Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Dang, I'm around the wrong Catholics then. Every Catholic I know is either outright homophobic or believes homosexuality is sinful. And same-sex marriage? They become monsters when that subject's brought up.
You should find a more Liberal catholic church in your area, if one exists. When I lived in Los Angeles, there was one called St Monica in Sta Monica that had gay couples, guitar playing, etc. It was very hip compared to most stodgy catholic churches. Even Gov and Maria Schwarzenegger attended services there when they were in town. I actually have gay catholic friends that believe in the catholic church. when I've tried to show them how phoney it is, they merely explain that the church is a place to worship that they grew up in. It's sad how ppl can be so deviously misled. The church seemed a lot friendlier in the 70s before the archconservative John Paul took over. He singlehandedly conservatized all of the cardinals that surround him. there are virtually no "liberal" cardinals anymore.
You should find a more Liberal catholic church in your area, if one exists. When I lived in Los Angeles, there was one called St Monica in Sta Monica that had gay couples, guitar playing, etc. It was very hip compared to most stodgy catholic churches. Even Gov and Maria Schwarzenegger attended services there when they were in town. I actually have gay catholic friends that believe in the catholic church. when I've tried to show them how phoney it is, they merely explain that the church is a place to worship that they grew up in. It's sad how ppl can be so deviously misled. The church seemed a lot friendlier in the 70s before the archconservative John Paul took over. He singlehandedly conservatized all of the cardinals that surround him. there are virtually no "liberal" cardinals anymore.
Here's a good resource. It's a partial listing (about 7000) of US churches that are affirming and supportive of homosexuals.
Keeping in mind that I for one don't think it matters how natural or normal it is (I see nothing MORALLY wrong with homosexuality in and of itself), some might argue that it's not natural because it doesn't conform to the usual or ordinary course of nature.
That's not the definition of natural. Natural means existing in nature. It does. And what makes you think it's not part of the natural order? Homosexuality in animals is believed to increase female clutch size, provide caretakers for sibling children, offer benefits related to social bonding, etc.. If it weren't part of the natural order, tons of animals wouldn't do it.
Quote:
It serves no reproductive purpose, and reproduction is considered the primary purpose of sex.
Evolution does not work at the individual level. Populations evolve, individuals do not. Having a subset of the population be homosexual does not in anyway impede the evolutionary process, and most likely benefits it. Claiming "nothing else matters but everyone being able to reproduce" is a very simplistic, naive understanding of evolution.
That's not the definition of natural. Natural means existing in nature. It does. And what makes you think it's not part of the natural order? Homosexuality in animals is believed to increase female clutch size, provide caretakers for sibling children, offer benefits related to social bonding, etc.. If it weren't part of the natural order, tons of animals wouldn't do it.
Evolution does not work at the individual level. Populations evolve, individuals do not. Having a subset of the population be homosexual does not in anyway impede the evolutionary process, and most likely benefits it. Claiming "nothing else matters but everyone being able to reproduce" is a very simplistic, naive understanding of evolution.
nat·u·ral (nchr-l, nchrl) adj.... 3. Conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature
By this definition, you would have to establish that homosexuality is part of the usual or ordinary course of nature, giving more than a theory on what purpose it just so happens to serve. Surely, any deviation from the norm can serve some positive function. I'm not talking about evolution, just our understanding of the purpose of sex.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33
To continue the semantic discussion though, if your definition of natural is "conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature" meaning that in terms of sex it's only natural if it serves a "reproductive purpose", then you must also consider people with a predilection for these following acts as unnatural:
masturbation, mutual masturbation, oral sex, anal sex, sex after menopause, sex after being diagnosed infertile
Absolutely. All of these things ARE unnatural (with masturbation perhaps being the exception; it's been said to be indirectly beneficial to reproduction), which is one of many reasons "What's natural?" has no place in debate... ANY moral debate, really.
By this definition, you would have to establish that homosexuality is part of the usual or ordinary course of nature, giving more than a theory on what purpose it just so happens to serve. Surely, any deviation from the norm can serve some positive function. I'm not talking about evolution, just our understanding of the purpose of sex.
Why go with definition #3 instead of 1?
1. Present in or produced by nature
And it's obviously logically valid that the fact that most animal species engage in homosexual behavior means it is part of the ordinary course of nature. Monkeys learning how to type on computers, however, would not be.
Quote:
Absolutely. All of these things ARE unnatural (with masturbation perhaps being the exception; it's been said to be indirectly beneficial to reproduction), which is one of many reasons "What's natural?" has no place in debate... ANY moral debate, really.
Natural is not the same as moral. Some natural behavior is not moral for humans to engage in (I don't include homosexuality in that category).
However, we have countless anti-gay posters here who claim homosexuality is unnatural, which is patently false, as it's part of nature itself. That has no bearing on its morality, merely that it exists in nature and is thus not an artificial creation.
Intriguing statement to come from a man who has made a commitment to God to be abstinent. Isn't that more of a threat to our population growth and humanity?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
ch
r-
