C
Claudden
Guest
Oops - I apologize, InSearch… I read your response from my email which doesn’t clearly label who wrote the post. I meant to respond to your post - sorry to both you AND Tau Wolf.
- Status
G
genevievelives
Guest
Has a geneticist made a first-generation post on this forum yet with regard to this topic? Otherwise, wouldn’t this all be opinion?
gen
gen
I
InSearchofGrace
Guest
That would be nice, wouldn’t it, a self-identified but anonymous geneticist, perhaps retired, who would devote unpaid consulting hours in a voluntary public forum that does not charge its members? As you can see, members, as in other internet sites, give little or no personal information for obvious reasons.
However, if you hang around enough, you would have an idea who holds better than just opinions - with one or more of these: knowledge and/or experience in a given topic or specialty, use of good reason and reasoning power, and can point to credible sources. You will have to read through long posts and threads, though, to assess which members have such qualities. I find that there is a lot of talent in CAF, behind the ‘handles’.
Not to address you in particular, or for posters participating / reading this thread alone, it would help if new and old members alike make note of CAF’s mission statement:Catholic Answers is an apostolate dedicated to serving Christ by bringing the fullness of Catholic truth to the world. We help good Catholics become better Catholics, bring former Catholics “home,” and lead non-Catholics into the fullness of thefaith.
That’s kinda OT, but could not resist the plug for CAF.
Peace,
.
L
larkin31
Guest
Not all Catholics at CA proficient in science and genetics are free to post on these threads.
G
genevievelives
Guest
H
Hadrianus
Guest
Actually, all the research currently available is pretty much out there and has been posted by people on this thread. Just to clarify, so far at least no geneticist has said there is a ‘gay gene’, that was media hype. There is evidence though to suggest a strong biological component, which is not the same thing as a gene.
M
mark_a
Guest
Adulterers, fornicators, bisexuals, contraceptors, people who have sex with animals, people that have sex with family, rapists, child molesters, necrophiliacs. and anyone else I’ve left out all have a heavy cross.
Why would homosexuals be exempt?
L
larkin31
Guest
you left out “heterosexuals”
they clearly, also, have a genetic component of their sexual orientation. No?
L
larkin31
Guest
Indeed.
But we all know that the “biological component” is very likely traceable through proteins or hormones back to genetic triggers. This is true of all “biological components” that we know–we just have not traced all of the routes yet (by far have not).
H
Hadrianus
Guest
larkin,
Yes, that makes sense. I think the reason so many people have a hard time accepting the possibility of a biological/genetic component is that they don't really understand Catholic doctrine on the relationship between God and man. Human nature is damaged and we are all born with a strong disposition to sin. From the perspective of theology a biological origin for homosexuality makes just as much sense, maybe even more, than a psychological one.
M
mark_a
Guest
Heterosexuals are included in adulterers, fornicators, and (duh) contraceptors.
The subject of genetics, like global warming, is well beyond me.
H
Hadrianus
Guest
Mark A,
It's fairly obvious that homosexuals will have a heavier cross than fornicators, adulterers and contracepters. Just think about it. I don't know enough about necrophiliacs to hazard a guess there.
M
mark_a
Guest
I do not disagree.
L
larkin31
Guest
It’s important to include them in a thread discussing whether sexual orientation has a genetic component. “Adultery” is an action that one cannot be “born with.” “Heterosexuality” is an orientation than twin and birth order studies have suggested may have a genetic (biologically based) component and thus one might be “born with it” in that contributive degree.
How do you think that you can offer an informed answer on the thread topic, then?
M
mark_a
Guest
I’m not so sure that “genetic” and “born with” are interchangable. For all I know, homosexual inclinations are caused by the mother’s diet. Or the father’s diet, or maybe even his lack of involvement in his kid’s life.
I see no requirement in the forum rules that my opinions must be “informed”.
Here’s another opinion:
Sinful heterosexuals (adulterers, fornicators, contraceptors. . . . ) obsess about homosexuals in the culture to divert attention away from themselves.
L
larkin31
Guest
Is this because you do not read studies on the topic?
True. There is none. Perhaps it is an ethic that goes beyond the “law.”
Interesting. But I am more interested in the empirical nature of the thread topic: are homosexuals born with the disorder? This question means that either in the genetics of the new-born or in the functioning of the organs of the body (tissues, nerves, blood, brain, etc), that there is already in that newborn the biological seed of the homosexual orientation. That is a great, empirical question. And some scientists are investigating it. IF you are interested, you should find some of the studies and read them.
T
The_Old_Medic
Guest
Homosexuals are born with an attraction to people of the same sex.
BUT, just as we are born inclined to sin, we are expected to do our best not to do so. Homosexuals are expected by the Church not ti give in to their desires, and sin.
But, just as the majority of heterosexuals do not remain Virgins till after they are married, most homosexuals do not remain inactive sexually either. The call of the Church is to stop behaving like that (either homosexually or heterosexually) to remain chaste, and to only have sexual relations within marriage between a man and a woman.
There is absolutely no sin in being attracted to ones own sex, just as there is no sin in being attracted to the opposite sex. It is only when you follow through on those attractions, to the point of sexual contact, that sin occurs.
And that applies to EVERYONE that is not married to a member of the opposite sex. It also applies to married people who have sex with others.
BUT, just as we are born inclined to sin, we are expected to do our best not to do so. Homosexuals are expected by the Church not ti give in to their desires, and sin.
But, just as the majority of heterosexuals do not remain Virgins till after they are married, most homosexuals do not remain inactive sexually either. The call of the Church is to stop behaving like that (either homosexually or heterosexually) to remain chaste, and to only have sexual relations within marriage between a man and a woman.
There is absolutely no sin in being attracted to ones own sex, just as there is no sin in being attracted to the opposite sex. It is only when you follow through on those attractions, to the point of sexual contact, that sin occurs.
And that applies to EVERYONE that is not married to a member of the opposite sex. It also applies to married people who have sex with others.
H
Hadrianus
Guest
Agreed, and it also applies to married people who practice contraception. There is a lot of talk about a homosexual agenda, but the real elephant in the room is contraception which separates sexuality from its purpose.
I
InSearchofGrace
Guest
The promotion of and engaging in homosexuality and contraception/sterilization are both against natural law and Catholic teaching as they are not unitive and procreative. There was a time when it seemed that there was a glut of threads on homosexuality. But I’m not sure if homosexuality really gets more billing than contraception in these debates.
It seems that Catholics in this forum regard the big 3 [abortion, contraception, gay marriage (normalization of homosexual acts or behavior)] ALL serious individual sins, thereby NOT TO BE PROMOTED, making it to 3 out of the 5 non-negotiables of Catholic Answers in the voter’s guide. Just survey what’s being debated fiercely in Moral Theology, Social Justice, Catholic News, and occasionally in the other sub-forums. Abortion is currently “on fire” because of the upcoming March for Life at the capitol and Walk for Life in SFO next week, and with the current news break on Philadelphia abortionist Kermit Gosnell. The annual marches are usually held around Jan. 22, the date in 1973 of the Supreme Court decision on Roe v Wade. The other 2 non-negotiables, embryonic stem cell research and euthanasia (although PAD is already legal in Washington, Oregon, and Montana) are in the stage past conceptualization in the country, with the possibility of being implemented, depending on which candidates voters elect to national and state office and if the elected officials get “the stars aligned” in legislation.
.
H
Hadrianus
Guest
Agreed. I didn’t actually mean on this forum, I meant in society generally, I should have been clearer.
- Status