Pope's speech causes outrage

Werbung:
Baseless supposition not supported by anything like scientific research.

For example, a recent meta-study by Hershberger (2001)[8] compares the results of eight different twin studies: among those, all but two showed MZ twins having much higher concordance of sexual orientation than DZ twins, suggesting a non-negligible genetic component. Two additional examples: Bailey and Pillard (1991) in a study of gay twins found that 52% of monozygotic (MZ) brothers and 22% of the dizygotic (DZ) twins were concordant for homosexuality.[9] Also, Bailey, Dunne and Martin (2000) used the Australian twin registry to obtain a sample of 4,901 twins.[10] Self reported zygosity, sexual attraction, fantasy and behaviours were assessed by questionnaire and zygosity was serologically checked when in doubt. MZ twin concordance for homosexuality was found to be 30%.

As a counter-example, Bearman and Bruckner (2002), analyzed data from a large longitudinal study of adolescents. They found the data did not support genetic influence:

“ Among [identical] twins, 6.7% are concordant [that is, both express same-sex romantic attraction]. [Fraternal] twin pairs are 7.2% concordant. Full-siblings are 5.5% concordant. Clearly, the observed concordance rates do not correspond to degrees of genetic similarity. None of the comparisons between [identical] twins and others ... are even remotely significant. If same-sex romantic attraction has a genetic component, it is massively overwhelmed by other factors.[6] ”

Their conclusion is that the expression of same-sex attraction requires a social environment: "More plausible is the idea that genetic expression is activated only under strongly circumscribed social structural conditions. In contrast to other theories considered below, we assume that the close connection between gender identity and sexual identity is socially constructed."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation

Which just goes to show, people whose rational judgement are clouded by froth tend to see only the things they want to see.

Anal sex is enjoyed by the majority of heterosexual couples according to sex researchers. It's good for hemorrhoids too I've heard. Here's a book on the subject that will broaden your sexual horizons--send a copy to the Pope too--it's only about $10 on Amazon.com.

Anal Pleasure & Health: A Guide for Men and Women by Jack Morin

Sigh.

Lots of people would also like to screw around, wouldn't you say? Do we make it moral to screw around then?

Duh?

But it's funny how they change over time. In the Old Testament it was okayed by God to have slaves, commit genocide, take women as the spoils of war, and sell children. Which one of those is good in itself?

Those that abide by the 1st and 2nd formulation of the categorical imperative, I suppose.

1. "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."

2. "Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means to an end."

Understand?

You have a rubber yardstick, Nums, you and the Pope flail about with it in an attempt to make everyone live by your rules. Whipped anybody out of the temple recently?

LMAO.

As far as human laws go, the moral laws of the catholic church are, by far, the most consistent. Unlike constitutional or statutory laws, the moral teachings of the church embody well-crafted rational arguments stated in the various encyclicals.

Which is why I prompted you to show exactly where the logical defect in humanae vitae is. No such luck I'm afraid. Apparently, I am speaking to a gay activist whose entire line of reasoning consists of meaningless rhetoric not fit for logical rigor.
 
Yeah, right, I was raised in the church.

One would expect that a logical criticism should come from a thorough understanding of what one is criticizing in the first place.

Otherwise, your criticism is merely an opinion with neither factual nor logical basis.

Now, if you are suggesting that you have no idea as to the rational basis of the pope's pronouncements, can you really make a rational judgement regarding such pronouncements?

Duh?

Where would I start? The Pope was a member of Hitler youth, he learned hate speech early. The Nazis killed a lot of gay people and the Pope approved of it. He still approves of it, cursing people in God's name and demanding their death as in the Bible is hate speech.

LMAO.

Catholic encyclicals are composed after years of consultation, research and arguments. Humanae vitae is the product of such a process. It is not attributable to a single person.

The current pope is merely stating an encyclical which was composed long before he became pope. It is not a personal opinion concocted while he was relieving himself prior to that speech -- the way I assume you compose the arguments you post here.

Yes, they will, the religious folks have been killing us for centuries, they have passed laws against us, denied us equality, and endless preached our condemnation by God despite Jesus' commandments against it. You own church burned Joan of Arc for being a transsexual. Nice people, Jesus is proud.

More meaningless froth.

Can you think of any sovereign political association that has not, at one point in time, been responsible for human rights attrocities? That you single out the church, while conveniently ignoring all others, speaks clearly of your bigotry.
 
I posted a reference work to help you with this problem, Nums. I'll give you a hint: Condoms. It's also a great way to have sex without risk of pregnancy--what with you and the Pople being down on birth control and all. Read the book it'll give you a lot of help. Edit: The Ultimate Guide to Anal Sex for Women, 2nd Edition by Tristan Taormino, here's a second reference work for you, Nums.

You mean wearing a condom protects the owner of the a$$ you are taking liberties with???

Unkind, unpleasant, uncalled for, it makes people think you don't have any real contributions to make to the discussion.

And i suppose your homosexual mumbo-jumbo has any real contribution to this discussion, hmmm? Aside, of course, from inciting anger at the pope that is totally unmerited?

Who says you, or the Pope, or the Bible are the arbiters of morality for all people? Seems a trifle arrogant to be dictating to everybody else how they should live their lives. How about a little live and let live, and leave the judgment up to God?

What I stated was from humanae vitae. It is a teaching for anyone who would care to use their rational faculties in determining the moral worth of their own actions. The fact that you haven't read it is enough proof tha nobody is trying to force you anything.
 
Their conclusion is that the expression of same-sex attraction requires a social environment: "More plausible is the idea that genetic expression is activated only under strongly circumscribed social structural conditions. In contrast to other theories considered below, we assume that the close connection between gender identity and sexual identity is socially constructed."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation
Wikipedia? "Biology and sexual orientation is research into possible biological influences on the development of human sexual orientation. No simple cause for sexual orientation has been conclusively demonstrated, and there is no scientific consensus as to whether the contributing factors are primarily biological or environmental. Many think both play complex roles.[1][2] The American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychological Association have both stated that sexual orientation probably has multiple causes.[3][4] Research has identified several biological factors which may be related to the development of a heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual orientation. These include genes, prenatal hormones, and brain structure."

"Blanchard and Klassen (1997) reported that each older brother increases the odds of being gay by 33%.[21][22] This is now "one of the most reliable epidemiological variables ever identified in the study of sexual orientation."[23] To explain this finding, it has been proposed that male fetuses provoke a maternal immune reaction that becomes stronger with each successive male fetus. Male fetuses produce HY antigens which are "almost certainly involved in the sexual differentiation of vertebrates." It is this antigen which maternal H-Y antibodies are proposed to both react to and 'remember'. Successive male fetuses are then attacked by H-Y antibodies which somehow decrease the ability of H-Y antigens to perform their usual function in brain masculinisation.[21]"

"Pheromone studies
Recent research conducted in Sweden[26] has suggested that gay and straight men respond differently to two odors that are believed to be involved in sexual arousal. The research showed that when both heterosexual women (lesbians were included in the study, but the results regarding them were "somewhat confused") and gay men are exposed to a testosterone derivative found in men's sweat, a region in the hypothalamus is activated. Heterosexual men, on the other hand, have a similar response to an estrogen-like compound found in women's urine.[27] The conclusion, that sexual attraction, whether same-sex or opposite-sex oriented, operates similarly on a biological level..."
Anybody can post a bunch of stuff off of Wiki, the section you posted is very large and has a lot more to say than you posted. See my contributions above.

Lots of people would also like to screw around, wouldn't you say? Do we make it moral to screw around then?
Where in the Bible does it say that you can't have anal sex with you wife, Nums? You never got a blowjob with a prostate massage? Neither you nor the Pope are in a position to judge, I don't tell you how to run your sex life, why should you tell me--or anyone--how to run theirs?

Sigh. Duh?
Love the histrionics, Nums! Your continual use of "Duh" makes you sound as erudite as Homer Simpson.

Those that abide by the 1st and 2nd formulation of the categorical imperative, I suppose.

1. "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."

2. "Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means to an end."

Understand?
Yes, that's very clearly a demand for equality in your dealings with your fellows, I'm not sure why you have to have extra "categorical imperative"s when Jesus' words were so straight forward.

As far as human laws go, the moral laws of the catholic church are, by far, the most consistent. Unlike constitutional or statutory laws, the moral teachings of the church embody well-crafted rational arguments stated in the various encyclicals.

Which is why I prompted you to show exactly where the logical defect in humanae vitae is. No such luck I'm afraid. Apparently, I am speaking to a gay activist whose entire line of reasoning consists of meaningless rhetoric not fit for logical rigor.
So you're saying that the two Catholic Saints Serge and Bacchus were not married?

For a smart guy you learn slowly, I'm not gay, never have been, I'm a transsexual--look it up on Wiki.
 
You may be a good mathematician, but you don't know diddly-squat about genetics. The very fact that homosexual pair-bonding has NOT been bred out of humans and more than 1500 species is the evidence that it has survival value. There seems to be a connection to fertility in women. Women who have at least one homosexual son (not daughters) have higher fertility rate than women without a homosexual son. The statistics are clear. It appears that homosexuality in women may have a whole different genetic genesis than in men. Since we don't know what causes it, since it's found widely in the higher animals, since it's of long historical standing in all cultures, countries, and eras, it may very well be a side-effect of some survival trait that is valuable enough to outweigh the downside of gay males not reproducing at as high a rate as heterosexual males. It might also be good to note that more gay males and lots of lesbians do reproduce, far more than most people realize.

Get a grip.

It could very well be that environmental factors play an important role in the causes of homosexuality. You are clinging to the idea that it is entirely genetic when, the truth of the matter is, no single factor has been proven to cause homosexuality.

Now, kindly spare the rest of us your gay rhetoric nonsense. It is old.

Unkind, unpleasant, uncalled for and it makes you look as if you don't have any real contributions to make to the discussion.

And ultimately, a statement of FACT.

And that's why so many animals exhibit this kind of behavior too? Bone up on your biology, friend.

I'm sorry but you are getting further and further from the point.

Granted that there is a genetic corelation. Does that mean we change our laws to accomodate all human behavior having the same corelation?

Murderous rage, for instance. Do we make it moral just because there is some genetic predisposition for it?
 
Ding ding ding! Give that man a prize.



I think as long as you're not participating in it, it's not your concern.



What, all our actions must be beneficial? Tell me, how is posting on this forum beneficial? Do you analyze the moral benefit of every action you take before you take it? I find that hard to believe.



As you just stated, moral worth is totally subjective. Forcing your moral code on others is pure selfishness.

Hello?

In all the subjective justifications for all our actions, morality resides in those that are OBJECTIVE -- that is, something that can be stated as a good in itself.

Now, if you have a compelling urge for human a$$, nobody is saying you can't do anything about it. Its just not moral.

Capice?
 
Good in itself?

Grow up.

The human species has been hugely successful with homosexuality.

There will soon be too many people for the planet to support if population growth continues at the going rate.

So your and the pope's prognostications on the subject are just ridiculous.

Imagine how bad the situation would be if some people weren't gay.

It is clear that homosexuality benefits the gene pool and that is more than can be said for you.

Which is why you and your views will become extinct and homosexuality won't.
 
Wikipedia? "Biology and sexual orientation is research into possible biological influences on the development of human sexual orientation. No simple cause for sexual orientation has been conclusively demonstrated, and there is no scientific consensus as to whether the contributing factors are primarily biological or environmental. Many think both play complex roles.[1][2] The American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychological Association have both stated that sexual orientation probably has multiple causes.[3][4] Research has identified several biological factors which may be related to the development of a heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual orientation. These include genes, prenatal hormones, and brain structure."

"Blanchard and Klassen (1997) reported that each older brother increases the odds of being gay by 33%.[21][22] This is now "one of the most reliable epidemiological variables ever identified in the study of sexual orientation."[23] To explain this finding, it has been proposed that male fetuses provoke a maternal immune reaction that becomes stronger with each successive male fetus. Male fetuses produce HY antigens which are "almost certainly involved in the sexual differentiation of vertebrates." It is this antigen which maternal H-Y antibodies are proposed to both react to and 'remember'. Successive male fetuses are then attacked by H-Y antibodies which somehow decrease the ability of H-Y antigens to perform their usual function in brain masculinisation.[21]"

"Pheromone studies
Recent research conducted in Sweden[26] has suggested that gay and straight men respond differently to two odors that are believed to be involved in sexual arousal. The research showed that when both heterosexual women (lesbians were included in the study, but the results regarding them were "somewhat confused") and gay men are exposed to a testosterone derivative found in men's sweat, a region in the hypothalamus is activated. Heterosexual men, on the other hand, have a similar response to an estrogen-like compound found in women's urine.[27] The conclusion, that sexual attraction, whether same-sex or opposite-sex oriented, operates similarly on a biological level..."
Anybody can post a bunch of stuff off of Wiki, the section you posted is very large and has a lot more to say than you posted. See my contributions above.

Is this post meant to exclude environmental factors in forming sexual orientation?

Please!

Where in the Bible does it say that you can't have anal sex with you wife, Nums? You never got a blowjob with a prostate massage? Neither you nor the Pope are in a position to judge, I don't tell you how to run your sex life, why should you tell me--or anyone--how to run theirs?

Now, you are trying to suggest the bible is the ONLY source of moral authority?

As far as the catholic church is concerned, it is the conscience of the individual that ultimately is the arbiter of moral worth. Church teachings are there merely to guide an individual's conscience.

Love the histrionics, Nums! Your continual use of "Duh" makes you sound as erudite as Homer Simpson.

I'm glad you approve. Although, one could hardly imagine you protesting -- after all the nonsense you have dished out.

Yes, that's very clearly a demand for equality in your dealings with your fellows, I'm not sure why you have to have extra "categorical imperative"s when Jesus' words were so straight forward.

The categorical imperative is merely a logical formulation of the commandment of love. They are the SAME thing, stated in different ways.

So you're saying that the two Catholic Saints Serge and Bacchus were not married?

And where did I say that, hmmm?

For a smart guy you learn slowly, I'm not gay, never have been, I'm a transsexual--look it up on Wiki.

I didn't mean an activist that is gay. I meant an activist for the gay cause.

Quite alright if you didn't get that the first time. This gay activism nonsense is a hodge-podge of confused rhetoric anyway.
 
In case you missed it first time

The human species has been hugely successful with homosexuality.

There will soon be too many people for the planet to support if population growth continues at the going rate.

So your and the pope's prognostications on the subject are just ridiculous.

Imagine how bad the situation would be if some people weren't gay.

It is clear that homosexuality benefits the gene pool and that is more than can be said for you.

Which is why you and your views will become extinct and homosexuality won't.
 
Good in itself?

Grow up.

The human species has been hugely successful with homosexuality.

And I suppose you will show how humanity's success is attributed to homosexuality, hmmm?

I won't hold my breath if that's ok with you.

There will soon be too many people for the planet to support if population growth continues at the going rate.

What impeccably STUPID logic.

There is a population growth problem so we need to hump each other's a$$ more.

I wonder what orifice in your anatomy that came from?

So your and the pope's prognostications on the subject are just ridiculous.

And here, you are still selling your own particular brand of stupid to the rest of us.

Unbelieveable!

Imagine how bad the situation would be if some people weren't gay
.

I'd imagine -- less infections of the blood, eliminate one vector by which aids spreads. Shall I go on?

It is clear that homosexuality benefits the gene pool and that is more than can be said for you.

It benefits the gene pool? You mean practicing gays have a way to pass on their genes?

Which is why you and your views will become extinct and homosexuality won't.

Hopefully, morons would become extinct first.
 
More insults.

No substance.

Evolution is not about the survival of the individual but rather the survival of the gene pool and there are lots of strategies for achieveing that that do not involve reproduction.
Homosexuality is one, infertility is another.

But you clearly have as much understanding of evolution as you do of predicate calculus.

The evidence is overwhelmingly against you.

Population growth is actually threatening the human species and if anything we should want more gay people.

This demontsrates the stupidity of your and the pope's views.

Why don't you spend some of your angry energy looking into evolution.

You probably wouldn't make so many silly observations if you did.

Start with the great Richard Dawkins book 'The selfish gene'
 
More insults.

No substance.

Quite right. You have provided no intellectual substance.

Evolution is not about the survival of the individual but rather the survival of the gene pool and there are lots of strategies for achieveing that that do not involve reproduction.
Homosexuality is one, infertility is another.

But you clearly have as much understanding of evolution as you do of predicate calculus.

Two major mechanisms drive evolution. The first is natural selection, a process causing heritable traits that are helpful for survival and reproduction to become more common in a population, and harmful traits to become more rare. This occurs because individuals with advantageous traits are more likely to reproduce, so that more individuals in the next generation inherit these traits.[1][2] Over many generations, adaptations occur through a combination of successive, small, random changes in traits, and natural selection of those variants best-suited for their environment.[3] The second major mechanism is genetic drift, an independent process that produces random changes in the frequency of traits in a population. Genetic drift results from the role probability plays in whether a given trait will be passed on as individuals survive and reproduce. Though the changes produced in any one generation by drift and selection are small, differences accumulate with each subsequent generation and can, over time, cause substantial changes in the organisms.

Again, how exactly is homosexuality a product of evolution when the behavior itself cannot be passed on to the next generation?

What you probably meant by evolution is this:

Lamarckism (or Lamarckian evolution) is the once widely accepted idea that an organism can pass on characteristics that it acquired during its lifetime to its offspring (also known as based on heritability of acquired characteristics or "soft inheritance"). It is named for the French biologist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744–1829), who incorporated the action of soft inheritance into his evolutionary theories and is often incorrectly cited as the founder of soft inheritance. It proposed that individual efforts during the lifetime of the organisms were the main mechanism driving species to adaptation, as they supposedly would acquire adaptive changes and pass them on to offspring.

After publication of Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection, the importance of individual efforts in the generation of adaptation was considerably diminished. Later, Mendelian genetics supplanted the notion of inheritance of acquired traits, eventually leading to the development of the modern evolutionary synthesis, and the general abandonment of the Lamarckian theory of evolution in biology.

Which would further cement your status as the forum's resident moron, arguing an entirely obsolete biological theory.

Oh, there is no such thing as predicate calculus, moron. You'd probably know that if you had gone to college in the first place. As it stands, you're claim at competence on an entirely non-existent subject would be understandable.

The evidence is overwhelmingly against you.

Eh?

The number of morons are overwhelming indeed. Whether any valid evidence can be translated from the number of morons is another matter entirely. After all, logic isn't a democracy.

Population growth is actually threatening the human species and if anything we should want more gay people.

Why should I want more gay people, hmmm?

It is enough that heterosexual couples learn and commit to planned parenthood for a more sustainable population growth.

No need for more silly a$$-humping that leads only to the introduction of fecal matter into one's bloodstream.

And if you find yourself unable to cope with another pregnancy, then your sock may come in handy.

This demontsrates the stupidity of your and the pope's views.

It demonstrates nothing but the stupidity of YOUR views.

Why don't you spend some of your angry energy looking into evolution.

You probably wouldn't make so many silly observations if you did.

I have. Maybe you should take your advice yourself, instead of christian bashing. Maybe itll take your mind off your sock.

Start with the great Richard Dawkins book 'The selfish gene'

Do you promise it will sound as stupid as you?
 
Werbung:
You do like writing a lot to say very little don't you.

The success of the human species is inarguable.

It happened with the help of homosexuality. And as homosexuality happens in many species you should accept that it is natural.

You don't understand evolution even though it is a beautifully simple scientific fact.

You are making a fool of yourself.

Again
 
Back
Top