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

[Conservative7]

Hello, this is my first post. I’ve been browsing this site for a few days, and I felt compelled to respond to this thread.

First of all, the notion that homosexuality is an immutable, or unchangeable characteristic, such as race is simply a falsehood. Several studies support my view, but in my opinion the most damning evidence are studies of identical twins. Inashmuch as identical twins share the exact same genetic code, if homosexuality were genetic every heterosexual person with an identical twin would share his heterosexuality with the twin, and the same with homosexuality. There have been two major studies done of this situation, and in neither case did that prediction come true. On average, it was found that the likelihood that a homosexual twin’s brother would be homosexual was 38%, and 30% for lesbianism. (narth.com/docs/whitehead2.html).

Usually those who posit a genetic basis to homosexuality will point to studies that supposedly demonstrate differences between the heterosexual brain and the homosexual brain. Even if one were to overlook the methodological flaws in many of these studies, they prove nothing, because the brain structure can respond and change to experiences and thoughts, which is how habits are formed. So the question is which came first, the chicken or the egg. (narth.com/docs/scrutinized.html(http://www.defendthefamily.com/_docs/resources/1889235.pdf

To those who say that homosexuality is a normal variant of human sexuality; a matter of taste, just like one’s favorite flavor of ice cream, then tell me what is the underlying purpose of sex itself? Of course you and I know this. Homosexuality cannot propagate the species, it has no use other than the participants momentary pleasure, and perhaps, a bonding experience. However, pleasure is not the ultimate goal, just as it is not in eating or other human desires, it is an incentive (if sex were painful, after all, then our species would be extinct.). Now to be sure, heterosexuals engage in sexual behavior for the sake of pleasure alone, acts such as (not to be graphic) oral sex, anal sex, masturbation, contraception, etc. However the underlying, unconscious biological imperative is reproduction; these unchaste individuals simply “take advantage” of the pleasure available to them via sex, just as many overweight people eat when they do not need anymore sustenance, they are in essence tricking their brains. Since “gay sex” has nothing to do, and can never have anything to do, with reproduction, then the onus is on the homosexuals to provide a biological reason why they engage in the behavior, and why “sexual orientations” such as necrophilia, zoophilia, coprophilia, paedophilia etc. are to be considered intrinsically as perverted, and why homosexuality is exempt.

 

[sedonaman]

… the onus is on the homosexuals to provide a biological reason why they engage in the behavior, and why “sexual orientations” such as necrophilia, zoophilia, coprophilia, paedophilia etc. are to be considered intrinsically as perverted, and why homosexuality is exempt.

Yes, and the advocates of same-sex “marriage” have been very skillful in maneuvering us into addressing “why not?” instead of their justifying “why?”.

Good post, and welcome to CAF.

 

[josie_L]

Grace & Peace!

Josie, the catechism makes a distinction between what sexuality is and the ways in which it is expressed properly or improperly given that understanding of what sexuality is. Sexuality, then, is a given. It is a fact. It’s not something that’s controlled. It doesn’t ebb and flow. I don’t have more sexuality on Monday that I need to control and less on Friday so its easier to deal with. It’s a part of what we are as human beings. More specifically, it is the part from which our relational capacity springs.

It is more appropriate to speak of controlling sexual impulses or moderating sexual desire, but controlling sexuality makes no sense. The relevant passage from the catechism is:
2332 *Sexuality *affects all aspects of the human person in the unity of his body and soul. It especially concerns affectivity, the capacity to love and to procreate, and in a more general way the aptitude for forming bonds of communion with others.
Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

You found that under article 6: The Sixth Commandment (You shall not commit adultery) followed by **"Male and Female He Created Them **. . . ". As with the paragraph in question, if “sexuality affects all aspects of the human person in the unity of his body and soul” then you can understand why the Catechism teaches that practicing homosexuality is a big no no (it affects the state of your soul negatively). Moreover, homosexuality cannot affect all aspects of the human person because homosexuals cannot pro-create. You also say that sexuality is a fact, and that it cannot be controlled, but this would be false because nothing in the catechism suggests that we cannot control our sexuality, i.e, you can be chaste. Check the following paragraphs (2337) under the heading of “The Vocation of Chastity”. I think you are manipulating the words of the Catechism as well as disregarding what it actually says about homosexuality.

 

[josie_L]

Hello, this is my first post. I’ve been browsing this site for a few days, and I felt compelled to respond to this thread.

First of all, the notion that homosexuality is an immutable, or unchangeable characteristic, such as race is simply a falsehood. Several studies support my view, but in my opinion the most damning evidence are studies of identical twins. Inashmuch as identical twins share the exact same genetic code, if homosexuality were genetic every heterosexual person with an identical twin would share his heterosexuality with the twin, and the same with homosexuality. There have been two major studies done of this situation, and in neither case did that prediction come true. On average, it was found that the likelihood that a homosexual twin’s brother would be homosexual was 38%, and 30% for lesbianism. (narth.com/docs/whitehead2.html).

Usually those who posit a genetic basis to homosexuality will point to studies that supposedly demonstrate differences between the heterosexual brain and the homosexual brain. Even if one were to overlook the methodological flaws in many of these studies, they prove nothing, because the brain structure can respond and change to experiences and thoughts, which is how habits are formed. So the question is which came first, the chicken or the egg. (narth.com/docs/scrutinized.html(http://www.defendthefamily.com/_docs/resources/1889235.pdf

To those who say that homosexuality is a normal variant of human sexuality; a matter of taste, just like one’s favorite flavor of ice cream, then tell me what is the underlying purpose of sex itself? Of course you and I know this. Homosexuality cannot propagate the species, it has no use other than the participants momentary pleasure, and perhaps, a bonding experience. However, pleasure is not the ultimate goal, just as it is not in eating or other human desires, it is an incentive (if sex were painful, after all, then our species would be extinct.). Now to be sure, heterosexuals engage in sexual behavior for the sake of pleasure alone, acts such as (not to be graphic) oral sex, anal sex, masturbation, contraception, etc. However the underlying, unconscious biological imperative is reproduction; these unchaste individuals simply “take advantage” of the pleasure available to them via sex, just as many overweight people eat when they do not need anymore sustenance, they are in essence tricking their brains. Since “gay sex” has nothing to do, and can never have anything to do, with reproduction, then the onus is on the homosexuals to provide a biological reason why they engage in the behavior, and why “sexual orientations” such as necrophilia, zoophilia, coprophilia, paedophilia etc. are to be considered intrinsically as perverted, and why homosexuality is exempt.

Very well said.

 

[larkin31]

Your contribution is to play the anti-Semite and Nazi-sympathizer cards in the same post?

Why do you post here? Just to tell religious people to stay away from lawmaking?

God bless,
Ed

nope

he wrote: “keep your religious dogma out of laws”

see the difference?

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Hello, this is my first post. I’ve been browsing this site for a few days, and I felt compelled to respond to this thread.

Welcome, Conservative7!

First of all, the notion that homosexuality is an immutable, or unchangeable characteristic, such as race is simply a falsehood.

If you’re saying that homosexuality is not heritable, you may be right. The best evidence suggests that there may be a series of factors which determine sexuality: heritable predisposition, biological factors (such as hormone levels in the womb and the various studies regarding the increasing likelihood of the younger of a series of brothers to be homosexual), and environment. I think we approach sexuality with a very mechanistic mindset if we insist that there must be clear singular cause and effect. Not everything works that way.

Several studies support my view, but in my opinion the most damning evidence are studies of identical twins. … (narth.com/docs/whitehead2.html).

I believe twin concordance for homosexuality was found to mirror (or be slighter better than) concordance for handedness–that is, similar statistics prevail for discordant handedness in monozygotic twin pairs.

NARTH is not a particularly reliable source, here. It clearly has an agenda and is not unbiased. That is not to say that bias is always bad–just to say that NARTH is hardly a mainstream sort of peer-review type of medical association.

To those who say that homosexuality is a normal variant of human sexuality; a matter of taste, just like one’s favorite flavor of ice cream, then tell me what is the underlying purpose of sex itself?

I think you are confused here with regard to the connection between what is a matter of taste and what is a naturally occuring variant of something. And I think your confusion stems from your assumption that there is a connection at all. In fact, in saying the one or the other, one is saying two very different things. I hope you see that.

Regarding the purpose of sex–honestly, you’ll find that it has changed throughout history. The Greeks largely believed that sex was about friendship before the Pythagoreans believed it was only about animal reproduction and should be limited to specific times and seasons determined by astrology and numerology which would ensure the conception of illustrious children, but after one or two children were had, it should be done away with entirely–we’re not animals, after all. Studies suggest that it relates both to procreation and to a unitive purpose, in the case of the latter, promoting not just familial well-being, but social cohesion, as in the case of the legendarily promiscuous bonobos. I tend to agree that the purpose of sex is, legitimately, either. Rome seems to agree, but subordinates the unitive to the procreative purposes.

But let me re-iterate, we’re not just talking about gay sex here, but whether or not homosexuals can actually have loving and romantic relationships, even if sex is not involved. To that extent, sex is a moot point. But let’s go on, anwyay…

Homosexuality cannot propagate the species, it has no use other than the participants momentary pleasure, and perhaps, a bonding experience.

Homosexuality may not propagate the species, but there are some evolutionary biologists who suggest that there is a larger social “purpose” to homosexuality and homosexual behaviors which range from social bonding/group cohesion to caregiving and breeding strategies. All of which have an effect on how a species develops and evolves. This is an interesting article: guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2009/jun/17/same-sex-relationships-gay-animals

We’ll skip over your obvious cynicism regarding the unitive purpose of sex.

However, pleasure is not the ultimate goal,

Never said it was. Nor have I written anywhere on this thread that sex is necessary in a homosexual relationship–I have only written about the importance of romantic and loving relationships even for homosexuals.

(CONTINUED…)

 

[Deo_Volente]

(…CONTINUED AND COMPLETED)

However the underlying, unconscious biological imperative is reproduction; these unchaste individuals simply “take advantage” of the pleasure available to them via sex, just as many overweight people eat when they do not need anymore sustenance, they are in essence tricking their brains.

If the underlying, unconscious imperative is reproduction, and you celebrate that, why do you rail against the unchaste if the imperative is so important? If you wish to honor the imperatives of reproduction, polygamy works much better than monogamy, and promiscuity works even better than polygamy. In fact, the quickness of the male orgasm and the possibility of multiple female orgasms (and some additional biological data–I can find articles if you need them) suggests to some biologists that, sexually, the human body was designed for multiple male partners for every woman, with sex being more of a communal event, not a private one. Indeed, such a scenario maximizes the possibility of conception and increases what is known as sperm competition, which relates, of course, to evolution. Our current understanding of sex as private and monogamous is relatively new, compared to the age of our species.

…“gay sex” has nothing to do, and can never have anything to do, with reproduction

Perhaps not directly, but the evidence is mounting that it has a lot to do with the development of our species from an evolutionary perspective.

Generally, though, I don’t so much focus on the sex. For me, all of this is about whether or not it is possible for homosexuals to have loving, romantic relationships. The love bit is more important to me than the sex bit, to be honest, and seems to point, as well, toward the larger purpose / Divine relationship to which we are constitutionally disposed.

To Publisher: Thanks for your kind words, Friend! I’m not sure I deserve them, but…thank you.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[josie_L]

Friend, you have given very thurough insight into this issue. For Catholics it is the opinion of their magisterium which governs their belief concerning same sex marriage…they are bound by their religious convictions that the position of their church is God’s position since the church speaks for God on such matters.

You and I use scripture and tradition coupled with reason to assit in determining the will of God for our lives and how our sexuality is expressed.

Really, and what pray tell is in sacred scripture/tradition that allows for homosexuality?

Edit: Even if I wasn’t Catholic I would know that homosexuality is immoral as per the Judeo-Christian point of view, i.e., magisterium or not.

 

[AmateurPianist]

Really, and what pray tell is in sacred scripture/tradition that allows for homosexuality?

Now I don’t believe in tradition in the same sense as Catholicism.

But I do believe in it in the sense that if you have on one hand the clear witness of the church of Jesus Christ for 2000 years (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant) and on the other hand a nice, new invention of say 50 years or so of age, that you go with the clear, historic witness of the church as a nobrainer.

Oh for those interested, a federal judge overturned California’s ban on gay marriage.

 

[Publisher]

Really, and what pray tell is in sacred scripture/tradition that allows for homosexuality?

Edit: Even if I wasn’t Catholic I would know that homosexuality is immoral as per the Judeo-Christian point of view, i.e., magisterium or not.

Well I am not Catholic…but I am a Christian…and I do not believe scripture supports the conservative views of sexuality. The scriptures are grounded and rooted in historical context and cultural norms which none of us…no matter how much we claim to the contrary adhere to.

The scriptures do not address homosexuality as it is known and understood today. The scriptures address cultural and historical beliefs set within a certian point in time.

 

[larkin31]

California will now be conducting marriages for gays again…

 

[cecilia97]

oh, well, on female ordination I think that the Church will have great pressure and that it will split over this. I give it 50 years.

No our belief is that, even if we wanted to ordain women, we could not. Women are not the proper matter for the sacrament, just as pizza is not the proper matter for the sacrament of the Eucharist. It’s just not physically possible to ordain a female priest. You can try, but it doesn’t make her a priest.

If there ever was a “split” about this, it would mean that the people doing the ordination have excommunicated themselves from the Church. Some foolish people are already going down that road and the Church has been very firm about denouncing their actions.

I’m willing to bet my entire retirement savings that the Church will never speak in favor of female ordination.

 

[larkin31]

No our belief is that, even if we wanted to ordain women, we could not. Women are not the proper matter for the sacrament, just as pizza is not the proper matter for the sacrament of the Eucharist. It’s just not physically possible to ordain a female priest. You can try, but it doesn’t make her a priest.

If there ever was a “split” about this, it would mean that the people doing the ordination have excommunicated themselves from the Church. Some foolish people are already going down that road and the Church has been very firm about denouncing their actions.

I’m willing to bet my entire retirement savings that the Church will never speak in favor of female ordination.

I agree. It will be another great schism. But a core will never change. The table of choices to potential believers will have another dish to choose from. All is good!

 

[AmateurPianist]

California will now be conducting marriages for gays again…

Not so fast.

The judge put a stay on the ruling.

 

[larkin31]

Not so fast.

The judge put a stay on the ruling.

true!

 

[edwest2]

nope

he wrote: “keep your religious dogma out of laws”

see the difference?

I sure don’t. A small group has decided that ‘those people’ should not have a voice. Whenever ‘those people’ need to be excluded, there are always problems.

All we have here is a clash of Orthodoxies.

God bless,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Well I am not Catholic…but I am a Christian…and I do not believe scripture supports the conservative views of sexuality. The scriptures are grounded and rooted in historical context and cultural norms which none of us…no matter how much we claim to the contrary adhere to.

The scriptures do not address homosexuality as it is known and understood today. The scriptures address cultural and historical beliefs set within a certian point in time.

Please reread the Old Testament. The Israelites were in constant trouble from God for their sexual ‘experimenting.’ The Catholic Church, today, has addressed this issue.

Whatever we sow to the flesh we sow to corruption. That is a fact.

God bless,
Ed

 

[cecilia97]

Grace & Peace!

Cecilia, you must realize that that’s an unsatisfactory response.

No, I do not agree. You assume much here.

Here’s the issue–keep in mind we’re not talking about people having sex, but about people’s capacity to have loving, romantic relationships:

I believe this is a euphemism to deflect argument. Who can argue with loving romanticism?! No…that’s not all we’re talking about.

1: On the biology side: Either homosexuality is a naturally occurring minority variant of basic human sexuality or it is a disordered heterosexuality. Science suggests the former, Rome the latter.

This is a false dichotomy with which I do not agree. If you read my post from very early in the thread, you’ll see that I mentioned several examples of disorders which are naturally occurring: psychological, physical, and emotional disorders. Cancer is natural AND disordered. Cocaine addiction is natural AND disordered. The Catholic Church, in fact, does not make statements about whether or not homosexuality is something we’re born with. Homosexual activity is still sinful no matter what its etiology. You misunderstand the Catholic position.

2: On the ethical side: Either homosexual relationships are capable of nurturing virtue and human flourishing or they are not. Experience and observation suggest the former, Rome suggests the latter.

Experience and observation are not the authority here. The authority is our Creator. Also, human flourishing does not necessarily equal virtue. It depends how you define both terms.

Regarding God’s law, I think we can safely assume that it would neither be contrary to nature,

This is a serious error. We have a fallen nature which is certainly not 100% in line with God’s law and has not been since Eden.

nor would it obstruct virtue. Insofar as we misapprehend nature, or insofar as we fail to recognize virtue, then it will be that much easier to ascribe our short-sightedness to God’s law when push comes to shove. Note that societal or cultural norms do not enter into the picture except insofar as they lead us to misconstrue nature and/or virtue.

This is not news. Serious practice of the Catholic faith is largely against societal norms.

Having said that, I realize that it works both ways. I realize as well that you are in a position with regard to what is authoritative and what is authority–a position particularly complicated for Roman Catholics–in which I do not find myself. I refer to the fact that neither scripture, nor tradition, are authorities in either of our communions, but that they are authoritative. (We can debate the ways in which they are authoritative, but I’ll leave that for another day.) Regading authority, however, the structure of your communion locates it almost exclusively in the magisterium. Naturally, therefore, a decree of the magisterium is the law of God and must be seen as such. For better or worse, authority in my communion is not so easily sourced (though it seems to be something like reason [understood as both the faculty with which the contents of scripture and tradition must be interpreted, as well as the evidence of experience, rationally understood, against which scripture and tradition must be interpreted] in relationship with the Church [the voice of which, in terms of my communion, must be understood to be one’s local / national church as the communion itself does not exercise local or national authority–influence is another matter altogether], if not the Church [hopefully informed by reason] exclusively).

I’m glad you understand that I would agree with the Church’s position on this no matter what my personal feelings because I’m no longer a cafeteria Catholic, thanks be to God.

A resort to an understanding of the Law of God reads to me, therefore, like an appeal to authority in order to actually dodge the questions/issues at hand. I understand that you will likely respect that I might have this reading, but will not find yourself in a position to respond to it, given your understanding of authority. I, in turn, have to respect that, though I may find it frustrating.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

I believe I have thoroughly treated the issues at hand in many posts on this thread. Your post, however, does not convince me that God’s law can be correctly interpreted in the way you suggest.

It is a good thing that you have a relationship with Christ, and that you are trying to understand righteousness (or believe that you already do). But I am curious how your bible presents 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.

God bless,

 

[Prodigal_Son]

It is what I am saying. Besides, even greed is a form of excess pursuit of pleasure. Even worship of God is a form of pursuit of pleasure. It is all we know. We all seek it. And sometimes we screw it up.

Standing in front of art.
Reading a poem.
Listening to Mozart.

I think those things are also nourishment for our soul – or, if you like, education in beauty.

Modernists taught that beauty is useless. But that is quite wrong. Nothing useless is beautiful. Beauty introduces us to God, and this is a powerful use indeed!

I still can’t think of an example where the pure and simple pursuit of pleasure is good. But I’m not convinced it’s always wrong, either. So I am noncommittal, I guess.

 

[larkin31]

Please reread the Old Testament. The Israelites were in constant trouble from God for their sexual ‘experimenting.’ The Catholic Church, today, has addressed this issue.

Whatever we sow to the flesh we sow to corruption. That is a fact.

Do you practice mortification?