Pope's speech causes outrage

[numinus]

You do like writing a lot to say very little don't you.

The success of the human species is inarguable.

I'm not arguing against it.

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

This is the statement that is so full of $hit. I have seen no evolutionary theory that even remotely states this.

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

Oh, don't worry about that. I understand perfectly. The same way I can see the stupidity in your claims with surgical precision.

So, once again. How can the homosexuality gene be transmitted if an individual, or the entire specie, abides by this particular predisposition?

Is the question simple enough for you?

You are making a fool of yourself.

Again

Which just goes to show -- against invincible stupidity, even god contends in vain.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

How can I make this simple enough for you?

The fact that we are so successful with homosexuality is a good indicator of the place for homosexuality in our evolution.

If it was the threat you indicate it would have disappeared.

That's evolution for you.

The fact that you can't understand evolution does not make it any the less true.

It just makes you stupid.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

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.

Poor Nums, you're scrambling so hard for an argument that you have to rewrite what I said so that you can find something to disagree with. I never said it's all genetic--you said that. There are probably many factors, but my position is that persecuting these people on the basis or religious dogma is cruel and stupid. Persecuting transpeople is even more stupid since there is NO religious prohibition or even mention of gender identity.

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?

I know this will be difficult for you, but the expression of murderous rage (which is murder) is inheretly hurtful to people, consenting adults having sex is not inherently hurtful. We should change our laws to acknowledge what science teaches us, we should change our laws to end the restrictions placed on people by religious myths and taboos that have no basis but fear and ignorance.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

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

No.

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

No, I'm speaking to you about YOUR Church. Why? Do you accept the Koran or the Book of Hopi?

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.

Really? Is that why the Inquistion tortured people to death? Is that why they burned Joan of Arc at the stake? Is that why they support and advocate legal persecution of gay people? All this is done so that people can practice the dictates of their own consciences? Do you know what the word "hypocrite" means?

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

So, Jesus said it, your cat. imperative said it, but still can't do it? What about your comment above about a person's conscience? What you really mean is that people can live according to the dictates of their own conscience EXCEPT when they don't agree with the Church. Do you know what the word "hypocrite" means?

And where did I say that, hmmm?

"As far as human laws go, the moral laws of the catholic church are, by far, the most consistent."

There you go, Nummlies, you maintain that Church doctrine has not changed, but the Pope is death on gay people, suffice to say that he would not marry two gay Catholic Saints. So, either the Church has changed doctrine or Serge and Bacchus were NOT married and blessed by the Church.

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.

I'm not certain that your inability or outright refusal to learn or understand makes the rhetoric "confused". Most of the gay and transpeople you hate are fairly clear about wanting equality and for you religious types to stop persecuting them--let them live by their consciences and be judged by God, not you or your Church (that's where the hypocrisy thing sneaks in on you).

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

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

No, silly, it's to counter the "destroying humankind" argument, you know the one where it says that if everybody was gay we'd die out as a specie.

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

I think you SHOULD hold your breath, I think you would look great in blue.

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?

Actually, the logis is impeccable, if you only had anal sex with your wife and all the other heteros did the same thing, then the population would go down.

And here, you are still selling your own particular brand of stupid to the rest of us.Unbelieveable!I'd imagine -- less infections of the blood, eliminate one vector by which aids spreads. Shall I go on? It benefits the gene pool? You mean practicing gays have a way to pass on their genes?Hopefully, morons would become extinct first.

All this is personal attacks and homophobic squealing. "Less infections of the blood..."? That was pretty lame, Nums, why don't you explain to us how AIDs is God's punishment on gays? You know, and then you can explain why there are more heterosexuals with AIDS. The ugly truth is that God must love lesbians more than heterosexuals because they have less AIDS than anyone else.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

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.

Thank you, Nums! This is a great post (well, parts of it anyway) about how there MUST survival value in homosexuality because it HAS NOT been bred out of nearly ALL the higher animals. The fact that we have not yet teased out the survival value simply reinforces the stupidity of persecuting homosexual people. The first law of tinkering is: Save all the parts. You want to throw away the gay people before you know why God made them. God made me too, I think I'll live my life the way He made me, live by my conscience, and wait for Him to judge me without any input from you. That's Catholic Church policy isn't it? Let people live by their consciences as long as they aren't hurting anyone?

 

[numinus]

How can I make this simple enough for you?

The fact that we are so successful with homosexuality is a good indicator of the place for homosexuality in our evolution.

The fact that humans evolved with hereditary genetic diseases does not make the disease good for the specie, now, does it.

Once again, for the benefit of morons like you, how is homosexuality, as an evolutionary trait, passed down from generation to generation, eh?

If it was the threat you indicate it would have disappeared.

As predicted -- you cannot make any semblance of a rational argument without twisting and mangling what I say.

Haven't you heard? -- we have already mapped the human genome. A good percentage of the human genes have unknown use. Some of them, it is believed, is entirely irrelvant to the specie.

Now, you are not only assuming there is even such a thing as a homosexual gene, you ignorantly believe that such a gene is a some sort of a genetic adaptation for survival. As if, in the distant evolutionary stages of human development, there was an overpopulation problem to which the specie needed to respond in a genetic level.

You build suppositions on top of suppositions on top of suppositions and ignorantly think that your supposition can withstand logical rigor. As if your meandering arguments have anything to do with my assertions to begin with -- that homo-eroticism isn't a moral good.

What a *****.

The fact that you can't understand evolution does not make it any the less true.

It just makes you stupid.

And here, the ***** pretends to know anything about evolution and that he just chooses not to explain.

What a *****.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

OK, Mr Thicky here goes.

Evolution proceeds by random mutation that benefits the species' gene pool.

Some people are born infertile.

Why don't you ask yourself 'how does infertility get passed down?'

Homosexuality is not a disease like say that which affects your brain.

It is a random genetic mutation that actually benefits the gene pool as a check on population growth.

So assuming that there is a woman out there who is deaf dumb and blind and devoid of olfactory senses who might just entertain you in sexual congress it is quite possible that you would give birth to a homosexual.

Like your parents did.

 

[numinus]

No.

There you go. It is now a simple exercise to determining how much of homo-eroticism is attributable to a genetic predisposition and how much on environmental factors.

Care to venture an intelligent guess?

No, I'm speaking to you about YOUR Church. Why? Do you accept the Koran or the Book of Hopi?

But the thing is, the pope's pronouncement about homosexuality is based on humanae vitae. Talk about barking at the wrong tree!

Really? Is that why the Inquistion tortured people to death? Is that why they burned Joan of Arc at the stake? Is that why they support and advocate legal persecution of gay people? All this is done so that people can practice the dictates of their own consciences? Do you know what the word "hypocrite" means?

More nonsense.

The time the us is abolished as a political entity for its participation in past sins, and all western democracies for that matter -- that would be the time your post would have any merit.

Now, the fact that you continue to reap benefit from your political order without so much as a peep, a politcal order built on top of the suffering of not only blacks, but all sorts of people with different ethnicity, while rabidly attacking the catholic church -- that would be a very good example of hypocrisy.

So, Jesus said it, your cat. imperative said it, but still can't do it?

Can't do what?

I stated a moral law by which people should strive to abide. What's hypocritical about that, hmmm?

What about your comment above about a person's conscience? What you really mean is that people can live according to the dictates of their own conscience EXCEPT when they don't agree with the Church.

What I said about an individual's conscience is entirely consistent. It is quite possible that a conscience becomes defective or (in the case of dawk) simply ignorant. That is why the church needs to teach, from time to time.

And your statements regarding the rc are convenient lies. If that were true, then there is aboslutely no need for the millenium apology. In fact it is a serious blow to the doctrine of infallibility, something jp2 felt was irrelevant compared to the DICTATES OF HIS CONSCIENCE.

Oh, and I heard they were reopening the trial of gallileo in a whole new, and hopefully, more enlightened perspective.

Do you know what the word "hypocrite" means?

Of course. Do you?

There you go, Nummlies, you maintain that Church doctrine has not changed, but the Pope is death on gay people, suffice to say that he would not marry two gay Catholic Saints. So, either the Church has changed doctrine or Serge and Bacchus were NOT married and blessed by the Church.

Fact: Humanae vitae was promulgated by john paul vi on july 25, 1968.

Fact: Saints Sergius and Bacchus (also Serge and Bacchus or Sergios kai Bakchos or Sarkis wa Bakhos), were third century Roman soldiers who are commemorated as martyrs by the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches.

Question: What do you suppose does a modern encyclical have to do with a pair of 3rd century saints?

Answer: NONE

I'm not certain that your inability or outright refusal to learn or understand makes the rhetoric "confused". Most of the gay and transpeople you hate are fairly clear about wanting equality and for you religious types to stop persecuting them--let them live by their consciences and be judged by God, not you or your Church (that's where the hypocrisy thing sneaks in on you).

And what apparently cannot penetrate that thick skull of yours is that it makes NO SENSE giving special rights and privileges on the basis of an individual's SEXUAL PREFERENCE.

 

[numinus]

OK, Mr Thicky here goes.

Evolution proceeds by random mutation that benefits the species' gene pool.

Some people are born infertile.

Why don't you ask yourself 'how does infertility get passed down?'

Homosexuality is not a disease like say that which affects your brain.

It is a random genetic mutation that actually benefits the gene pool as a check on population growth.

So assuming that there is a woman out there who is deaf dumb and blind and devoid of olfactory senses who might just entertain you in sexual congress it is quite possible that you would give birth to a homosexual.

Like your parents did.

Good god you are stupid!

A genetic mutation is not necessarily an evolutionary adaptation. It has to pass through the process of natural selection, a very slow, tedious process designed to ensure that only the individuals who have the best traits can survive longer, hence passing this trait to the next generation.

Now, infertility IS NOT an evolutionary adaptation. It is a defect that occurs from time to time.

As for overpopulation, all organisms, from virus to humans, have an INFALLIBLE MECHANISM to solve this. When the resources of one's environment cannot support the population of the specie dependent on it, they simply die of starvation until such time as equilibrium is reached.

No need for infertility. Most certainly, NO NEED FOR HOMOSEXUALITY.

So, if you are going to sell something as stupid as a homosexual lifestyle, you might want to sell it some place else, preferably, a community as stupid as you.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

But leaving population control to resource availability is potentially catastrophic to the gene pool. The species might easily become extinct as the competition for resource escalates into war, famine and disease.

Far better to moderate with checks and balances.

Like infertility and homosexuality etc.

I think you you are just too dense to understand this.

Or too resistent to anything that threatens your mad world view.

What I am saying here makes perfect sense and is demonstrably true.

Homosexuality is clearly no threat whatsoever to mankind and the evidence is the success of the species with homosexuality being omnipresent. In fact homosexuality benefits humanity for the reasons I have given.

So why don't you write a little note to any gay people on this board thanking them for their contribution to our species' success?

 

[numinus]

But leaving population control to resource availability is potentially catastrophic to the gene pool.

So, you are saying that what you thought of as some random genetic mutation was somehow guided by a higher reason, eh?

The species might easily become extinct as the competition for resource escalates into war, famine and disease.

And now you are saying that homosexuality somehow, was ultimately designed to avert war, famine and disease?

Far better to moderate with checks and balances.

Try reading on evolution, AGAIN, *****.

The only check and balances attributed to evolution is natural selection. This becomes more apparent precisely when resources are scarce. That is why its called SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST -- not survival of the species in general.

Duh?

Like infertility and homosexuality etc.

Read my lips:

Infertility and homosexuality ARE NOT evolutionary adaptations by the species. And even if they are, that they remain dormant over some generations, this trait ABRUPTLY ENDS the moment it does manifest.

Duh?

I think you you are just too dense to understand this.

Nope. You are just too big of a ***** to understand this.

Or too resistent to anything that threatens your mad world view.

Or just too busy trying to fit theory in your mad world view, you forgot to read the theory itself.

What I am saying here makes perfect sense and is demonstrably true.

Now, if you are saying that homosexuality provides a particular vector by which disease may spread, thereby decimating the population, then I would very much agree with you. That is demonstrably true.

Is that what makes perfect sense to you?

Homosexuality is clearly no threat whatsoever to mankind and the evidence is the success of the species with homosexuality being omnipresent. In fact homosexuality benefits humanity for the reasons I have given.

And if its inability to pass on this particular trait is not enough to make homosexual behavior a genetic dead-end, rest assured that disease will.

Evolutionary adaptation, indeed!

So why don't you write a little note to any gay people on this board thanking them for their contribution to our species' success?

Should I thank them for not passing on the trait to future generations? Or should I thank them for exposing themselves to a higher mortality rate, thereby becoming less of a burden to the species?

You really need some professional help.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

And what apparently cannot penetrate that thick skull of yours is that it makes NO SENSE giving special rights and privileges on the basis of an individual's SEXUAL PREFERENCE.

Yes! And I'm glad you finally figured that out. So heterosexaul couples should NOT be given special rights unavailable to all other consenting adults based on their sexual orientation. We finally agree, thank you.

 

[numinus]

Yes! And I'm glad you finally figured that out. So heterosexaul couples should NOT be given special rights unavailable to all other consenting adults based on their sexual orientation. We finally agree, thank you.

At last, a glimmer of light penetrating your thick skull.

You do understand that a woman's right to motherhood and the rights of children are not special rights, don't you?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

There you go. It is now a simple exercise to determining how much of homo-eroticism is attributable to a genetic predisposition and how much on environmental factors.

Care to venture an intelligent guess?

No, and you? We don't have enough information to start announcing how much of what causes homosexuality, almost all the science of this century is showing a genetic basis, or a hormonal condition controlled by the fetal genetic pattern, or fat-soluble chemical influence (dioxin, PCB's, etc.). Instead of signing up with you and the Pope to persecute these people I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt and treat them as I would like to be treated--since there is no inherent harm involved--and wait for the science. I know that's not very Christian of me, I really should preach hate and exclusion, but I'm just not into it.

But the thing is, the pope's pronouncement about homosexuality is based on humanae vitae. Talk about barking at the wrong tree!

Sorry, Nums, I didn't realize that it superceded the authority of the Bible.

More nonsense. The time the us is abolished as a political entity for its participation in past sins, and all western democracies for that matter -- that would be the time your post would have any merit.

Your analogy fails because we freed the black people and you are still persecuting people on the basis of religious dogma. We've learned and moved forward, you and the Church are still banking on the "doctrine of infallibility". When the Pope publicly states that the Church doesn't know what causes homosexuality and suspends all restrictions on homosexual people, when he calls for an end to the stigma and the pervading climate of hatred, and when he calls for an end to the violence--whether physical or legal, then I will stop fighting the senseless Catholic bigotry.

Now, the fact that you continue to reap benefit from your political order without so much as a peep, a politcal order built on top of the suffering of not only blacks, but all sorts of people with different ethnicity, while rabidly attacking the catholic church -- that would be a very good example of hypocrisy.

As I noted, we freed our slaves, gave women equal rights, gave blacks equal rights, and now we are once again trying to improve our human rights record by giving homosexaul and transsexual people equal rights. And just like in the past, here is the Church standing directly in our path demanding that we continue the persecution. The words used by the Catholic Church prosecutors in the Joan of Arc trial are still being used today by the Church to condemn people who are different--DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE CHURCH DOESN'T KNOW WHY THEY ARE DIFFERENT.

The hypocrisy is in the followers of Jesus promoting hatred and persecution from a position of ignorance (please note your first quote in this post) instead of leading the way and setting an example of loving others as yourself.

I stated a moral law by which people should strive to abide. What's hypocritical about that, hmmm?

The hypocrisy is in doing one thing and saying another.

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

Right here you talk about the commandment of love, while promolgating the very opposite by persecuting people who are different for reasons of which YOU admit that you are ignorant (see your first quote in this post).

What I said about an individual's conscience is entirely consistent. It is quite possible that a conscience becomes defective or (in the case of dawk) simply ignorant. That is why the church needs to teach, from time to time.

But in many cases the Church has been wrong (slavery, subjugation of women, destruction of indigenous cultures, violence like the Inquisition and the burning people at the stake, Nazi collusion, and sheltering pedophile priests), but you still are marching boldly ahead condemning people that even YOU admit are different for reasons you don't understand. Infallibility, my ass! You and your Church have run roughshod over humanity for centuries and this is just another examply of arrogant hypocrisy since you still condemn after admitting ignorance of the causes.

And your statements regarding the rc are convenient lies. If that were true, then there is aboslutely no need for the millenium apology. In fact it is a serious blow to the doctrine of infallibility, something jp2 felt was irrelevant compared to the DICTATES OF HIS CONSCIENCE.

The apology appears hypocritical in that the behaviors for which he is apologizing are still being manifested every day. It's fine and dandy to apologize to people you murdered in the past, it's another thing entirely to stop murdering today. The Pope's message of condemnation makes him complicit in the killings and beatings and rapes of homosexual and transsexual people all over the world.

Oh, and I heard they were reopening the trial of gallileo in a whole new, and hopefully, more enlightened perspective.

Well, I know this impresses me, how many centuries has this man been dead now? Maybe you guys should work on cleaning up your act with the people who are still alive, hmmmm?

Fact: Humanae vitae was promulgated by john paul vi on july 25, 1968.

Fact: Saints Sergius and Bacchus (also Serge and Bacchus or Sergios kai Bakchos or Sarkis wa Bakhos), were third century Roman soldiers who are commemorated as martyrs by the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches.

Question: What do you suppose does a modern encyclical have to do with a pair of 3rd century saints?

In it the Pope reinforced a policy that is antithetical to the practice of the Catholic Church for its first 14 centuries of existence. The gay people who will become the Catholic Saints of this century are right now being persecuted by the very Church that married and blessed them when Bacchus and Serge were alive.

And what apparently cannot penetrate that thick skull of yours is that it makes NO SENSE giving special rights and privileges on the basis of an individual's SEXUAL PREFERENCE.

Yes! And I'm glad you finally figured that out. So heterosexaul couples should NOT be given special rights not available to all other consenting adults based on their sexual orientation. We finally agree, thank you.