Joe^^

What you’ve suggested would be about as ‘OK’ as selectively aborting all heterosexual children^^;;
See, for the most part, being fast is better than being slow, being smart is better than being dumb, etc etc.
But being heterosexual is -not- better than being gay^^ I’m sure this community is one that still debates that, but debate or not, it’s the truth.
Therefore, yes, it’d be very unethical to selectively abort a gay fetus, if such a thing exists.

(If you want my theory on this in a nutshell, I think there’s a gene that endows a prepubescent with a -chance- at being homosexual. Triggered randomly or by an event, I can’t be sure. This theory, I think, explains a lot of the ‘identical-twin’ studies, as well as the way homosexuality has propogated itself through the evolution of mankind; humans can carry a dormant version of the ‘gay gene(s)’, and pass it on to their offspring. Back on track now.)

Francis^^
Thank you for clearing yourself up^^ I guess I misinterpreted some things.
Yeah, those personality traits you mentioned fall mainly under the ‘nurture’ category, which i why geneticists don’t talk too much about them. But I wouldn’t be surprised if there was still some link between kindness and genetic triggers^^
In any case, thank you for taking your time in explaining things to me, and not becoming overtly hostile like some are inclined to do^^;;

Have a nice day, all^-^

To That Lesbian Down The Street,
I find it interesting that you would post your email address on this site and then follow it by this next sentence: “That said, I’m sure everyone else here is mature enough not to go throwing random crap at me^^;;”

In some way, I guess it shows your confidence in the quality of the people who use this site. And I sincerely hope that you don`t get “random crap” thrown at you. Nevertheless, I cannot help but think that you have perhaps left yourself open to some form of internet abuse, given that this is a public site, open to virtually any person in the world who has internet access. Again, I sincerely hope that doesn`t occur. Perhaps my view of human nature is a little sinister at times.

I`ve been reading your posts with interest, as I`m a great fan of Mercatornet and enjoy forming my own opinions and reading the opinions of others.

I think one sentence that you used in your response post to Joe is absolutely crucial to understanding Michael Cook`s article about the discover of DNA, and that was this one: “Therefore, yes, it’d be very unethical to selectively abort a gay fetus, if such a thing exists.” You`ve hit the nail on the head here. Surely, every fetus has the right to be born, regardless of gender, sexual orientation or even IQ. Therefore, surely, every fetus should be given the opportunity to stamp her or his DNA mark upon the world. It seems only natural to me.

TLDTS. I am not sure that your position is entirely consistent.

In particular, the following statement deserves some consideration - “being heterosexual is not better than being gay”. 

Are we judging this subjectively or objectively?  You suggest that there is some element of objectivity involved, otherwise you could not state that it is “unethical” to selectively abort a unborn child with a genetic predisposition to homosexuality.  Clearly, if it was nothing more than a matter of personal taste, then you could not call aborting such a child “unethical”.

Personally, I would agree that the respect we should show for each other and the value we place on each human life should be equal, regardless of a person’s sexual orientation. 

However, the same applies for the fast and the slow, the healthy and unhealthy (broad though those groupings be).

On this basis, when you say “for the most part, being fast is better than being slow, being smart is better than being dumb” I can only assume that you are referring to the advantage of being fast, smart and healty in a competitive society.  This analysis, at its core, is very Darwinian and does not support your contention but, rather, supports the opposing position, ie that heterosexuality is better than being gay - a larger pool of potential mates and the ability to reproduce a naturally related genetic family.

It would be a great pity if people got the impression that the value of a human being consists in their genetic endowment, or even if they got the impression that genetic diversity is an absolute value.  The value of a human being consists in their transcendent nature, something that everyone shares from the moment of conception.  It doesn’t matter whether you are gay or straight, whether you are Jew or Greek, male or female, Republican or Democrat, brilliant or stupid, innocent or guilty, good or evil, you are still valuable in the eyes of God.  No one should be “selectively aborted.” In a society that can afford to keep a murderer under lock and key, no one should be put to death for any crime.

To suggest that abortion is “o.k.” but “selective abortion” isn’t is to advance the most contemptible form of special pleading, whether Darwinian or not.

Eugenics is an unfortunate result of Darwinism. If random selection can produce us then what can selective breeding do?
The problem is, whose doing the selecting? The only logical solution is that no one should. The Nazis were the worst offenders but here in the United States many thousands of people were sterilized because they were considered inferior.
Crimes were committed on the nurture side of the argument as well. Gypsy children were taken from their parents in Switzerland and placed with Swiss families. In Australia, mixed race children were taken from their families and placed in boarding schools. This was chronicled in the book ‘Rabbit Proof Fence’.
In the end, people who espouse the views that Watson did are telling us more about themselves than, perhaps, they intend to.

Fr. Gearhart points out that a purely mechanical view of evolution precludes the possibility of free will. We would all be, as Mr. Burgess says, clockwork oranges. That would be difficult for me. Without free will life simply wouldn’t be worth the bother. When I was younger I was haunted by the idea that free will was an illusion. I have come to accept that, like Liza Doolittle, we each have our own spark of divine fire.
I found some of what you wrote confusing. You seem to imply, for instance, that equality is a naive concept.
When you talk about immoral sexual lifestyles I assume, from reading things you’ve written elsewhere, that your talking about homosexuality. Don’t you think, since homosexuality is neither a choice nor a disease, that bringing it up constantly in the context of immorality is just bad manners? Doesn’t the Parable of the Prostitute prohibit casting stones?

Actually, no.  There are a million ways to be irresponsible in our sexual expression, homosexuality is only one category among many.  Whatever your genetic predisposition, you can master the temptation, even homosexual temptation, especially if you really do believe in free will.

As for homosexuality being a disease, that depends on what you mean by disease.  It’s obviously not caused by a virus or other pathogen.  If it is genetic, it may be regarded as a genetic disorder, and, in that limited sense, it may be regarded as a disease.  Some people regard alcoholism as a disease, which it can be, but this ignores the role of free will.

As for homosexuality not being a choice, that question is ultimately irrelevant to the sin of homosexual expression.  Unless, of course, you really don’t believe in free will.

Joe^^

Yeah, it probably -does- seem like my viewpoint isn’t consistent… But not to worry, it is^^;;
I’d explain all the subtle nuances of what I believe in and how it happens and all that, but… I have less than 2000 characters available to me, and at the period at the end of this sentence, I will have used up 336 of them already.

So I guess I’m asking you to take my word for it in this instance^^;;

Now… Father Gearhart^^

Y’know, I find it nice that you mention free will; and yes, I believe in it.
But, uh… according to biblical history, free will is what got us into every mess we’ve ever been in^^;; I’m no expert on the Bible, but… isn’t it the Word of God that the first two heterosexuals, Adam and Eve, disobeyed his commands not to eat a certain fruit, and then were banished from Eden forever? Sounds like free will to me.

So… seems kinda like in biblical terms, the heterosexuals were the irresponsible ones^^ Weird, huh?

On the subject of ‘the sin of homosexual expression’… I challenge you to cite a single passage where God condemns a monogamous, loving homosexual union^^ (In every translation of the Bible, I might add. We all know that some bigots in ancient times translated certain words according to their personal preferences.)

Anyways. Excuse me for paraphrasing, but what you’re getting at is… it’s the homosexual’s choice to have sex with a member of their own gender. And you’re right there; that is our choice, who we sleep with. Yours, too, actually^^ It’s a heterosexual’s choice to sleep with someone of the opposite gender.

That said, how’d you feel if I said that if you believed in free will, you could master your heterosexual temptation?
Yeah, probably not too happy.

Well, summing things up, you’re a Father. A church man. So… this opinion of yours is pretty well ground in, and I’ve got no realistic chance of changing it.
But please, stop saying hurtful things.

Have a nice day, everybody^^

Fr. Gearhart said:  “As for homosexuality not being a choice, that question is ultimately irrelevant to the sin of homosexual expression.  Unless, of course, you really don’t believe in free will.”

That’s not logical. One must first accept that ‘homosexual expression’ is a sin. The Old Testament, where that idea comes from, is a mishmash of archaic nonsense.  I won’t bore you with the contradictions and absurdities (Unless you ask). You fight to prevent gay marriage and then say they’re immoral because they are not married. You deny them the ability to love one another openly. What has value in this world besides love? You hold them to a standard that Catholic priests seem singularly unable to live up to.
You argue for the right to demean gay children in front of their classmates. You help to maintain a climate where gay children think that suicide is a viable option. You help to create an environment where violence against gay people is common. I can’t find Jesus in any of that. Can You?

Actually, I think it’s not at all unreasonable to expect a heterosexual to master their sexual temptation, any more than to demand the same of a homosexual.  Both should live by the same standard of chastity.  That implies, in both instances, subordinating sexual desire to the natural function of pro-creation in the context of a family.  Anything outside of that is irresponsible use of the gift of sexuality.

I have no quibble with your claim that Adam and Even were irresponsible.  Part of the reason we have genetic disorders today is the fall of Adam and Eve from the state of original grace.  And, of course, it’s not difficult to point to heterosexuals today who are irresponsible.  That’s why, in my original comment, which you highlighted, I was not picking on homosexuals, particularly, just the whole gamut of sexual irresponsibility.

Generally, when the bible points to sexual sin, it doesn’t point to homosexual sin as the only sin.  Nevertheless, it also doesn’t ignore homosexual sin.  How, for example, does your translation treat Leviticus 20:13?

What do you consider to be a “hurtful thing?” Have you ever heard that even the truth can hurt?

TLDTS

I’ve mostly stayed away from this discussion, but am moved by what appear to me to be inconsistencies…

You wrote: “I’m no expert on the Bible, but ... “ and then in the next paragraph you wrote:

“(In every translation of the Bible, I might add. We all know that some bigots in ancient times translated certain words according to their personal preferences.)”

I’m confused first you are not an expert on the Bible and then it appears that your are.  Is there a reason that you play both sides?

You also wrote:  “That said, how’d you feel if I said that if you believed in free will, you could master your heterosexual temptation?
Yeah, probably not too happy.”

I fear that you have made Fr. Gearhart’s point for him in that this is the point of free will.  That one can choose to master their sexual (hetero or homo) temptation and indeed be “happy” for it.  Why would one assume “Yeah, probably not too happy” if one has in fact mastered their sexual temptation(s)?

Everyone has focused on the obvious Watson is a racist meme but few have appreciated that Watson is being faithful to the intellectual slope of scientific materialism. If you are a materialist, you have to accept that we are not equal. Evolution is based on inequalities. Biologically, no animal, including man, can be presumed equal to another. MC points out this tension between egalitarianism and scientific materialism which is uncritically accepted by many liberals.

Mr. Page, is there some other view of evolution that is not mechanical? Every time I pick up a magazine, some evolutionist is pronoucing that free will is an illusion.

Artificial contraception also plays a part in this debate; when heterosexuals said, in effect, ‘We can have a sexual relationship that deliberately prevents the possibility of children’ it made any condemnation of homosexual practice entirely hypocritical. At the Lambeth Conference of 1930 the Anglican Church allowed contraception for married couples in certain situations - and the pass was sold.
That is why the Catholic Church has always maintained that heterosexual married love must be open to new life.

Jim^^

Thank you for pointing that out… It does look confusing when I look at it, now^^;;

See, I got mad at the word ‘master’ because, as defined by Father Gearhart, it has different implications for heterosexuals and homosexuals. I now see how it might have been odd to use it in the way I did, then.
(And when -I- say ‘temptation’, I don’t mean ‘hey, let’s be promiscuous’. I mean that it’s okay to have sex with the gender you desire.)

No, I’m not an expert on the bible. Everything I know about the bible comes form two sources: Wikipedia and Religioustolerance.org^^;; I never have read the bible directly: I’m not christian.

But I do know a thing or two. Which is why...^^

Father Gearhart^^

I’m so glad you mentioned Leviticus 20:13^-^ Because that’s exactly the sort of messed-up translation I’m talking about. I’d advise you to click my name to direct you to a page on Leviticus 20:13.

Here’s the one that most people refer to: the King James Version.
“"If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."”

Hmm^^ If a man lies with a man. That covers… half of homosexuality^^ Very conveniently, the half of which I am not part of ~_^ (And what happened to your anti-death-penalty stance? ‘cause this sort of outright advocates it.)

“I was not picking on homosexuals, particularly, just the whole gamut of sexual irresponsibility.”
Yeah. But you still threw me in there, and I’m still ticked off.

Anyway, it appears that you’re trying to argue red is better, when I’m advocating purple as a solution. We’re just not going to see eye-to-eye, ever. You take the Bible as truth; I take it as a story.

In closing… I’m not going to mince words.
The truth can hurt.
But the slanderous misconceptions of the Church hurt even more.

And with that… Have a nice day, everybody^^

TB said: “Mr. Page, is there some other view of evolution that is not mechanical? Every time I pick up a magazine, some evolutionist is pronouncing that free will is an illusion.”

First I have to say that no theory can eliminate the possibility of spiritual involvement in the evolutionary process. To believe so would be to underestimate the mind of the God you revere.

My personal preference in evolutionary theory is the inheritance of acquired characteristics. I know Darwinists will jump down my throat for saying so, but it has logic and eloquence and it’s a theory that Darwin himself was intrigued with. I would recommend reading ‘The Case of the Midwife Toad’ for quick reference.

The question of free will is Philosophical and, to some, Spiritual. For an Existentialist it’s a prerequisite for consciousness aware of itself and separate from the world.
For the religious person it’s a gift from God. Either way, it’s an enormous responsibility.