A silly simple question on sexual orientation (re gay marriage)

[AmateurPianist]

The fact of the matter is that all of our behaviors have some biological inclination behind them. Some things – like people drinking heavily when they are inclined towards alcoholism, for example – demonstrably cause harm and can result in death and destroyed relationships. Other things – like two consenting adults doing whatever the heck they like in privacy – are completely harmless, in addition to being absolutely nobody else’s business.

Religious opinions need to stay out of secular laws.

Actually I have a somewhat conservative-Libertarian political orientation and agree that private sexual acts between two consenting adults should not be criminalized.

The issue I raised, however, was whether same-sex sexual acts and same-sex sexual orientation were a part of god’s design.

Two separate issues.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

As far as I can figure out the “science” here ultimately rests on the stories of those that claim the sexual orientation. Now the stories might be told anecdotally, in a survey, or in a controlled laboratory setting…but it seems to me (absent a genetic component) that it ultimately rests on stories.

The problem here is that those with a sexual orientation towards children have parallel stories.

Oh, I see! Yes, if we suppose there is such a thing as “sexual orientation”, then we would find that some people are sexually oriented toward children. This is certainly true. And this is a problem, if sexual orientations come from God.

Thus, we can conclude that either a) sexual orientations do not exist or b) sexual orientations are not God’s will for us (they are a product of the Fall?).

Hope this helps!

 

[cecilia97]

Ah, so can you tell us how homosexuality “destroys lives”?

Surely, you’re not going to say, “Homosexuals get diseases!” or “Some of them have unstable relationships!” because both are true of heterosexuals as well.

The fact of the matter is that all of our behaviors have some biological inclination behind them. Some things – like people drinking heavily when they are inclined towards alcoholism, for example – demonstrably cause harm and can result in death and destroyed relationships. Other things – like two consenting adults doing whatever the heck they like in privacy – are completely harmless, in addition to being absolutely nobody else’s business.

Religious opinions need to stay out of secular laws.

If you read my post carefully, you’ll see that I make a clear distinction between sacramental (religious) unions and civil or sexual unions. I agree with you 100% that the Catholic Church (or any other church) cannot legislate who can get civilly married in, say, the US. By the same token, however…civil laws about marriage will not change what any particular religion believes about marriage. It cuts both ways, you see?

As to homosexuality destroying lives, I have seen great sadness brought into the lives of several families I know because of this. But that is only the temporal, physical element and not the most important to a Catholic. The REAL problem is this: ANY sexual act outside of sacramental marriage is mortally sinful and thus destroys our relationship with God…the most important of a Catholic’s life.

That is why we say that even so-called “private” sins have consequences. I am God’s creation. If I harm myself or turn my back on Him by breaking His laws, I have harmed

1. His child (me!)
   and
2. our relationship

I do not expect you to agree with me, as you are not Christian or Catholic. I am not trying to persuade, I am trying to explain.

re: religious opinions staying out of secular laws…why are your religious opinions OK and mine are not? Just because one doesn’t believe in God doesn’t mean one is void of religious opinions. Atheism IS a religious opinion. It’s an opinion about religion.

 

[Deconi]

Umm…as far as “homosexuality destroys lives”…I would go so far as to say It destroys life!

If you can find me one homosexual union that produces life, I’ll ‘listen.’

As for “orientations” and “natural” inclinations towards homosexuality…we aren’t called to be natural…but to be SUPERnatural, that is, to overcome our urges toward what is not good.

Revenge, is a natural urge. Inflicting our will on others by force, is another…paedophilia, murder, alcoholisim, rape…etc.

 

[buffalo]

He created them male and female…

Then sin and corruption entered the world. SSA is a result of the fall and not ordained by God.

 

[Flame4]

OP: I am sure people who have Same Sex Attractions did not choose to have them. However they can choose to act on it or not. Is SSA natural? Well what does “natural” mean in this context? That God created it or that it is part of the human condition? God did not create pain and suffering, but they are part of the human condition (that is evil comes from the lack of good.)

Any disgreements:
God created men and women for each other. Whatever any government chooses to do will not change the Church’s position. What I don’t understand is why people are so worried about Catholics (and Christians, and even other religions) believe if they are not one. Why do they care what we teach? We do not kill homosexuals, we are told to embrace and love them- not there sin. What if it is a sin? Then is it not loving for us to tell them?

God Bless

 

[AmateurPianist]

Oh, I see! Yes, if we suppose there is such a thing as “sexual orientation”, then we would find that some people are sexually oriented toward children. This is certainly true. And this is a problem, if sexual orientations come from God.

Thus, we can conclude that either a) sexual orientations do not exist or b) sexual orientations are not God’s will for us (they are a product of the Fall?).

Hope this helps!

You got it…and worded it better than I did.

I hope what I meant to say is clearer now.

I have asked this in various contexts and nobody has answered this.

One time a pro-gay marriage Calvinist (of all things…I did not know there was such an animal) got angry at me for equating homosexuality with paedophilia (which of course I am not doing). He did not answer my question however.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

You got it…and worded it better than I did.

I hope what I meant to say is clearer now.

I have asked this in various contexts and nobody has answered this.

One time a pro-gay marriage Calvinist (of all things…I did not know there was such an animal) got angry at me for equating homosexuality with paedophilia (which of course I am not doing). He did not answer my question however.

Well, I think there is some ambiguity about the term “sexual orientation”. If “sexual orientation” means a fixed (genetic) predisposition, then we ought to say that there are no sexual orientations – although there may be genetic traits that correlate, to some degree, with later sexual decisions/attractions.

If “sexual orientation” means the actual “attraction template” of adults, then I imagine that these templates don’t fall into categories, hardly at all. But, in this sense, there ARE orientations (as many as there are people!), but God does not intend these orientations directly. An interesting question: in what ways are these orientations within our control? Does it matter?

 

[puzzleannie]

In another thread somebody articulated this sentence:

This I think sums up the Christian pro gay marriage argument quite well:
(1) Since science teaches that sexual orientation is an immutable human characteriestic, one therefore must conclude that one’s sexual orientation comes from God.

there is not a shred of evidence for this claim, science claims no such thing.

 

[seeker57]

To say science is the mediator of understanding is just plain wrong. Scientists have been wrong more on any given subjects in history than other sources time and time again. I hate it when people say, "listen to the scientists they know the truth ".Anyway, there or many given testimonies of gay people going to straight. It is a choice to be gay, a sexual perversion of what God wants.

And so Joy, when did you decide what sex you were going to have? Since its a choice, you must have chosen.

 

[seeker57]

I have never encountered a group of people who are part of a forum established ostensibly to discuss religion who are so completely hung up on sex.

On top of that, this is a forum for non-Catholic religions, not the sexual practices of the masses.

This thread is nothing more than flamebait, in my opinion

 

[dnu]

Religious opinions need to stay out of secular laws.

Why?

 

[AmateurPianist]

I have never encountered a group of people who are part of a forum established ostensibly to discuss religion who are so completely hung up on sex.

On top of that, this is a forum for non-Catholic religions, not the sexual practices of the masses.

This thread is nothing more than flamebait, in my opinion

Why don’t you answer my question?

There are a number of nonCatholic religions that believe there is nothing wrong with same-sex sexual activity. As such, I believe this is an appropriate place to ask the question.

Besides, I am not a Catholic, and I have no interest in exploring the other parts here that seem more in-house.

 

[AmateurPianist]

Well, I think there is some ambiguity about the term “sexual orientation”. If “sexual orientation” means a fixed (genetic) predisposition, then we ought to say that there are no sexual orientations – although there may be genetic traits that correlate, to some degree, with later sexual decisions/attractions.

If “sexual orientation” means the actual “attraction template” of adults, then I imagine that these templates don’t fall into categories, hardly at all. But, in this sense, there ARE orientations (as many as there are people!), but God does not intend these orientations directly. An interesting question: in what ways are these orientations within our control? Does it matter?

I don’t see why the whole lot of these sexual orientations can not be alternatively explained by good ole fashioned “temptation and addiction”. But I guess I am real backwards because I also believe in a real being called satan.

And of course science can not acknowledge the realm of the satanic, so it seeks alternative explanations. I get that…but still…

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I don’t see why the whole lot of these sexual orientations can not be alternatively explained by good ole fashioned “temptation and addiction”. But I guess I am real backwards because I also believe in a real being called satan.

And of course science can not acknowledge the realm of the satanic, so it seeks alternative explanations. I get that…but still…

But does science ever tell us what is TRULY the root cause of mental illness? I don’t think so. So I think spiritual forces are a potential explanation.

 

[edwest2]

Ah, so can you tell us how homosexuality “destroys lives”?

Surely, you’re not going to say, “Homosexuals get diseases!” or “Some of them have unstable relationships!” because both are true of heterosexuals as well.

The fact of the matter is that all of our behaviors have some biological inclination behind them. Some things – like people drinking heavily when they are inclined towards alcoholism, for example – demonstrably cause harm and can result in death and destroyed relationships. Other things – like two consenting adults doing whatever the heck they like in privacy – are completely harmless, in addition to being absolutely nobody else’s business.

Religious opinions need to stay out of secular laws.

“absolutely nobody else’s business” That’s all I heard for 40 years. Problem is we all have one vote and we will either learn to live together or we will live separately. By saying “religious opinions need to stay out,” our rights are denied.

If everyone wants to do whatever they want behind closed doors, why bring it up here? Why put gay marriage on the ballot?

God bless,
Ed

 

[AntiTheist]

If you read my post carefully, you’ll see that I make a clear distinction between sacramental (religious) unions and civil or sexual unions. I agree with you 100% that the Catholic Church (or any other church) cannot legislate who can get civilly married in, say, the US. By the same token, however…civil laws about marriage will not change what any particular religion believes about marriage. It cuts both ways, you see?

Absolutely. Religion should stay out of secular law, and secular law should stay out of religion.

I have absolutely no intention of persuading you to have a different opinion about homosexuality. I’m sorry if I jumped to any conclusions about your intentions in posting.

As to homosexuality destroying lives, I have seen great sadness brought into the lives of several families I know because of this.

Sure, most likely because of the bigotry of those families not being able to accept the homosexuality of their family member.

Remember, you started by comparing homosexuality to things like alcoholism and drug-abuse. Those things are considered harmful not because family members think they’re yucky or because family members think that people who do them are gonna go to the naughty-place after they die…they are considered harmful because they do tangible, measurable harm to people’s bodies. You’re comparing apples and oranges.

re: religious opinions staying out of secular laws…why are your religious opinions OK and mine are not?

I don’t have “religious opinions.” My opinions about homosexuality are not based on a religious dogma – they’re based on my observation of the world. If someone came along and argued, based on observation and not dogma, that homosexuality caused some kind of tangible, measurable harm, then maybe we can have a discussion. But you can’t pass a law on the basis of religious commandments – that’s one of the key reasons that the first amendment exists.

As to the “why” question that some other brilliant poster asked, it’s because separation of church and state is beneficial for both the church and the state. Look, you wouldn’t want some other religious believers passing laws on the basis of their faith, and nobody wants you passing laws on the basis of your faith.

Atheism IS a religious opinion. It’s an opinion about religion.

Well, we can certainly quibble about that, but the point is that my opinions on secular laws aren’t based on my atheism (atheism, being a lack of a belief, cannot serve as the basis of any opinions). My opinions on secular law come from my observations of the world and my own code of values, which come from a diverse set of sources.

 

[AntiTheist]

Umm…as far as “homosexuality destroys lives”…I would go so far as to say It destroys life!

If you can find me one homosexual union that produces life, I’ll ‘listen.’

There’s a significant difference between something that destroys life and something that doesn’t produce life.

If someone remains single for his whole life, that choice doesn’t produce life, but it’s not destroying life.

You’re just not making any sense at all.

Revenge, is a natural urge. Inflicting our will on others by force, is another…paedophilia, murder, alcoholisim, rape…etc.

And again, all of those things cause demonstrable harm, unlike two consenting adults doing whatever behind closed doors. You are comparing apples and oranges.

edwest:

By saying “religious opinions need to stay out,” our rights are denied.

No, it doesn’t deny any rights at all – you simply cannot legislate on the basis of religious dogma. Instead, you need – hold on to your hats, folks – good reasons and evidence based on observation of the world.

Look, if you want to believe homosexuality is bad because it violates some sort of religious dogma taboo, then knock yourself out. You just can’t use your religious belief – which is based on nothing but dogma and bald assertion – to legislate.

That’s not remotely taking away your rights. In fact, it preserves your rights because it protects you from other religious groups trying to legislate their dogma.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Sure, most likely because of the bigotry of those families not being able to accept the homosexuality of their family member.

This explanation looks plausible at first, but the numbers don’t line up with it. People who self-define as gay, in study after study on comparative happiness, turn out to be significantly less happy, on average, than the general population. This has not changes in the last 30 years, as families have become increasingly accepting of their gay children.

I don’t claim that this is a case against homosexuality, in itself, of course. Things that make people (on average) unhappy aren’t always wrong. And there may be a plausible explanation for the discrepency. But I wouldn’t simply write the statistic off.

 

[cecilia97]

There’s a significant difference between something that destroys life and something that doesn’t produce life.

If someone remains single for his whole life, that choice doesn’t produce life, but it’s not destroying life.

You’re just not making any sense at all.

And again, all of those things cause demonstrable harm, unlike two consenting adults doing whatever behind closed doors. You are comparing apples and oranges.

edwest: No, it doesn’t deny any rights at all – you simply cannot legislate on the basis of religious dogma. Instead, you need – hold on to your hats, folks – good reasons and evidence based on observation of the world.

Look, if you want to believe homosexuality is bad because it violates some sort of religious dogma taboo, then knock yourself out. You just can’t use your religious belief – which is based on nothing but dogma and bald assertion – to legislate.

That’s not remotely taking away your rights. In fact, it preserves your rights because it protects you from other religious groups trying to legislate their dogma.

Two responses to this:

1. why, exactly, can’t we legislate on the basis of religious belief? Who says? It’s been done in the US for two and a half centuries now. Need some examples? The separation of church and state is strictly about the state not being allowed to name an official, state religion.
2. you’re setting up a false dichotomy between religion and reason. I do not believe in spite of my reason…in fact, I believe because of my reason.