It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Lots of us simply try to live as good human beings without striving to emulate a fairy tale.
.I don't need to find consolation in anything other than leading a good life, respecting life, and not judging those around me.
Its a very easything to do, once you get beyond the arrogance that only you can be right.
Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by Animal
By looking at the speech the Pope made to assembled diplomats, which was referenced in the OP, you will see that the Pope did not say that LGBT people were a threat to anything. Nor did he say that LGBT marriage was a threat to anything.
Gay marriage is one of several threats to the traditional family unit that undermines 'the future of humanity itself', Pope Benedict XVI warned yesterday.
'Consequently, policies which undermine the family threaten human dignity and the future of humanity itself. The family unit is fundamental for the educational process and for the development both of individuals and states.
There are studies that raise questions about instability and violence in same-sex relationships...
...but the Pope only said that male-female families had pride of place in providing a fundamental educational setting. His only reference to "damage" was his belief that policies that weaken the family end up weakening mankind.
I don't see the problem here.
Originally posted by kush89
reply to post by elpistolero1
case number one. according to the arguments they say homosexual is genetic but in which i agree but i also believe its also an environmental induced condition. here is my case: a child is born and adopted to two homosexual men. the child is a male by the way and straight(provided he didn't have the gay gene). through out his life growing up he will have to live listening to his "parent's" sex noises and will grow up in a house where homosexuality is promoted. my question is at will that boy at the time where is beginning to deal with his sexuality,wouldn't he rather more likely to chose homosexuality?
Originally posted by deepankarm
clearly people are being brainwashed to believe homosexuality is normal.
instead of finding a way to cure it, people are being encouraged.
i dont hate gays but i dont approve homo acts.
it was present but wasnt approved.
Originally posted by Pinke
Originally posted by kush89
reply to post by elpistolero1
case number one. according to the arguments they say homosexual is genetic but in which i agree but i also believe its also an environmental induced condition. here is my case: a child is born and adopted to two homosexual men. the child is a male by the way and straight(provided he didn't have the gay gene). through out his life growing up he will have to live listening to his "parent's" sex noises and will grow up in a house where homosexuality is promoted. my question is at will that boy at the time where is beginning to deal with his sexuality,wouldn't he rather more likely to chose homosexuality?
Current statistics and research that I've seen (please correct me if I'm wrong) children brought up in environments with homosexuals aren't any more likely to be gay than those brought up in a heterosexual environment.
If homosexuality is a threat to humanity, it's a pretty slow threat. Considering its been around for many many many hundreds of years, it's the universe's slowest moving bullet. That's all.
Originally posted by Animal
From the source in the OP:
Gay marriage is one of several threats to the traditional family unit that undermines 'the future of humanity itself', Pope Benedict XVI warned yesterday.
Originally posted by EricD
As you say, you are quoting the source from the OP, not the Pope. The author of the article is dragging his biases into his reporting and is certainly less than objective.
A more reasoned synopsis and commentary of the address would be that the Pope praised the nuclear family unit, said that the optimum family unit for a child is having a mother and father and this specific segment was a small part of a much larger discussion ranging from education to abortion to religious freedom.
It would be a tremendous help to anyone interested in the topic if the actual source was read and not just someones interpretation of it. Once again, here is a link to the actual address.
www.zenit.org...
Among these, pride of place goes to the [1.] family, based on the marriage of a man and a woman. [2.] This is not a simple social convention, but rather the fundamental cell of every society.[3.] Consequently, policies which undermine the family threaten human dignity and the future of humanity itself.
The [1.] family unit is [2.]fundamental for the educational process and for the development both of individuals and States; hence there is a [3.]need for policies which promote the family and aid social cohesion and dialogue.
it is being promoted by science,celebrities,media and government and so called 'proud' gays.
Originally posted by Animal
Originally posted by deepankarm
clearly people are being brainwashed to believe homosexuality is normal.
really? how so?
again, how are people being 'encouraged' to be gay?
i dont hate gays but i dont approve homo acts.
homo-sapiens are going to be sad you don't approve of them.
edit on 13-1-2012 by Animal because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by deepankarm
it was present but wasnt approved.
we as humans have changed the meaning of sexual purpose.
now sex comes first or rather i say pleasure comes first.
sex has become an addiction just like drugs..
you are denying a child, either mother or father. how sick is that??
for your lust,you are hell bent on changing the foundations of society.
you can brainwash the child to believe anything but it does'nt change the truth.
I'm afraid that by simply saying that some studies can be mistaken, you are avoiding the issue raised. Would you have responded differently had I said "There are studies that show ...?" Forgive me for not being so direct.
There are studies that raise questions about instability and violence in same-sex relationships...
You are quite correct that I am Catholic. But logic is the same regardless of your beliefs. Making this claim is dodging the question altogether by ad hominem attack. I hope you can do better.
You don't see the problem imho because you are believer and supporter of the Catholic Church. Not a problem in and of itself however blindly supporting and defending the churches assault on the LGBT crowd, imho, is.
I've been trying to say this all along! Why are we so concerned with who people are having sex with?
Yes, Orangetom1999: my point exactly! We must focus on those qualities which distinguish us from the animals lest we become one. Perhaps the Pope could have explained it better.
Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by Animal
As has been pointed out, and as you seem to be realizing, the Pope didn't make the comment attributed to him by the reporter. Good, I'm glad that's out of the way.
Originally posted by charles1952
So now, your position is, if i understand it, that the Pope's words lead to only one, inescapable, conclusion. Let's look at your first syllogism:
1) A family can only be the marriage of a man and a woman.
2) A man and woman marriage is the "fundamental cell" of society.
3) LGBT rights threatens human survival.
Originally posted by Animal
Among these, pride of place goes to the [1.] family, based on the marriage of a man and a woman. [2.] This is not a simple social convention, but rather the fundamental cell of every society.[3.] Consequently, policies which undermine the family threaten human dignity and the future of humanity itself.
So what I think is plain to deduce from the popes own words is that he is saying:
1. Family = the Marriage of a Man and Woman.
2. Such a Family is the 'Fundamental Cell of Society'.
3. Any Policy (Read LGBT Rights / Equality) Threatens Not Only Human Dignity but Apparently Our Survival As Well.
Originally posted by charles1952
I, of course, take issue with premise 1) and the conclusion 3)
Some problem comes in with the definition of family. The Pope probably has a different definition from yours, so from the start you are talking about different things.
Originally posted by charles1952
Second, the Pope's statement "...education needs settings. Among these, pride of place goes to the family, based on the marriage of a man and woman." He is specifically saying there are other settings, perhaps other forms of family? You may not think so, but it is easily possible. And, assume for a moment, that the "family" has one female head. Will you get a more diverse family by adding a man or another woman.
Consequently, policies which undermine the family threaten human dignity and the future of humanity itself.
Originally posted by charles1952
And the conclusion doesn't follow at all. Allowing LGBTs to vote doesn't threaten human society. Nobody I know thinks that, and I'm reasonably certain the Pope doesn't.
Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by Animal
Your second, similar, syllogism falls for the same reasons, I've just mentioned. By calling it "pretty straight forward," I'm afraid your claiming a rigor for your syllogisms that just doesn't exist.
Originally posted by charles1952
I said:I'm afraid that by simply saying that some studies can be mistaken, you are avoiding the issue raised. Would you have responded differently had I said "There are studies that show ...?" Forgive me for not being so direct.
There are studies that raise questions about instability and violence in same-sex relationships...
Originally posted by Animal
You don't see the problem imho because you are believer and supporter of the Catholic Church. Not a problem in and of itself however blindly supporting and defending the churches assault on the LGBT crowd, imho, is.
Originally posted by Charles 1952
You are quite correct that I am Catholic. But logic is the same regardless of your beliefs. Making this claim is dodging the question altogether by ad hominem attack. I hope you can do better.
Best wishes,
Charles1952
Originally posted by orangetom1999
Wow!!! I am gratified to see that at least two people out here get the point I was trying to make.
I've been trying to say this all along! Why are we so concerned with who people are having sex with?
Bingo. glad to hear it kaylaluv. I am not interested in your sex life or whom you are with ...no matter whom. I don't think it is a thing to be plastered all over the front pages. I think this should be your business..not mine.....nor anyone else's business.
I also think it is not a thing which should be merchandised or put on the evening news for all to see.
Glad you understand this.