On Apr 22, 9:20 pm, "Rob D." <fr.robert....@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Apr 22, 7:02 pm, CharlieM1958 <charlesmarsh...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Rob D. wrote:
> > > It's an interesting point, although I don't think it quite goes to
> > > what you want it to...handedness is not as im****tant as what we...oh
> > > man, I'm not going there in a discussion on ***uality...I better try
> > > again...
>
> > > The nature of a hand is to move or manipulate...it seems sort of
> > > obvious, when you look at the design (or evolution, if you want).
It
> > > can also be used for communication, but this does not seem to be
> > > essential to its purpose. If we were blind, hands would still be
> > > useful, but if the hand could not be controlled in its movement or
> > > manipulation, what would be the point of it.
>
> > > I'm trying to think of a use of a hand that would go against its
> > > nature...and I'm not coming up with much...I suppose you could cut
off
> > > your fingers to use them as counters...but I'm really looking for
> > > something that people might actually do, and nothing is really
coming
> > > to mind...
>
> > > Hmmm....
>
> > I thought your rebuttal would be something along the lines of
handedness
> > being less im****tant than ***ual behavior. Maybe so.
>
> > If I read you correctly, your argument is that homo***ual acts involve
> > doing something with a body part that goes against its natural
purpose.
> > Well, maybe that idea is not so much based in fact as in prejudice. If
> > God created x percent of the population homo***ually oriented, it
seems
> > counterintuitive, to me at least, that behavior in keeping with one's
> > natural orientation would be immoral. It's sort of a "if man were
meant
> > to fly, God would have given him wings" argument. :-)
>
> Not quite.
>
> It would be closer to say, "If God did not intend birds to fly (or
> glide under water), He wouldn't have given them wings.
>
> The argument is that the nature of human ***uality is ordered toward
> the possibility ofreproduction...while it may have or be used to
> other purposes, the "why" of human ***uality isreproduction,
> otherwise, you really cannot explain it.
>
> So the question is: is a ***ual behavior which completely rules out
> the "why" of human ***uality acceptable?
Is that the official RC doctrine, Father Rob?
|
