite the article.

I wrote "Homosexuality is no more at fault than heterosexuality for the abuse." In light of what your stats say I'll write,

Homosexuality is just as at fault as heterosexuality is for the abuse.

Lil pilgrim you can stop with the straight rights agenda. I'm interested in logic and facts. It pains me when you write...

"The argument goes---Homosexuality must be innate because no one would choose to be "gay" and incur the resulting social stigma or of being infected with AIDS.
First, I have to give credit to the success of the so-called "gay rights" crowd for their amazing triumpth of clever deception over simple logic. I haven't been able to find any one who argued that homosexuality was innate before 1986, have you?"

I wasn't around online in 1986, nor was homosexuality accepted in employment circles or protected the way it is today by equal opportunity laws. Beyond that, rather than confronting my question of...

Who would logically chose a behavior that by demographic is statistically more dangerous because of AIDS, and is stigmatized both because of that, and by religions? In the group of people who are not counter-culture, why would there be a segment of our population who is homosexual if it were not a chosen thing?

Beyond that, you won't even touch the question I ask, why are animals in the animal kingdom who are not Human, HOMOSEXUAL TOO?

Answer that before you crap all over my arguments supporting the idea that it's more than just a choice thing.

Your reply in 91 is a total misunderstanding. Partly my fault, but you go on and on about homo/heteroseuxal conduct when my analogy of nature's "strength vs weakness" theme wasn't about sex hardly at all. It was a paragraph where the strong are "priests" versus the "weak" adolescents, weak adolescents who are attacked by the "strong" priests. Why do male bears kill the young cubs? Why do priests fuck kids?

I supposed they do because...

A. The opportunity exists for male on male contact to a much higher degree than male on female contact in church situations...

B. Nobody could argue that young males isolated would be in the strong position versus a priest, both physically and in a society caste, type perspective.

C. Nature attacks weak things through natural selection. I know it's a small stretch, but there are millions of examples of where young members of a species are the most vulnerable, and there are stronger dominant types which prey on them, either to improve the odds of their offspring succeeding or providing more resources for themselves. Happens in nature in either almost or every species. In fact I challenge you to show me a species where natural selection does not play a factor. Meaning, it's a powerful instinctive and driving force, sub conscience but just like hunger, or sex drive.

D. Sexuality plays a part but you shouldn't discount that opportunity also plays a part. Think of the psychology as well, would a young woman be more likely to tell than a young man embarrassed, at the time, that they were abused? Would they be believed by their parents outright? How would their parents react? Obviously a predator doesn't attack the target which has the least chance of being successfully defeated. They attack the most likely to keep it a secret, or to feel the most powerless. You take away a young mans dignity and put him in a position where he has to accuse an authority figure at the expense of upsetting and possibly ruining his parents relationship with God and you give a young man a very hard choice to make.

I'm not minimizing a choice or victimization by a woman but I'm not a woman, and I'm not trying too. Perhaps someone could offer the psychological perspective there.

This sounds like a sick argument and I'm ready to puke, but it's a sick topic to be honest.

"Why is the question of immutability so important? Becasue if homosexuality isn't innate, it must be acquired and if it's acquired, we dare not allow homosexuality to be legitimized to our children. Thus far, homosexualists have been successful in trying to equate homo-sex behavior as biologically just the same as race or gender as far as obtaining same-sex partner health benefits and getting so called "gay rights" passed."

You go ahead a raise your kids how you want Lil Pilgrim. But if one of them comes to you one day and says, Mom or Dad, I'm sorry to tell you this cause I know how you feel about it, but I'm Gay. It's not a choice, but it's who I am. I hope you can accept me for it but if you can't I'll understand.

What's your response gonna be? Is it gonna be thumping that bible up and down until they decide to change their mind or is it gonna be to love your kids no matter what? Honestly why does it matter if your kids are gay? Why does it matter if anyone is? Even if they choose it? So what? Does that make them less of a person? Does it make the person love their partner any less, or any less valuable to society?

I would argue that is does not. I mean no disrespect towards the bible or the church when I say, why is it acceptable to exclude or declare certain people as acting on demons or lust when lust and demons are just as dangerous to heterosexuals as homosexuals as evidenced by your own stats showing that some heterosexual abuse did in fact, take place as well?

Should not the church instead of ramming rhetoric down your throat and mine, allow people to live how they want and stick to teaching "do unto your neighbor as you would have done to yourself"

Maybe people like me, who don't have to take the bible literally or figurative or at all, in this country, a country founded on freedom to preach and teach and live the religion of choice, or no religion at all if so chosen, just look at it different.

Why should my homosexual neighbor be demonized by you, be stigmatized by you, be denied rights which you have because you or your religion do not like it? To me it's not a question of right or wrong morally, morals differ between people and religions, it's a question of right or wrong ethically. Ethics are much more consistent in my opinion. It is ethically right to deny two people of the rights and privileges to live as partners if they so chose?

Given that lots of people do in fact "choose" to live this way regardless of the debate about if being gay is choice or genetic, and that it affects you in zero ways, if you don't let it, i.e. be gay, why should their rights and privileges be denied?

Lets get one thing straight er clear here LOL. Nobody is looking to recruit gay people, Just because you don't agree that people are either are gay or not, doesn't mean that they are all wrong, or me, because they believe it is a non-chosen thing. You aren't gay or are you? I'm not gay and I don't know for sure one way or the other. You aren't gay or are you, but assuming you aren't you can't know for sure if its a chosen thing or not. Ethically though, can you agree with denying other people their rights and privileges, who believe that they are gay and that they are gay for a purpose?

What you are spouting Pilgrim is fear, and lack of understanding, in my opinion. Maybe you are clouded by your religious beliefs or guided by them, maybe you are a bigot. That is for you to decide, what I do know is, our country has a history of denying people rights unfairly and then when called on it, changing that for the better.

I'm done talking about the whole priest and gay thing for today thanks folks interesting conversation.

on Aug 21, 2007
"Sex isn't a entirely a learned trait, it's instinctive, it's marketed in our society because it sells products, and because it stimulates us, we are stimulated because that's how you get procreation to happen between opposite sexes."

Heterosexual sex is instinctive, and procreative. Homosexual sex is not procreative.

"Just because your belief is different doesn't make it irrelevant but your assertion that homosexuals are acting on lust and because of demons is. Is your heterosexual conduct lust also?"

Yes, except in marriage.

"Why must all homosexuals be guilty of demonic acts, lust, why must two people who love each other, who commit no crime, but are of the same sex not be characterized exactly as you and I?"

There is an inherent selfish/selfless relationship in homosexual relationships. It's becoming that way with heterosexual relationships too, but it doesn't have to be that way as it does with homosexual relationships. Also, let me remind you that a lot of people love each other without sexual relationships.

"As for homosexuals and heterosexuals, in our country you ought to have sex with whoever you want, who is of age, nobody need tell you how to live your life in your personal pursuit of happiness. Nobody ought be denying you the rights or privileges between your partner/spouse. Thats my opinion on it. We are a country of free people, free people don't deny people of their rights or of their privileges, nor should they."

I certainly won't deny people the right to have sex with whoever they want, who is of age, and I won't tell non-Christians how to live their lives. I won't deny rights.

That's the greatness of freedom. Not only are we free to do what's best for us, we're also free to destroy our lives.
on Aug 21, 2007
Lilpilgrim I apologize for my profanity.


Dan,

Re: Your apology for using profanity and your post #93. It's sad to say that you evidently don't mean what you say and don't say what you mean.
on Aug 21, 2007
Dan,

Do not belittle her name. It does nothing for your argument. And probably more than the offensive term stopped her from continuing the debate.

Name calling is the last resort of those who have no points to make.
on Aug 21, 2007
Do not belittle her name.


Doc, I'm not sure if you are referring to me or not. If you are, please be assured that I'm not bothered in the least when someone gets my name wrong.

Dan uses profanity again in post 93, the last sentence of about the 38 paragraph down that begins with , "Your reply in 91".



on Aug 21, 2007
Doc, I'm not sure if you are referring to me or not. If you are, please be assured that I'm not bothered in the least when someone gets my name wrong.

Dan uses profanity again in post 93, the last sentence of about the 38 paragraph down that begins with , "Your reply in 91".


It is you, and I have already asked him to refrain from profanity. However, I do not forbid it on my blog since I do use it and it would be hypocritical for me to ban it. However his denigration of your name, while fine with you, is really beneath the level of discourse you have had. You both have had some very good points, and I have appreciated reading them. using school yard taunts is not up to the level that I have been reading.
on Aug 21, 2007
Dan Greene posts:
Beyond that, you won't even touch the question I ask, why are animals in the animal kingdom who are not Human, HOMOSEXUAL TOO?


An article on homosexuality in animals, which are not subject to the same type of environmental and marketing influences that humans are influenced by.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality#Homosexual_behavior_in_animals



I don't see humans as compared to animals at all. Human nature isn't the same as animal nature. Humans are totally distinct creatures and the latest scientific insights into the design of DNA prove that quite concusively.


Human beings have an immutable nature that demands acting in accord with reason given that humans have an intellect or ability to think, understand and act based on conscience (while animals don’t). All non-rational creatures like animals participate in the natural law only by instinct. We, humans, are unique, rational creatures that participates by inclination and rational free will.

There is a huge difference between human behavior and animal behavior. The intellect enables us to think; the free will allows us to choose. The natural order here is the rational governs over the emotive. In this sense, we cannot compare our human sexuality to animals wild, domestic or otherwise.

What is the point? Do you think that animals have alot to teach us about sexuality? Should we decide to include the practices of animals in our decisions of how the world should be? It's preposterous to take instances of animal "homosexual" activity and transform those into general statements about the naturalness or normalcy of homosexuality in people. What happens sexually in the animal world is irrelevant to what occurs in the human one.

Animals do all sorts of things we civilized humans abhor and would never consider natural or normal. They kill and eat members of their own species and their own offspring. They compete with each other for dominance often killing or debilitating the rival, and they breed with relatives.
on Aug 21, 2007
It is you, and I have already asked him to refrain from profanity.


Yes, thank you and I appreciate that. There have been lots of very interesting discussions throughout JU in which I do not participate solely because of profanity.

However his denigration of your name, while fine with you, is really beneath the level of discourse you have had.


I took it as only mis-spelling. Lots of people do that...Lula is fine. As I said, no harm done there.

Hopefully with this, Dan will get the message and be a more careful.

on Aug 22, 2007
"Re: Your apology for using profanity and your post #93. It's sad to say that you evidently don't mean what you say and don't say what you mean."
"Do not belittle her name. It does nothing for your argument. And probably more than the offensive term stopped her from continuing the debate."
"Hopefully with this, Dan will get the message and be a more careful."

My apology was intended and I apologize again, I forgot to revise the profanity, my response had gotten long, not an excuse but a reason.

As for typing Lil Pilgrim instead of Lula Pilgrim, my fault and mistake. Honest. The profanity slips out here and there from me and for that I am sorry.

I am more sorry about "be-littling" you by mis handling your handle from Lula Pilgrim to Lil, that was not intentional at all I just didn't check your name when I started to address you more personally, in my mind I thought it said Lil Pilgrim.

In my mind it sounds like something John Wayne would say out on the range in a Western, "Listen up Lil Pilgrim." But he probably never said that and that maybe isn't what you were going for. I'm far from perfect but I didn't mean to make an ass our of myself by insulting your name honest.



By the way, Thanks Dr. for allowing us to continue the debate rather than just hand me a suspension as some others, we'll not mention names, have in the past, for whatever reason. You are right that personal attacks and name calling is not something that adds anything to what either of us have to say.

I am going to try to keep my responses shorter and tighter in order to be able to revise and punctuate and spell check better. Hopefully with fewer foot insertions into the mouth via HTML.

On the the commentary.

"Heterosexual sex is instinctive, and procreative. Homosexual sex is not procreative."

Just because homosexual sex is not conducive to procreating, does not mean it is not instinctive. Explain animals in the animal kingdom that are homosexual, is that a learned practice, are they subject to the same marketing?

The point though in 93 that I probably didn't make real clear, is about nature. Nature attacks weakness, there is no denying we are a product at least in part of nature and so therefore we are just as suspectable to it as animals. Admit it or not. We can choose to override that instinct, through self control, and that is something animals cannot, however, self control is a learned skill, not an instinct.

"Humans are totally distinct creatures and the latest scientific insights into the design of DNA prove that quite concusively."

I want to challenge you here a few time and I hope we are still on good terms, but what exactly do you mean by scientific insights into the design of DNA, and what is proven quite conclusively about humans vs other animals? I know, of course we are advanced, there aren't apes building cities, or white tailed deer charging us, to use the interstate highways but what exactly separates us above and beyond animals?

"humans have an intellect or ability to think, understand and act based on conscience (while animals don’t"

I want to challenge you here as well, because I have first hand knowledge that tropical fish are able to be trained tricks, to associate things. That may be instinct, however, Dolphins can be taught to communicate with trainers and perform some functions we consider higher level such as math. Some apes have been able to communicate with humans using sign language when taught and have the ability of small children.

I also know of some studies that were on public television, that show that apes have more than just instinct, they communicate danger, by choice, for example.

There are a bunch of apes in this study. But in this one experiment there were four apes. Amy, David, Bruno, and Harry. Amy and Harry were buddies, Amy and David not so close and in fact unfriendly more often than friendly. Bruno was a dominate male and aggressive at times. There was an experiment in which Amy was given view of both David and Bruno and in another test, Harry and Bruno. During the test, Both David and Harry were unaware of Bruno until it was too late, unless Amy made them aware by communicating it in their verbal communication. Amy acted very much like a human when she chose to alert Harry but not David to Bruno's presence rewarding an ally but punishing an enemy, in much the same way as humans do.

"All non-rational creatures like animals participate in the natural law only by instinct. We, humans, are unique, rational creatures that participates by inclination and rational free will."

If you believe me regarding the experiment conducted you might conclude that some animals if not all, are more rational and alike us than they are different.

"There is a huge difference between human behavior and animal behavior."

In a society yes there is, however, we are more alike than different. You need only look at reality TV like "Survivor" or some other show where people are voted off to see just how animal a person can be, when it becomes, fight or flee instinctive rather than rational.

"we cannot compare our human sexuality to animals wild, domestic or otherwise." That's a flawed argument. But I respect your opinion. Of course animals are not human and there are differences but only a fool would say that we are not animal, that we do not have instincts that affect us just as deeply as society, will, and choice.

"It's preposterous to take instances of animal "homosexual" activity and transform those into general statements about the naturalness or normalcy of homosexuality in people. What happens sexually in the animal world is irrelevant to what occurs in the human one."

It is only irrelevant if you dismiss it outright and disregard any evidence but what your religion purports as fact. In social creatures there is a proportion of species that is homosexual on par with the percentage of humans who are the same. That correlation cannot be ignored scientifically simply because we chose it to.

I am surprised that one one finger of the hand of science you'll quote to me DNA studies that conclusively show something but yet cut off other fingers by rejecting facts that show evidence of homosexuality is not limited to humans even though animals in the wild are not subject to sexual stimulation via marketing, or a choice in their sexual preference.

"Animals do all sorts of things we civilized humans abhor and would never consider natural or normal. They kill and eat members of their own species and their own offspring. They compete with each other for dominance often killing or debilitating the rival, and they breed with relatives."

Uh help me out here, but each of the things you stated, have been documented to have been done by humans, or still occurring in our civilized human world.

Killing and eating of humans by humans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannibalism

Breeding with relatives
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest

As for competing with each other for dominance, you seem to forget or maybe you just didn't read where I pointed out that in our society we constantly reflect a struggle between weak and strong. Baseball, football, hockey, sports, boxing, dogfighting, there are plenty of examples of this.

I'd also like to add no other animal but Human, develops weapons to kill opponents with, developed a weapon (nukes) so lethal it's combined use world wide would destroy the world of not only all human life but all life. If animals could understand that on the level that we can, they would have started eating us instead of each other a long time ago.

The whole debate about homosexuality and heterosexuality is not the key or central to this thread though I'm open to discuss it further, you seem to be pretty firmly interested in sticking with the standard religious line. Which is fine, and I respect that. For me none of the religions I've experienced or researched have the answers to the basic questions or sufficient proof of their own existence, rooted in a higher power.


on Aug 22, 2007
"Heterosexual sex is instinctive, and procreative. Homosexual sex is not procreative."

Just because homosexual sex is not conducive to procreating, does not mean it is not instinctive.

That's why I didn't say homosexual sex is not instinctive. I don't know if it is or not. Sex is definitely instinctive.
on Aug 22, 2007
Thanks again Dan.
on Aug 22, 2007
"That's why I didn't say homosexual sex is not instinctive. I don't know if it is or not. Sex is definitely instinctive."

All sexual relations aside from rape are choice driven activities right? So why would anyone guess that homosexual sex is driven any differently than heterosexual sex?

The choice lies in choosing to have sex or not have sex, and whom with.

The attraction between parties is largely instinctive. Would you argue as a heterosexual that your pure motivation to have sex with members of the opposite sex is because of environmental reinforcement of society or your inner urges? If you would argue it's an inner urge than how can you deny that there is an inner urge for homosexuals? Why deny them rights and privileges because their urge is different?

I honestly do not care what all the answers to the questions are. Send me to hell, so be it. What I see happening as a result of our inhumanity towards each other over this, is people not being able to share social security benefits, not being able to claim each other for tax benefit, not being able to cover their spouse/family unit on health insurance, not being able to visit each other in their last hours dying in a hospital bed, not being able to exercise power of attorney over relatives as a spouse.

Maybe I've got those facts wrong, but to me the compelling reason to deny these people rights and privileges is all wrong. That is an opinion and not a fact.
on Aug 22, 2007
LULA POSTS:
Humans are totally distinct creatures and the latest scientific insights into the design of DNA prove that quite concusively."

DAN GREENE POSTS: I want to challenge you here a few time and I hope we are still on good terms, but what exactly do you mean by scientific insights into the design of DNA, and what is proven quite conclusively about humans vs other animals? I know, of course we are advanced, there aren't apes building cities, or white tailed deer charging us, to use the interstate highways but what exactly separates us above and beyond animals?



Dan,

Google the Human Genome Project and you'll find that all of the genes in human DNA were identified in 1999 and the report was completed in 2003. The genetic evidence tells that we humans are totally distinctive and exceedingly intricate.

What our DNA conclusively proves is although animals, as part of nature, are similiar to humankind in slight ways, we are totally and completely distinct on a genetic level.

..and by the way..no 'gay' genes were found and no evidence that brains are 'hardwired' to inevitably lead to homosexuality.



Human beings have an immutable nature that demands acting in accord with reason. Humans have an intellect or ability to think, to understand and to choose based on conscience. We are capable of independent action, free choice, and discernment of right and wrong. We have the freedom to choose evil. Animals don’t have any of these as they are non-rational creatures and participate in nature only by instinct.

8 PagesFirst 5 6 7 8