TomboyMom

But it is, that's the problem. If the pope wants to impose his narrow sexual preferences on his adherents, and they want to accept them, that's their prerogative. The problem is that here in the U.S. the bishops are calling on their congregants to take concrete specific political actions to oppose same-sex marriage. That is, they are trying to force their religious beliefs on the majority of the U.S. population by depriving us of a right that we are trying to obtain. THEY ARE FORCING THEIR MESSAGE ON US. That's exactly what we are upset about.

As a lesbian non-catholic, it has no impact on my life whether the pope thinks my life is O.K., until he tries to restrict my political rights. They only way you can say it is not being forced on me is to deliberately close your eyes to the actions they are taking.

Rene, just trying to defend my life and family

kkholiday

Okay, the RCC wants their congregants to take a stand (whether most of them actually even side with the church or not is another matter), but that isn't the end of the story. The people who do not agree are just as free and maybe even obligated to try to influence people including the church to their position. The ultimately better and more-logically defendable position, should win out over time.

The church, in its own way, is looks at the issue as if they are trying to protect people. Ignoring the issue itself for a moment, I think they are morally bound to try to push their side of it, if they feel it is for the common good.

BTW, I think the biggest opposition in America on this issue wont come from the Catholics.

TomboyMom

No, it is immoral of them to try to force their religious limitations on the rest of us, to the detriment of our civil rights.

Hindus believe that eating meat violates the Gods' edicts. They have a right not to eat meat. They do not have a right to prohibit me from eating meat. To try to do so is immoral.

Catholics believe that gay marriage violates God's edicts. They have a right not to marry a person of the same sex. They do not have a right to prohibit me from marrying a person of the same sex. To try to do so is immoral.

I am not trying to force Hindus to eat meat, any more than I am trying to force you to be gay. I am just fighting for the most important civil right--the right to be left alone.

Would you Catholics please leave us the hell alone?

And while you're at it, stop molesting children and hiding behind the power of your church.

Rene

kkholiday

Rene, I don't mean to offend you, and I'm not sanctioning the church's position right now either.

I think the church sees the issue not just as violating God's law but more as being harmful to the individuals and society; although, it's hard to separate the two. In that respect, I think they do have an obligation to do what they think will be in the best interests of society.

Maybe they are wrong. If that is the case, then the people who oppose this teaching could work to change the church's position if they feel so inclined; maybe, for society's sake, they even have an obligation to do this.

Maybe it doesn't matter if the church changes or not; people should just push for the secularization of the American government.

Doctor X

Amos:

Very good. So if a man loses his subconscious mind, does he lose heaven?

Then note your contradiction: on the one foot you claim you do not have to support it whilst on the other you claim we need to understand the cause.

To understand the cause, you cannot grab at theories with no basis in evidence--particularly ones contradicted by evidence.

Then rape is legal as well. You have still not defined "natural law."

On the contrary, I do not think you understood the implications of your claim. You do this here as well:

You first argued neuroanatomical distinctions--left versus right brain. Now you try to deny their existence. Unfortunately that does not work. What you follow with is a confession of belief not supported by physiology. By your argument, a man with a right holohemispheric stroke becomes a woman.

They do not.

Indeed, you can remove the right hemisphere from a female child--Take Home Project kids!! Ask Mommy for a really sharp knife first!--and she will remain a female.

kkholiday:

Indeed. Those who are zealots do not perceive that they preach an opinion; they feel they preach a "fact."

--J.D.

Amos

He can't lose it until he is consciuosly aware that he has it as heaven and once he has it he can't lose it because it is the basis for his identity.

There is a difference between supporting and accepting. To accept it is to tolerate it without further judgement and to support it is to give assent to its rise and origin.

But there are no contradictions in my theories.

Not if it violates civil law.

In natural law man is in total harmony with nature and his actions will always be live giving and love serving. His volition is censored by these precepts and is therefore free to act according to his own will.

O yes I do and know them very well.

No, I do not deny their existence for as long as our subconscious mind is not an integral part of our conscious mind. I think I called this "the middle" and exists after the convergence of the left and right brain. Jesus referred to this condition with "the father and I are one."

I am not a doctor and don't know what a holohemispheric stroke is. Either way, it would not matter much to me what you called him.

Doctor X

Then it cannot be located in the subconscious.

Regarding "support" it refers to evidence for your theories. Without attention to support you cannot know truly know the cause. Since it occurs naturally, you should not have to worry about acceptance.

You contradicted yourself a number of times with regards to hormones and gender preferences. Also:

yet you imply only natural law exists in heaven--where fornication is allowed--so you would not have to worry about civil law.

The discussions on hormones and brain physiology do, indeed, suggest that you do not understand the implications of your theories. This is a prime example:

The subconscious is an intergral part--you cannot divide it out. Thus, would you deny the existence of such patients?

There is no "middle" and no "convergence." Incidentally, those who do not develope the main fiber connection--corpus callosum--known as agenesis of the corpus callosum--do not suffer what you predict.

No, absolutely no evidence that this refers to neurophysiology or anything of that matter.

It is when you lose supply to most of one side of the brain. You theory above would predict a change in gender--if a female loses the male hemisphere. This does not happen.

--J.D.

Amos

Realization is required for it to become a conscious identity and once this happens it can't be un-done. Of course this would not happen because we have a male and female identity in our soul that we call Christ and Mary.

Doctor X

Amos:

Really? When the person develops a dementing disease?

Now:

Well, ipse dixit of course, however where is the soul?

--J.D.

Amos

How can they if there is no disease in heaven. There is no soul (subconscious mind) in heaven because all is known when in heaven. "The [celestial] sea was no longer" Rev.21:1, which is the same as the "no-soul" concept in Buddhism