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

  • Thread starter Thread starter AmateurPianist
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
larkin31 said:
We don’t know what precisely causes sexual orientation of any kind. There has been no conclusive determination: nothing determined, nothing ruled out. The RCC states this quite clearly, and they are correct.
Click to expand...
This is contrary to what The Catholc Medical Association states, and contrary to your claim “that is not what they say”.

I’ve provided a link to what the Catholc Medical Association states, please do the same for “what the RCC states”:
  1. The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
Click to expand...
Note, they may not “choose” their condition, but developmental and social factors, etc would also be not be considered “chosen”.

I can’t find anything anywhere to support the case that the RCC teaches it is an “inherited”(genetic) trait.
 
scipio337 said:
This is contrary to what The Catholc Medical Association states, and contrary to your claim “that is not what they say”.

I’ve provided a link to what the Catholc Medical Association states, please do the same for “what the RCC states”:

Note, they may not “choose” their condition, but developmental and social factors, etc would also be not be considered “chosen”.

I can’t find anything anywhere to support the case that the RCC teaches it is an “inherited”(genetic) trait.
Click to expand...
who said “inherited”??? I sure did not. What/whom are you quoting?
 
scipio337 said:
This is contrary to what The Catholc Medical Association states, and contrary to your claim “that is not what they say”.

I’ve provided a link to what the Catholc Medical Association states, please do the same for “what the RCC states”:
Click to expand...
Someone else here quoted the Bishop’s letter from 2006 on homosexuality. I don’;t remember which of the 5 anti-gay threads here it was in, but that is where I read it. Not enough Catholics here, however, appear to be reading it also.
 
edwest2 said:
“Not born that way”

narth.com/docs/hope.html

God bless,
Ed
Click to expand...
You are a snake with a forked tongue

Does your church not call intentional deceit, particularly the subtle insidious kinds, a sin? Didn’t Jesus save special criticism for the educated purveyors of falsehoods?

Here is the NARTH position statement, in its entirety, on the causes of homosexuality:
NARTH agrees with the American Psychological Association that “biological, psychological and social factors” shape sexual identity at an early age for most people.
But the difference is one of emphasis. We place more emphasis on the psychological (family, peer and social) influences, while the American Psychological Association emphasizes biological influences–and has shown no interest in (indeed, a hostility toward) investigating those same psychological and social influences.
Click to expand...
There is no such thing as a “gay gene” and there is no evidence to support the idea that homosexuality is simply genetic. However, biological influences may indeed influence some people toward homosexuality; recent studies point to prenatal-hormonal influences, especially in men, that result in a low-masculinized brain; also, there may be genetic factors in some people – both of which would affect gender identity, and therefore sexual orientation. But none of these factors mean that homosexuality is normal and a part of human design, or that it is inevitable in such people, or that it is unchangeable.
Click to expand...
Numerous examples exist of people who have successfully modified their sexual behavior, identity, and arousal or fantasies.
Click to expand...
 
larkin31 said:
You are a snake with a forked tongue

Does your church not call intentional deceit, particularly the subtle insidious kinds, a sin? Didn’t Jesus save special criticism for the educated purveyors of falsehoods?

Here is the NARTH position statement, in its entirety, on the causes of homosexuality:
Click to expand...
See the pamphlet I provided (sorry, the .pdf doesn’t lend to cutting and pasting text). In question two, they all but rule out any biological predispositions. Its also footnoted to what I suppose is a supporting study, but the footnotes weren’t part of the pamphlet.

cathmed.org/assets/files/H&H%20Selection.pdf

I found it under the “position papers”, last on the list.

cathmed.org/issues_resources/publications/position_papers/
 
larkin31 said:
who said “inherited”??? I sure did not. What/whom are you quoting?
Click to expand...
Sorry, I didn’t think it was that large of a leap from “born that way” to “inherited” (genetic). I guess a more accurate term would be “biological factors”.
 
scipio337 said:
See the pamphlet I provided (sorry, the .pdf doesn’t lend to cutting and pasting text). In question two, they all but rule out any biological predispositions. Its also footnoted to what I suppose is a supporting study, but the footnotes weren’t part of the pamphlet.

cathmed.org/assets/files/H&H%20Selection.pdf

I found it under the “position papers”, last on the list.

cathmed.org/issues_resources/publications/position_papers/
Click to expand...
They state that there is no evidence for a “gay gene”. That is accurate. No one has discovered/identified such a thing. Even for heterosexuality, no one claims that there is a single gene that determines it.
 
scipio337 said:
Sorry, I didn’t think it was that large of a leap from “born that way” to “inherited” (genetic). I guess a more accurate term would be “biological factors”.
Click to expand...
The RCC does acknowledge likely biological factors that influence sexuality. So I am not sure what you mean now.
 
larkin31 said:
They state that there is no evidence for a “gay gene”. That is accurate. No one has discovered/identified such a thing. Even for heterosexuality, no one claims that there is a single gene that determines it.
Click to expand...
But did you notice the (what could be intentional) exclusion of any mention of possible biological factors? In the 2nd question, “What is the cause”. All of the reasons listed are developmental/social/psychological.

And again, if you claim “The RCC does acknowledge likely biological factors” please point out where the Church does so. I’m not aware that the Church has, just that the causes are “not fully known”, etc…
 
scipio337 said:
But did you notice the (what could be intentional) exclusion of any mention of possible biological factors? In the 2nd question, “What is the cause”. All of the reasons listed are developmental/social/psychological.

And again, if you claim “The RCC does acknowledge likely biological factors” please point out where the Church does so. I’m not aware that the Church has, just that the causes are “not fully known”, etc…
Click to expand...
I said this already!

The Bishops’ Letter of 2006 on homosexuality. It is on one of these anti-gay threads (they have been proliferating). I don’t remember which one. I clicked on the link and read the letter. A catholic posted it, but I don’t remember which thread…
 
larkin31 said:
I said this already!

The Bishops’ Letter of 2006 on homosexuality. It is on one of these anti-gay threads (they have been proliferating). I don’t remember which one. I clicked on the link and read the letter. A catholic posted it, but I don’t remember which thread…
Click to expand...
This one does a little bit, but is from 1993.
…The medical and behavioral sciences have not been able to determine what factors of genetics, hormones or variation in psychosocial upbringing cause a person to be homosexual.
Click to expand...
ewtn.com/library/BISHOPS/DAILY.HTM

I’m having a tough time finding it. Is it neccessary to call these “anti-gay” threads? I think that is more than a little unfair.
 
larkin31 said:
How many gays come to them for their supportive welcoming tone? “Rainbow Welcome Wagon”?
Click to expand...
Do you honestly think them “anti-gay”, or “anti homesexual act”?

I’ve seen quite a bit of support here for those who say they have SSA, and want to overcome it, or live a chaste life.
 
Since the name of this website is Catholic Answers, I can only say this: Natural Moral Law
 
scipio337 said:
Do you honestly think them “anti-gay”, or “anti homesexual act”?

I’ve seen quite a bit of support here for those who say they have SSA, and want to overcome it, or live a chaste life.
Click to expand...
How many have said that?

Yes, I am sincere when I call their tone “anti-gay.” And the ones with the greatest fears/dislikes tend to be the ones who repeat the criticisms most often.

Shall we look back over the posts? Actually, I really don’t want to. Nearly all the threads are started by Catholics to reinforce the message of sin.

sin sin sin
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top