Or more specifically one that can’t be performed by a natural being. That means that since human beings are a product of nature, then anything humans do is natural.
What does ‘identifying’ them have to do with anything? The point is that there are differences, making them a ‘natural’ variation of human and it means that people don’t ‘turn’ gay.
Nonsense. I can see them keeping them alive and doing everything possible to make them suffer their entire lives, but abortion? Thats just WRONG.
I don’t know that you could say that until you’ve begun to publically profess a belief that they don’t agree with, based on your own introspection and logic. At the moment you seem unwilling to do that, and rather hoping that someone else will pop up to say a magic word so that you don’t have to. So pretty much I don’t see anything to indicate that you have any way to know whether you’d be slapped down for believing things outside the confines of Catholic teaching.
Perhaps the Pope will grant them Civil Unions in a few years.
If there were differences it is something that could be defined. Therefore identification would be able to take place. No studies I’ve read have been able to show a consistent physical difference between a homosexual and a heterosexual.
I believe that homosexuality is natural. I don’t believe I turned gay. In regards to science we don’t know if people can turn gay or not.
But we know they can turn ex-gay!
(Just kidding.)
Roboto, do not change the statements of others within Quote tags. If you wish to say yhat another poster should have expressed themselves differently, you may use italics or some other method to indicate a paraphrase or a suggested re-wording, but Quote tags are not to be used to nclose text that a poster has not actually submitted.
[ /Moderating ]
Agreed. This isn’t really a debate, most fundamentalists at least try to argue the logic of their case. The OP is just waiting around for someone else to bail him out.
Autolycus, I don’t have to go to Boston College to know Roman Catholic teachings. It’s kind of a large institution, despite the perceived persecution by some of its members.
In response to Roboto:
I said repeatedly I have lost the debate, but I would also be happy if a wiser, more educated Catholic had something to say in defense of my position. You apparently know everything so clearly that counts as “magic.” Well, if that counts as “bailing out” then I dont know what to tell you. Really, what the hell do you want? A handwritten apology?
Autolycus, I would suggest that you take a lesson from this event: if you are not fully prepared to defend a position, it is better if you do not make an offer to defend it, particularly when you will not be able to control the terms of the discussion.
Had you actually opened this thread, I would be inclined to simply let you twist on your own gibbet.
However, since this thread was opened on your behalf by another poster who was simply responding to your claim and since you are clearly not going to be able to defend your position, I am going to put this thread out of its misery.
[ /Moderating ]