Being gay is in your genes

[Catolico65]

You also made the claim that Norton’s article was based upon Navarrete’s paper. To quote: "What I stated was that the original document used as a reference for the Bishop’s letter and cited in NCR article is the document that Navarrete prepared
(underlining mine)

You repeated that false statement later in the same post. To quote: “Given that there is nothing in the Navarrete that speaks about the supposed therapeutic benefits of sex change surgery and the CC clear stance on this matter we should be able to assume with confidence that the lay reporter made an interpretation error in the NCR article.”
(underlining mine)

Pope Benedict’s statement did not deal with the therapeutic nature of sex change surgery. What he did say is that we, as humans, do not have right to pick and choose our genders. He specifically rejects the notion that gender exists in a multitude of shades, much as in the recent Facebook decision to allow 50+ gender choices. Pope Benedict emphasized the binary of male and female. What he said was that our culture should not allow us to create a gender identify separate from what God has given us. Pope Benedict did not address whether a biological basis for transsexuality exists, or whether surgery to correct such a biological error should be permitted.

As for Fr. Saunder’s article, I have a great deal of respect for the author. He has been a priest for many years, he is generally well-informed, and has written much for the lay public. He seems a compassionate man. However, the visceral disgust he feels for the topic of sex change surgery is hard to miss. I think that clouds his analysis, and we can discuss that in a separate exchange if you like. I think it doing so would promote a clear discussion of his article.

For the reasons I have explained, I disagree with your claim that the Church has an official stance on therapeutic sex change.

With all due respect if there was any doubt about my statement, I clarified them. It is unkind of you to continue to interpret on my behalf. .

As far as your attempt to diminish Pope Benedict’s comments they fall short as his comments are clear. Here is is again:

*If the Church speaks of the nature of the human being as man and woman, and demands that this order of creation be respected, this is not some antiquated metaphysics. What is involved here is faith in the Creator and a readiness to listen to the “language” of creation. To disregard this would be the self-destruction of man himself, and hence the destruction of God’s own work. *

Furthermore, your ad hominem attack on Father Saunder’s opinion as a church official is problematic to say the least. Nonetheless, Church dogma requires we take his comments with more weight than a layperson’s, as in this case John Norton (who by the way no longer works for the Catholic Church.)

 

[Catolico65]

Why is it so terrible to admit that people are also naturally sexually attracted to people of the same sex?

Because there is nothing in Scripture, nor science that support this.

Also, given the illogic that God created men to naturally desire men yet they cannot act on it has led millions away from God we should take heed, not only for the obvious implication but because we as intelligent beings are capable of logic and should use it.

 

[pnewton]

Because there is nothing in Scripture, nor science that support this.

Also, given the illogic that God created men to naturally desire men yet they cannot act on it has led millions away from God we should take heed, not only for the obvious implication but because we as intelligent beings are capable of logic and should use it.

I think the word “natural” is being used in two different ways. Perhaps it would be better to say that same sex attraction is* innate* in some people, the flavor their concupiscence takes. The Bible states that this type of attraction is unnatural, what we would also call “disordered”.

 

[Catolico65]

I think the word “natural” is being used in two different ways. Perhaps it would be better to say that same sex attraction is* innate* in some people, the flavor their concupiscence takes. The Bible states that this type of attraction is unnatural, what we would also call “disordered”.

Given that this is a Catholic forum and the use of “natural” in the context of teachings it makes more sense to use this connotation.

I also propose that some people (but not all) would use other interpretations of “natural” to obscure the facts of the matter (in the eyes of the Church) with the goal of causing doubt in other’s minds regarding Church teaching thus advancing their goal of changing opinions on this matter. This happens all the time especially in Protestant churches.

 

[pnewton]

I also propose that some people (but not all) would use other interpretations of “natural” to obscure the facts of the matter (in the eyes of the Church) with the goal of causing doubt in other’s minds regarding Church teaching thus advancing their goal of changing opinions on this matter. This happens all the time especially in Protestant churches.

“Natural” is also heard from the secular world as a sound-alike for normal. Yes, we are Catholics, but we are also a product of our society and we sometimes fall into habits of similar word usage. This is why I am a fiend for defining terms. Even among Catholics, we sometimes use words sloppily.

 

[Catolico65]

“Natural” is also heard from the secular world as a sound-alike for normal. Yes, we are Catholics, but we are also a product of our society and we sometimes fall into habits of similar word usage. This is why I am a fiend for defining terms. Even among Catholics, we sometimes use words sloppily.

IMO we should always use the Catholic connotations of terms to be consistent and shouldn’t imo defer to posters who use worldly terms because the sad fact is that some people will take advantage of ambiguities to try to undermine God’s Word.

As far as being a stickler for semantics or syntax, being bilingual has made that almost impossible for me. I would just rather rephrase any statement I made than try to defend it’s syntax.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

In 2013, Mclemore did a propaganda gay song called ‘I can’t change even if I wanted to.’ That song was praised as it implied gays and lesbians are born this way. Imagine if he did a song about that with regard to drugs, drunkards or alcoholics because the same lyrics can be for that.

1. the song is called “Same Love”
2. his stage name is Macklemore
3. the song was released in 2012
4. propaganda isn’t necessarily negative (see congregatio de propaganda fide)
5. not being able to change≠born that way.

It must be called mutilation with dangerous hormones. Most transexuals were sexually abused in childhood which messed up their minds. I’m against sex changes for same reason as oppose trying to make a White person Black or viceversa because they think theyre another race, it doesn’t take an expert to know that hormone shots + the maiming surgery damages body. If they knew how to change skin color, they would be making justifications for changing color of people who think they are of other race as they now do for sex changes. Transexuals have antisocial personalities because the hormone shots damage mind. The lifetime of hormone shots are linked to cancer.

1. those hormones aren’t dangerous especially compared to their therapeutic effect
2. [citation needed] with regards to “Most transexuals were sexually abused in childhood which messed up their minds…”
3. race is a social construct
4. the Tyra Banks show is not the real world
5. the hormones are usually taken as pills
6. the hormones don’t damage the mind

1 would hope that feminists would oppose the mutilation, yet most feminists are not condemning genital and breast mutilation as what happened to Chastity where her healthy breasts were mutilated, dangerous hormone shots and genitals mutilated. Ted W. Lieu who sponsored the California law is against therapy for gays and lesbians who want to be straight as California law banned it for minors. Don’t be surprised if in future, Ted W. Lieu or those like him would ban therapy altogether for gays/lesbianism and the 2012 law is first step. Ted W. Lieu is likely an apologist for sex changes and Ted W. Lieu sees nothing wrong with giving a kid hormones to make them fake opposite sex members.

1. That law is designed to prevent parents from forcing their children into it; they are free to do it after they legally become an adult.
2. assuming someone’s position is something based on little to no evidence and then attacking them for holding a belief there is no proof they hold is rather dodgy.
3. I really doubt he supports children transitioning under 16, probably just beta blockers which delay puberty and allow the children to choose when they are adults without having to go through a traumatic puberty.

Those denying link between childhood sex abuse and adult gay/lesbian behaviors are usually gay, lesbian or a sympathizer. But any behavior including sexual can be learned. Sex abuse in youth can cause people to behave in ways. It’s not controversial to talk of nightmares, suicides, bedwetting often a result of sex abuse in youth. Yet when 1 talks gay/lesbian behaviors in adulthood because they learned this sexual behavior by being repeatedly molested, then gays with politically safe psychologists complain. The politically correct psychologists who deny this know it’s possible for a boy to turn out gay as a result of childhood sex abuse, yet deny what they know is true. Of course, not all who are sexually abused in youth become gay in adulthood-but the risk is higher.

1. the conversation isn’t about actions, it is about orientations.

If a person has homosexual activities with a young boy, then they are a homosexual pedofile. Jerreth Sandusky is a homosexual pedofile though he was married to a woman. But homosexual groups say that he is not gay when his conduct defines him as such. APA uses a different defintion of what homosexual and heterosexual is. A person who has same sex relations with a young boy would be a homosexual pedofile because of his sexual conduct. Many gays and lesbians who commit suicide do so because they often were childhood sex abuse victims and have other copathologies such as antisocial conduct, drugs, etc. Homosexual groups will use the mantra societal attitudes but it’s more complicated. People who have suffered sex abuse (which many gays and lesbians have) in youth often have problems in adulthood and this includes suicides.

1. homosexuality isn’t defined on behavior, it is defined on attraction.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Because there is nothing in Scripture, nor science that support this.

Also, given the illogic that God created men to naturally desire men yet they cannot act on it has led millions away from God we should take heed, not only for the obvious implication but because we as intelligent beings are capable of logic and should use it.

Catolico65,

Is it natural for people to steal? To fornicate? To envy?

 

[Catolico65]

Catolico65,

Is it natural for people to steal? To fornicate? To envy?

With all due respect I am not interested in getting in an argument about semantics.

Nonetheless, the Catechism and dogma are clear regarding what are the ramifications of original sin and that homosexuality is not the equivalent of heterosexuality but more equal to pedophilia or other aberrations. Homosexual desires are very disordered and when it is constant belies a serious problem. Not too worry, Christ blood takes away our guilty conscience so no justification of our condition is necessary. In fact justification only hinders our cleansing and healing.

 

[SMGS127]

With all due respect I am not interested in getting in an argument about semantics.

Nonetheless, the Catechism and dogma are clear regarding what are the ramifications of original sin and that homosexuality is not the equivalent of heterosexuality but more equal to pedophilia or other aberrations. Homosexual desires are very disordered and when it is constant belies a serious problem. Not too worry, Christ blood takes away our guilty conscience so no justification of our condition is necessary. In fact justification only hinders our cleansing and healing.

No one is justifying homosexual acts Catolico. None of the people you’re responding to are, or would ever intend that. Saying that SSAs could be innate in no way hinders our relationship with Christ if we value our relationship with Christ over those SSAs. Sure, they make our lives a bit tougher if we only have SSAs with no OSAs, but that doesn’t mean they hinder our relationship with Christ! . The real good news is that anyone can follow Christ by their actions, no matter what their internal attractions are. Anyone can choose Christ over their attractions. There is no need to deny them if one has them, though.

I can’t tell you how many kids I’ve seen despair over their SSAs simply because their parents won’t accept them as normal unless they remove them. All that focus does is lead them into a disbelief of religion. Kids need to be told that, even if they have SSAs, they can still follow Christ, and that their SSAs by themselves are not bad nor do they make them bad people. Honestly, if a kid is raised strongly Catholic, it is important to let them know that they are still welcome in the Church even with SSAs, and that only the acts themselves (or the action of lust) are immoral. You never want a child hating themselves because they feel they’re defying God simply by being attracted to people!

 

[JamesCaruso]

No one is justifying homosexual acts Catolico. None of the people you’re responding to are, or would ever intend that. Saying that SSAs could be innate in no way hinders our relationship with Christ if we value our relationship with Christ over those SSAs. Sure, they make our lives a bit tougher if we only have SSAs with no OSAs, but that doesn’t mean they hinder our relationship with Christ! . The real good news is that anyone can follow Christ by their actions, no matter what their internal attractions are. Anyone can choose Christ over their attractions. There is no need to deny them if one has them, though.

I can’t tell you how many kids I’ve seen despair over their SSAs simply because their parents won’t accept them as normal unless they remove them. All that focus does is lead them into a disbelief of religion. Kids need to be told that, even if they have SSAs, they can still follow Christ, and that their SSAs by themselves are not bad nor do they make them bad people. Honestly, if a kid is raised strongly Catholic, it is important to let them know that they are still welcome in the Church even with SSAs, and that only the acts themselves (or the action of lust) are immoral. You never want a child hating themselves because they feel they’re defying God simply by being attracted to people!

:thumbsup:I believe what you said is 100% in conformity with Church teaching. Any sense that those who have SSA are in any way inferior or that life is not worth living is from the devil. SSA is not even a temptation, it’s merely a predisposition. Temptations that arise from SSA are not sinful either. Only yielding to temptation is sinful and everyone born of woman has to deal with that.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

With all due respect I am not interested in getting in an argument about semantics.

I’m not arguing about semantics. Consider:

Suppose you say the desire to steal is natural. Then, by the same token, and in exactly the same way, I will say that same-sex attraction is natural. It’s not good, but it’s natural.

Now suppose you say the desire to steal is unnatural – presumably because stealing is not ultimately reconcilable with human happiness or goodness. By the same token, and in exactly the same way, I think same-sex attraction is unnatural.

What I wouldn’t understand is someone saying that the desire to steal is natural, and yet same-sex attraction is unnatural. Once you say that, you are baptizing certain sinful temptations in the waters of purity, and denying other temptations those same waters. That sounds like heresy to me. There is no theological difference between the desire to steal and desire to have sex with a person of the same sex. (Or if there is, it’s a difference of degree, not kind.) Both are perversions.

Nonetheless, the Catechism and dogma are clear regarding what are the ramifications of original sin and that homosexuality is not the equivalent of heterosexuality but more equal to pedophilia or other aberrations.

Pedophilia is just another temptation to sin, and it is perfectly ordinary. Sins come in all sorts of varieties, but all of these varieties are perfectly ordinary. None of these perversions are somehow more deeply awful than any other perversion. You can’t be special and remarkable by being a sinner, only by being a saint.

When I spank my child in anger, I am engaged in the sin of wrath, the same sin of Hitler, who perpetrated the Holocaust. The difference between me and Hitler is a difference of degree, not kind.

When a straight man masturbates, he is engaged in the sin of lust. This is the same sin as the worst homosexual offender alive – though there is quite a difference of degree here. But it’s lust both times, and lust is lust. There’s no eighth deadly sin of gaylust.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

SSA is not even a temptation, it’s merely a predisposition.

Good point. I glossed over this distinction above, but it is worth remembering.

 

[Catolico65]

No one is justifying homosexual acts Catolico.

No, but you are insinuating that homosexual desires are normal like heterosexual. They are not. They are disordered and unnatural just like other sexual disorders.

Saying that SSAs could be innate in no way hinders our relationship with Christ if we value our relationship with Christ over those SSAs. !

With all due respect stating or implying that SSA could be innate to people suffering from said is hurting them more than it is helping them. Why? It is simple logic that I have explained dozens of times. The fact that you won’t accept this fact has little to do with the reality that millions have been and continue to accept homosexuality as ordained by God based on it being innate. We have had numerous posters on this forum do this as well. Ignoring this won’t make it go away. I will pray for you to accept what God has made.

 

[Catolico65]

I’m not arguing about semantics. Consider:

Suppose you say the desire to steal is natural. Then, by the same token, and in exactly the same way, I will say that same-sex attraction is natural. It’s not good, but it’s natural.

Now suppose you say the desire to steal is unnatural – presumably because stealing is not ultimately reconcilable with human happiness or goodness. By the same token, and in exactly the same way, I think same-sex attraction is unnatural.

What I wouldn’t understand is someone saying that the desire to steal is natural, and yet same-sex attraction is unnatural. Once you say that, you are baptizing certain sinful temptations in the waters of purity, and denying other temptations those same waters. That sounds like heresy to me. There is no theological difference between the desire to steal and desire to have sex with a person of the same sex. (Or if there is, it’s a difference of degree, not kind.) Both are perversions.

Pedophilia is just another temptation to sin, and it is perfectly ordinary. Sins come in all sorts of varieties, but all of these varieties are perfectly ordinary. None of these perversions are somehow more deeply awful than any other perversion. You can’t be special and remarkable by being a sinner, only by being a saint.

When I spank my child in anger, I am engaged in the sin of wrath, the same sin of Hitler, who perpetrated the Holocaust. The difference between me and Hitler is a difference of degree, not kind.

When a straight man masturbates, he is engaged in the sin of lust. This is the same sin as the worst homosexual offender alive – though there is quite a difference of degree here. But it’s lust both times, and lust is lust. There’s no eighth deadly sin of gaylust.

With all due respect your insinuation that my commentaries “could” be heresy are projecting, baseless and uncharitable. To set the record straight, I will not disagree with CC dogma nor doctrine nor the Bible. I recommend you research the aforementioned so that you can understand my position. Start with the Old Testament.

 

[SMGS127]

No, but you are insinuating that homosexual desires are normal like heterosexual. They are not. They are disordered and unnatural just like other sexual disorders.

They are disordered and the result of original sin, yes. But I don’t tell someone born with a permanent birth defect that they have to change that in order to follow Christ, whatever that birth defect is . I’m not going to push someone to despair when the innateness of their condition makes no difference whatsoever.

The fact that you won’t accept this fact has little to do with the reality that millions have been and continue to accept homosexuality as ordained by God based on it being innate.

Usually as a result of people saying that they can’t believe it’s innate and be part of Catholicism. Which isn’t true. You can totally believe SSAs are an innate fact of life for yourself on this fallen Earth and be a practicing Catholic. Telling gay & lesbian kids otherwise leads them to permissive Protestant religions who will tell them what they want to hear, not what they need to hear.

Stop trying to force your personal, non-doctrinal beliefs on others just because you personally don’t like others’ beliefs. ** It is absolutely, 100%, completely okay for someone to believe their SSAs are innate and be a practicing Catholic.** Any statement to the contrary is false, period.

 

[Catolico65]

They are disordered and the result of original sin, yes. But I don’t tell someone born with a permanent birth defect that they have to change that in order to follow Christ, whatever that birth defect is . I’m not going to push someone to despair when the innateness of their condition makes no difference whatsoever.

The only biological birth defect that I am aware of can cause a person to “sin” is severe mental retardation, and even then it isn’t a sin because they were born without reason.

All other defects are of the psychologic variety, notwithstanding non conclusive “scientific” studies.

Regarding despairing, you are causing many people to despair because you insinuate that SSA is normal and in fact innate with little hope in their life to be healed.

I expect your personal condition has something to do with this. The fact is millions of people have had temporary deep seated SSA and plus you don’t know if you will always have them so you should give the latter facts and your Church’s teaching the benefit of the doubt over your personal opinion and results. That is what good soldiers do, submit. Not too worry, that is the real secret of healing. Paz.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

The only biological birth defect that I am aware of can cause a person to “sin” is severe mental retardation, and even then it isn’t a sin because they were born without reason.

All other defects are of the psychologic variety, notwithstanding non conclusive “scientific” studies.

Regarding despairing, you are causing many people to despair because you insinuate that SSA is normal and in fact innate with little hope in their life to be healed.

I expect your personal condition has something to do with this. The fact is millions of people have had temporary deep seated SSA and plus you don’t know if you will always have them so you should give the latter facts and your Church’s teaching the benefit of the doubt over your personal opinion and results. That is what good soldiers do, submit. Not too worry, that is the real secret of healing. Paz.

SSA doesn’t cause people to sin.

 

[Rau]

I had a crisis in college where my admiration for “real men” turned into something more, unwanted sexual thoughts and desires. I repented to God and asked for help and He did.

Is this the full extent of you involvement with homosexuality? If so, I now understand why you would stress that:

• Most people with SSA revert to heterosexuality;
• God willingly cures the problem if asked;

But I am left wondering whether:

• Your experience is typical of those suffering SSA;
• Your experience demonstrates much about the affliction that others suffer?
• Your appeal to God was any more sincere than that of the many others for whom SSA is an on-going Trial and who strive on a daily basis to remain chaste?

 

[Rau]

Many of us (gay people) agree that God didn’t create us to sin. We believe that we aren’t sinning. Obviously, you will dispute that, but to me, the fact that we were born with an attraction to people of the same gender is proof that it’s not a sin. Our logic is that God created us to love in a different way than you, and that there are only a few logical options: 1. God created us with an attraction for a reason, and as long as we are truly loving to our spouse, then he blesses our love. Or option 2. He is sadistic, and created us with a desire to love someone that we shouldn’t… There is no reason why a just and loving God would do such a thing, so we keep faith that God blesses our love.

Your idea that there is somehow a choice about these attractions is simply not based on reality. As someone who experiences them, I can tell you that for a fact… but if that’s not enough, there are actually plenty of scientists who agree, and who have studied the subject in depth.

I agree with you that there is no choice involved in deciding sexual orientation. The bulk of people just “become” attracted to the opposite sex, which (thankfully) fits with the requirements of propagation of the species and the sexual complementarity of our sex organs.

Choice comes along later when one decides how to live life, whether to accept Church teaching, and so on.

Where you lose me is in this idea that God creates a person and “decides” what sexual orientation to bestow. Do you also believe he decides to make this person blind, this person autistic, this person unusually tall, etc. etc. Why must there be a reason - attributed to God - for all things? Why did God make so many want to masturbate in their youth - are there just the same two options as you outlined above, that is: (1) he must want them to OR (2) he is sadistic.