Article on biological influences for homosexuality

  • Thread starter Thread starter Riley259
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
ega:
I suspect you ae not considering how arbitary the rules of sin are…but no matter…
In Natural Law rules concerning morals are really not that arbitrary. For example, as I said, all of us are called to chastity. And if you think that is easy for a heterosexual unmarried man any more than for a homosexual, you are living in some kind of dream world. You might want to read up on it. May I suggest this very good resource site: catholic.com

Also, please take me up on my offer and go to the apologetics forum and post some questions. You might be pleasently surprised with the answers you get.
 
40.png
Lizzie:
Bizarre argument!

There is no such thing as free will?. Human behavior is governed by an enzyme?
Maybe someone should tell the BTK killer. He can use it as a defense. “The enzyme made me do it”. What utter non-sense! What people won’t come up with to excuse sinful behavior.
 
40.png
gilliam:
Maybe someone should tell the BTK killer. He can use it as a defense. “The enzyme made me do it”. What utter non-sense! What people won’t come up with to excuse sinful behavior.
Bingo!

Should we look for ‘phenotypes’ that cause or result in mortal and/or venial sin? The Catholic Church is far more liberating because it sensibly teaches us about free will.
 
40.png
ega:
Well, you are very welcome.

I do know the catholic position on sin, and it is a source of constant pain that many of your faith forget we are all sinners. And I agree that it is not being tempted that is the sin, but giving in.

But how fair is it for a God to say ‘this is a sin’ and then build people who cannot fulfiill their emotional and physical needs because of that rule?

You might as well make 2% of the populuation radion breathers and blame them for not being able to breathe.

I am much for the covenant view. That it is the emotion that counts, the pure love.
How fair is it for disabled people to have legs but still not be able to walk if they are confined to a wheelchair. You could cite countless examples of individual sufferings on this earth and ask why. The Catholic faith has an answer in the mystery and meaning of suffering - it has a redemptive purpose and can ultimately bring a person to a place of holiness and sanctification that they never would have obtained under different conditions - and it can help other people achieve sanctification. These ideas transcend a secular materialists worldview which is that life and suffering are meaningless - well Catholics believe there’s a purpose. A good book that explains this well from a Catholic perspective is Why Bad Things Happen to Good Catholics by Henri Morice. People with same-sex attractions also suffer and they’re called to be chaste but for those who choose, it is possible to recover their natural heterosexual tendencies. Just take a look at the studies by Robert Spitzer. And finally, homosexuality can be prevented if the cues and signs are recognized early enough in life. I realize this last statement is the big white elephant in the room but review the work of Nicolosi for verification.
 
40.png
gilliam:
In Natural Law rules concerning morals are really not that arbitrary.
Natural law arguments are known not to work. ‘An is does not imply an ought’ at its most basic level.
For example, as I said, all of us are called to chastity.
I would claim the opposite, reproductio is the overwhelming call for the vest majority
And if you think that is easy for a heterosexual unmarried man any more than for a homosexual, you are living in some kind of dream world.
A perversion of my point. My point is you have no proof that each person is equipped to resist the temptation they suffer. No comparison between sexualities is implicit in this statement.
 
40.png
gilliam:
Maybe someone should tell the BTK killer. He can use it as a defense. “The enzyme made me do it”. What utter non-sense! What people won’t come up with to excuse sinful behavior.
Could you give any proof what so over of free-will? And I wont accept subjective experience or philosophical debate. Only biological data and empirical studies will do.
 
The problem is more subtle than that. A disabled person who has legs looks like a problem of blind chance. A homosexual person is denied completion by the Church because of the rules of that Church, rules that the church can change if it gave up its natural law fallacies.

Many Christians have no trouble with homosexuality at all, and many argue for the covenant view of relationships, so the Churchs view is clearly movable.
 
40.png
ega:
Oh, by the way.

Gay men have been poisoned, electrocuted, imprisoned, beaten, beheaded and much much more to stop them. Men and women have been poisoned, electrocuted, imprisoned, beaten, beheaded and much much more to stop them from doing many things that society feels is wrong. Laws natural and man made are for the population on whole.

Theories about manipulating the minds of children are bourne out by one study. This study showed that homosexuality can be changed only if see change is possible if we do not reinforce the disordered behavior in the person (1) the person trying to change is deeply unhappy about being gay and (20 if that person is religious. Moral and religious teachings can make this change possible.
Causality isnt clear, they may want to change because religionists have inculcated a deep sense of self hatred.
Why self hatred? Why not self respect or self love? Could it just be that the person involved figured out that change was possible and then wanted to change? That is, theists (and many medical doctors feel this is not nature but nurture just because pressure from those disordered changed the DSM does not mean that “most” agreed with the change) attack their natural god given nature until they need change to feel…
GOD BLESS
 
40.png
ega:
Could you give any proof what so over of free-will? And I wont accept subjective experience or philosophical debate. Only biological data and empirical studies will do.
This is the humanists way of saying if it feels good do it. See what this had gotten us in society since the 1960s. If this is what you need then you have no evidence to prove yourself right or to prove others wrong.

GOD BLESS
 
40.png
ega:
Could you give any proof what so over of free-will? And I wont accept subjective experience or philosophical debate. Only biological data and empirical studies will do.
Post your questions in the apologetics forum and I will
 
40.png
ega:
My point is you have no proof that each person is equipped to resist the temptation they suffer. .
This is true. The Catholic Church recognised that some people may be ignorant as to the sinfulness of their actions, or unable to control their impulses, and for this reason they are not guilty of mortal sin even if the action is, objectively, gravely immoral. For this reason we cannot know for certain state of someone else’s soul, though we can say the action is immoral and, as you said yourself, dangerous.
40.png
ega:
Anal sex is dangerous
However, people will not be motivated to resist temptation if they are not made aware of the reasons for doing so. It is good to motivate others to avoid behaviors which are harmful to themselves or others.
 
40.png
ega:
Could you give any proof what so over of free-will? And I wont accept subjective experience or philosophical debate. Only biological data and empirical studies will do.
You’re begging the question here. Also, your statement of only biological data and empirical studies is self-refuting. Again, refer to Moreland’s Scaling the Secular City for a discussion of this.
 
40.png
ega:
The problem is more subtle than that. A disabled person who has legs looks like a problem of blind chance. A homosexual person is denied completion by the Church because of the rules of that Church, rules that the church can change if it gave up its natural law fallacies.

Many Christians have no trouble with homosexuality at all, and many argue for the covenant view of relationships, so the Churchs view is clearly movable.
It’s not surprising that you are a true relativist. The Church believes that such as thing as objective truth does exist. Those “rules” were given to us by God Himself and they’re for our own happiness. Look what’s happened during the last 40 years as proof that breaking those rules is correlated with the breaking down of the culture and society. When sexual contact is done only in the context of a sacramental marriage with its’ unitive and procreative aspects, both the person and society benefits. This can not happen in a homosexually active relationship. For two good discussions of these points see the links below:

crisismagazine.com/january2004/leslie.htm

catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0411bt.asp
 
40.png
Riley259:
Look what’s happened during the last 40 years as proof that breaking those rules is correlated with the breaking down of the culture and society. When sexual contact is done only in the context of a sacramental marriage with its’ unitive and procreative aspects, both the person and society benefits.
I expect that having a sense of proportion is helpful when discussing the ‘breakdownn of society’. Certainly we can say that ciountries that have legislated for homosexual equality are actually very peaceful in general, such as Canada, Spain and Belgium. Countries that take liberal rational measures to counter drug problems have lower rates of drug related crime.

If there is an issue it rests, I suspect, with the economic pressure the peole who live in that society suffer (in western cultures at least).

In the last 40 years a lot of moral advances have been made; racism, sexism, violence towards women, child abuse and similar activities have been dealt with and cnotinue to be dealt with.

Culture continues. People write, sing, make films and TV shows, peoprty is written and recited, pictures are drawn and painted, science advances, diseases are cured money continues to lubricate the wheels of the economy, the political systems still exists, as does the justice system.

In general you are fairly safe, looting, riots, murders, and rape continue to be fairly low level (compare and contrast to war zones, where even 'civilised types like US and UK soldier indulge in torture and abuse).

Lets not have hysteria and panic over those things that simply make you feel uncomfortable or reject book-learnt morality.

We have brains as well as hormones.

The last 40 years is nothing special.
 
40.png
Riley259:
You’re begging the question here. Also, your statement of only biological data and empirical studies is self-refuting. Again, refer to Moreland’s Scaling the Secular City for a discussion of this.
E V I D E N C E

what is difficult about providing evidence of free will?
 
40.png
BlindSheep:
However, people will not be motivated to resist temptation if they are not made aware of the reasons for doing so. It is good to motivate others to avoid behaviors which are harmful to themselves or others.
Heterosexual sex is also dangerous, even in marriage. Childbirth is exceptionally dangerous for women and children ( but easy in other species…suggesting that reproduction is not as well supported as Natural Lawyers thing).

But that is an aside. i have yet to read a single proper argument against homosexuality. So
 
40.png
ega:
Heterosexual sex is also dangerous, even in marriage. Childbirth is exceptionally dangerous for women and children ( but easy in other species…suggesting that reproduction is not as well supported as Natural Lawyers thing).
Some things are far more dangerous than others, ega. You know that. And, by the way, childbirth is not “exceptionally dangerous” as you say. What statistic do you base that on, or is it just something you believe from hearing about all those “lifesaving” cesareans (hint: money), or the third world women who die in childbirth (hint: malnutrition)? If you wish to discuss childbirth, I have done plenty of research and had plenty of personal experience, so be prepared to back your opinions up.
Heterosexual sex is dangerous? Not really. Not if it is monogamous. There is a slightly higher chance of yeast infection, nothing to compare with the risks of sodomy. Even promiscuous heterosexual behavior carries less risk of STCs than sodomy. And, yes, of course there are more heterosexuals with HIV. There are more heterosexuals, period. A chaste gay man has almost no risk of HIV, of course.
As far as the “reproduction is not well supported…” … how many people on earth right now? How did they get here? How many other mammalian species number 6-7 billion - with a 9 month gestational period and one offspring at a time? Really, think before you type.
But that is an aside. i have yet to read a single proper argument against homosexuality. So
What happened? I will return with evidence on the dangers, assuming that is what you are referring to.
 
40.png
BlindSheep:
Some things are far more dangerous than others, ega. You know that. And, by the way, childbirth is not “exceptionally dangerous” as you say. What statistic do you base that on, or is it just something you believe from hearing about all those “lifesaving” cesareans (hint: money), or the third world women who die in childbirth (hint: malnutrition)?
LOL, try intraspecioes comparisons, you know, biology? Humans are exceptional in their difficulty when compared to virtually any other creature that gives birth to live young. That’s cbecause we have big brains and big heads.

Arguments from fear have no bearing on this debate. Many people drive cars.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top