1. I have read the doctors of the church. I did nothing else for three solid years at one of the best institutions for these studies in America. From Augustine to St. Paul to Reinhold Niebuhr to John of the Cross. In the end, my faith was the same. I saw arguments that seemed irrefutable simply turned over centuries later. Each reasoned and well crafted argument from the Transubstantiation to the Trial of Copernicus bowled me over with eloquence and reason. Some stood the test of time. Some did not. The only thing I found in all of this was that the things which were irrefutable seemed to be the things which when redacted, scholars seemed to agree, Christ said himself...and there are precious few of those. Other than that, true church scholarship in all its different forms is conjecture and totally up for grabs...it's just that these conversations take centuries to play out...and with the luxury of monastic time, the arguments are rich tapestries of the written word.
2. I find it remarkable that you believe that homosexuality automatically means ‘man has no control over behavior’ yet heterosexuality means ‘natural order’. There is no conclusive evidence anywhere that this is true. God herself would have to confirm that for you. Just as there is no conclusive proof that a fetus is not a fully formed human being. We just don't know despite the fact that some people like to throw the word proof around. Yet, when it comes to a fetus, most of us would want to er on the side of caution and consider all such life, if in doubt, human...and support that possibility. But when it comes to a homosexual the knee jerk reaction is to blame the individual and to ostracize or the more condescending ‘love the sinner hate the sin’ crap. The inconsistent logic of that is the same as being pro-life regarding birth and pro-capital punishment. You cannot support one group when in doubt and condemn another while doubt still remains. And despite your tossing around the word proof like an old sweater...proof, 100% pure positive proof of what causes homosexuality and whether it is a natural occurrence does not yet exist. Without it, we should er on the side of the possibility that God may have created homosexuality along with the rocks, flowers, trees, tsunamis and Jerry Lewis. As I learned in those studies many years ago from a well recognized bible scholar, “Our’s is an ironic God.” Our job is to live with it in a way that would meet with God's approval as Christ did with the prostitutes (behavioral), fisher men, tax collectors and indigents (also behavioral).
3. Can you explain specifically how homosexuality destroys the dignity of the human body? I know homosexuals and I know beer drinkers and I gotta tell you, the prima facie evidence is that beer destroys the dignity of the human body except for those who like that 50lbs of belly hanging over their trousers.
4. Homosexuality does not drive men and women apart. Heterosexual men and women will continue being attracted to each other as they have for centuries. They will build families and they will destroy families just as they have for centuries. It wasn't homosexuality that kept Ben Franklin away from his wife Debra for over seven years. It wasn't homosexuality that made knights all over Europe leave their wives and children for adventure in the Middle East for the better part of decades. Homosexuality will break up marriages where one of the partners or both are lying to the other about their true disposition. Obviously, if they are gay, they didn't “learn” the behavior in their straight relationship. So, maybe it was there when they took their vows but they were trying to suppress it because they believed it was behavioral and not natural. As a result, the blew up a perfectly good family and destroyed their spouse's best chance at a happy life...leaving her 40 and alone...I know one such marriage and it was all built on the behavioral supposition. That kind of personal dishonesty is so much more damaging than just accepting your ‘natural’ condition before any bachelor parties are planned. So much for trying to force behavioral discipline down the throat of nature.
5. Regarding twins and refuting biology, it was thought until the 19th century that it was impossible for a black swan to exist. Yet, in the 1800’s one was found in Australia. Since then, they have been found on nearly all continents. All things are possible if God makes them so. We now know that even identical twins are not identical. There are exceptions to every rule. Our understanding of universal is limited by our own remedial knowledge of God's creation. 500 years ago, we believed we were curing patience with blood letting and leaches. We still lop off the breasts of women who develop cancer. Are we really so advanced that we can speak with such adamant authority about the natural ways of the universe, even as dark matter and super colliders are expanding knowledge on an hourly basis? I would take a less authoritarian tact. These black and white arguments most often sound downright silly given 100 years of reflection.
6. Using the politician example and his confession that his being molested by another boy made him a victim, really is beneath you and your argument. It actually made me chuckle, kind of like when John Dillinger was asked why he robbed banks and he replied “That's where the money is.” If this politician did these things and if he blamed it on a 12 year old boy, pity him for being so pathetic he is grasping to become a victim when in fact he is a law breaking perpetrator. Don't use him as statistical evidence. It really does weaken the argument.
7. I have some news for you, homosexual or heterosexual, every society that has sex as a part of its ahem, intercourse...has an initiation process for both boys and girls into the lifestyle. At some point, the vast majority of girls and young women lose their virginity. That is how boys and girls become sexually adult. When it happens with a prom dress and a tuxedo, we wax nostalgic, but when it happens between a young man and a younger man, its somehow akin to vampirism. Why craft sentences whose subtext is so laced with deviance when the equivalent process is held up as a “rite of passage”...that isn't even remotely intellectually objective.
8. I would submit to you that one facet of sex is designed for procreation...that is obvious. However, the most participated in sexual behaviors in the world do not create babies and in fact, are not used for any procreative reason whatsoever. Recent studies of teens are showing they would rather have oral sex than actual intercourse. Given that, it makes you wonder if the whole damned race is unnatural...
9. I would agree with all your comments regarding the preponderance of effect that child rearing can have on an adult’s behavior. And yet, I know people who have had model families and upbringing only to turn out an exception to your rules. You said earlier that just one exception disproves a theory. I disagree so I will give you and your theories more license. What I submit to you is that even with the child psychology in order as I believe your final paragraphs are, nature finds a way to produce a homosexual even when everything is done “correctly”. That in itself should give us pause and make us consider that no matter how much we raise some cats with dogs, they are still going to meow, not like water, prefer to eat fish, be solitary instead of pack like and pursue birds. Now, is that learned behavior? Or is it nature?
You obviously do not believe in moral absolutes; you couldn't find the truth of one plus one; and worse, you must be a progressive! O Hail, Obama! (Please tell me I am wrong.)
Can you believe in anything if you state that "Catholic scholarship in all its different forms is conjecture"? My, my, then you must really abhor the stuff coming out of Andrew Sullivan's mouth and the ideas of Planned Parenthood trying to instill the pleasures of sex to ten year olds. Oh wait! They defy Natural Law and celebrate moral relativism. Oh, the wisdom of progressives and deviants, like Kinsey, must really inspire you to find "truth" and "reason"--well, I mean the "right" kind of reason which can't be based on Natural Law. (Can that be possible?)
Such liberation to encourage children to explore the most intimate part of self and treat sex like a commodity--like a piece of candy to give to whomever. Oh what fun!!!! Nothing like a good sex romp with someone who could care less about any aspect of your personality and never want to take on any responsibility for that "romp" and be willing to kill a human being if one would happen to be produced by such an inconsequential little act. Oh what an ordered society we would have. (BTW, babies are innocent of any crimes, unlike killers--Is there no difference?.)
Certainly there would be no loss of self esteem as you give multiple partners a piece of yourself--unlike the mean, repressed Catholics who dare to preach to children that their bodies are the temple of God. Respect for your body does not mean defiling it with acts that destroy it. I know you have heard of the seven deadly sins, so do you honestly think a beer belly is a good thing? I would probably get kicked off this site if I described why homosexual acts destroy the dignity of man. You know why, although your lack of moral standards prevent you from acknowledging the facts about orifices and fecal matter. You need to rationalize it as not a behavior choice--no free will there! Prostitution is demeaning, also, because you use the body as a commodity--to sell like a worthless plastic toy. I can not explain in this space, how dignity of man, when reduced to animal acts, does not allow man to claim higher moral status than a dog. The Pope has thoroughly writen about this subject which should convince any "logical" person to the validity and need for control and morality. The geniuses in the modern world and the Founders of the greatest experiment in the history of human interaction understood that happiness could not be attained without virtue. Think about that one for a few years and then look back to the wisdom of Aristotle--on the habituation of virtue, etc.
1. Why do you think serial killers are immoral? (Hint: They learned the behavior from cruel/immoral caregiver/s)
2. Why would a 4 year old engage in sex acts? (Hint: They learned the behavior by being abused by sexually immoral adults)
3. How come all men were homosexuals in the Spartan army? (Hint: Babies were killed if they were not perfect, then they were taken away from their mothers at a tender age and initiated into sexual "joys" by an older mentor.)
4. Do NAMBLA members really believe they "love" the little boys they molest or could it be just lust, per chance? (Didn't that Duke homosexual selling his little black adopted son for sex, wasn't that just sharing some love with his progressive pals?) I'm sure the little boy felt so loved and desired! Certainly that behavior has NO effect on his future behavior and none on his sexual life.
5. Homosexuality excludes the opposite sex. How can that unite the sexes, when all it would do is separate them? (Hint: In all societies that adopted/promoted homosexuality, women were nothing more than slaves/breeders. Men stayed with men. Women stayed with the women. They were kept separate, except for occasional breeding. Integration didn't happen--after all, they enjoyed the same endeavors. Young boys were forced into sexual slavery to older men, but" of course, it was sanctioned and the boys "desired" it. (That makes it natural, doesn't it???) Then, I think homosexuality is also idolatry, which also makes some very interesting, logical arguments.
6. Why are gays behind all the hate crime legislation when it denies people freedom of speech, freedom of thought, and freedom of religion? (Hint: They can not win the debate and have to shut down the truth.)
7. Why are men and women designed differently? (Hint: there truly is a natural reason and a correct use of the body.)
8. Did Pavlov prove anything? Can behaviors be manipulated? (Hint: Can language be taught? Can logical thinking be taught? Can human feelings be manipulated? and controlled by adults?)
9. Can you learn to do such an unnatural thing as kill yourself? To be a little jihadist? Is that a learned behavior? How could anyone go against the most powerful instinct in the human body--the one to survive--and do such an unnatural act? (Hint: It is learned behavior.)
Like IQ and alcoholism, homosexuality develops from some combination of both nature and nurture. It's not likely to be 100% one or the other. It's not useful to use for individual cases, but 50/50 in general is a good guess. The problem with allowing open homosexuality in the military is the 50% nurture part. The military must often order people into close living quarters for long periods of time. Just like locking up a group of Irish men inside a well stocked liquor store for 3 months at a time will increase the number of alcoholics, open homosexuals will have some success in nurturing others into it. Homosexuals shouldn't be given a taxpayer funded institution to freely operate an indoctrination trap.
The sin of envy is a significant motivation of the homosexual agenda. It's not that many homosexuals really want to be soldiers, or get married, or adopt children. It's that they want to destroy these things for others because they are denied. That is evil and wrong and worth opposing.