Being gay is in your genes

[JamesCaruso]

They’re not equivalent.

“Gay” was first redefined as a hateful pejorative AGAINST homosexuals, and they successfully managed to turn it from a pejorative into a neutral adjective. If you’re so mad about the redefinition of “gay,” you should look at those who encouraged the police brutality of the 1960s, not the gay community.

Long, long before gay was a hateful pejorative against homosexuals, it had nothing to do with homosexuals, either negative nor positive. I’m not mad about anything, but I think it’s sad that this word is ruined either because some people hated homosexuals or because homosexuals wanted to reclaim the word as a nice way to say homosexual. Now hardly anyone uses the word for its former meaning because it carries with it so much baggage. It is also sad that the word marriage is being ruined by the adding on of foreign meanings it never had before, and which so redefines the word in the public mind that we must now clarify what we mean whenever we use it. It is difficult to reconcile traditional marriage, which is a holy institution created by God, with same sex unions, which are by their nature perverse and unnatural.

 

[JamesCaruso]

Once upon a time it included relationships between people of the same sex deeper than marriage (in a totally nonsexual way).

I dispute that. For example, I never heard of the love between David and Jonathan termed a marriage. Maybe some poet used it figuratively, but I know of no general use of the term marriage to indicate a same sex relationship, either sexual or platonic. If you are talking about some rarely used meaning, that is not what I am saying. The redefinition of the word today is so gross as to destroy the former meaning, not add to it.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

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.

As another person who experiences attraction to people of the same sex, let me say that your logic doesn’t work here. You assume, without proving it, that if being gay is not a choice, then gay people are born gay. But there’s another possibility. Homosexual attractions could be caused in another way.

Or another possibility: it’s normal enough for people to be attracted to people of the same sex, just as the temptation to all other kinds of sin is normal enough – vanity, arrogance, covetousness, wrath. No one would say that a person is cursed because he or she is naturally prone to arrogance.

 

[Hopey]

Many of us (gay people) agree that God didn’t create us to sin.

Although we were not created to sin, God allowed, through free will, sin to enter. Adam and Eve committed the first Sin, Original Sin, through disobedience. Although Baptism removes this Original Sin, which is passed down to everyone, there remains in everyone a tendency to sin.

We believe that we aren’t sinning.

It would depend on what you are doing as that can and should be judged. We can become a stumbling block for our brothers and sisters in Christ by giving the allusion that we are doing something, scandal.

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.

The Church does hold that SSA is not a sin but the acts are.

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.

If your love for a spouse is the same kind of love a man/woman give, actions not just mere friendship, then He would not bless the relationship. He would call you, as others, out of sin which the actions.

We live in a fallen and broken world. We are all given a cross to bear. His grace is always sufficient in overcoming whatever may be our inclinations and/or sin.

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.

He has given you a cross and His commands. He has promised you he will not abandon you if you try to do his will. Because you are afflicted, you should count yourself as similar to Christ in that affliction (not sin). You are given the means to get to heaven. He does not bless something that is against his laws - the acts and pretending to have a spouse who is of the same sex.

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.

For whatever reason you have been given this should not discourage you in your walk in holiness. Whether it was there from the very beginning or whether you had an inclination and then proceeded with it, acts, and now find yourself unable to overcome those tendencies, you still have recourse to God for help in carrying your cross.
As to scientist, etc, as long as their advice helps you in accepting the things you can not change and accepting them, not acting on them, is how you should take their studies. Society will lead you down a wide road of destruction. You will find many who will commend you in sin and call it good. Be not fooled.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

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.

Of course he didn’t create you to sin; all of us are born subject to concupiscence.

1. Love between two men or two women is in fact higher than marriage, far beyond it; a relationship that can persevere beyond death, it is however a nonsexual relationship. You, like almost everyone else have been taken for a ride and convinced that marriage is the highest good, it is not, celibacy is.
2. Suffering has a spiritually redemptive value.

I dispute that. For example, I never heard of the love between David and Jonathan termed a marriage. Maybe some poet used it figuratively, but I know of no general use of the term marriage to indicate a same sex relationship, either sexual or platonic. If you are talking about some rarely used meaning, that is not what I am saying. The redefinition of the word today is so gross as to destroy the former meaning, not add to it.

Middle Ages and early Renaissance.

 

[Catolico65]

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.

Thanks for clearly establishing what many here on CAF deny, the logic that if homosexual desires are innate that God must have a good plan for them.

Nonetheless, this is based on incorrect information. the fact is science has not proven that homosexuality is innate at all. People unfortunately have taken non conclusive results from scientific studies as definitive, and they are not. In fact, science is now clearly point toward a psychological source for SSA, something which the Catholic Church has always taught.

This is good news my friend because this means that God can relieve this of us. I apologize on the behalf of people who unwittingly confuse you and tell you your condition is biological and thus permanent in this life, it is not. They are in fact a large part of the cause of your confusion and suffering, and may God have mercy on them.

Regarding homosexual desires, they are not the only desires that people do not choose to have. Many people suffer from desires to have sex with children, animals and even inanimate objects. Just because they have not chosen these desires does not mean they are somehow innate and biological. There are many factors that can cause people to be confused. This happened to me as well because I was sexually abused. This has also happened to my godson who went to a very liberal Episcopalian school that had embraced homosexuality as normal and had indoctrinated him. The fact is people, especially children, are prone to suggestion when they have self hate or other issues.

Nonetheless, with Jesus all is forgiven. Our first step is to recognize we have a problem. Then we need to be humble enough to ask for help and forgiveness and wait for results. In other words we may struggle with our sin for years and it may appear little is changing but it will happen. It has happened for me and millions others. Paz.

 

[JamesCaruso]

Of course he didn’t create you to sin; all of us are born subject to concupiscence.

1. Love between two men or two women is in fact higher than marriage, far beyond it; a relationship that can persevere beyond death, it is however a nonsexual relationship. You, like almost everyone else have been taken for a ride and convinced that marriage is the highest good, it is not, celibacy is.
2. Suffering has a spiritually redemptive value.

Middle Ages and early Renaissance.

Then I assume the Church/Christians successfully staved off that use of the word and its original usage was restored?

 

[Catolico65]

This thread should be a good example of the real consequences of teaching that homosexuality is or very well could be innate. My advice is to remember that in order to really be effective in leading people to Christ we need to put our personal opinions aside, whether or admit our lack of understanding, and defer to His Church, after all that is what He created it for. Otherwise we can actually lead people from Christ as this misdirected advice is rooted in personal vanity as opposed to service to God and love. Paz.

 

[Catolico65]

Once upon a time marriage referred to more things than just a man and a woman uniting together, as did wed/wedding/wedded.

Please post your reference.

 

[LisaA]

I dispute that. For example, I never heard of the love between David and Jonathan termed a marriage. Maybe some poet used it figuratively, but I know of no general use of the term marriage to indicate a same sex relationship, either sexual or platonic. If you are talking about some rarely used meaning, that is not what I am saying. The redefinition of the word today is so gross as to destroy the former meaning, not add to it.

Exactly right. Homosexualists desperately want to co-opt the word marriage because they think if they call something by a specific name, that it is magically transformed. They have now taken the unique characteristic of the word and opened it to whatever an activist group can force through the courts or the court of public opinion.

Further as you noted, while there are incredibly deep friendships between those of the same sex, and even in societies where homosexual activity was acceptable in certain circumstances, the word marriage always referred to male/female with intent of procreation. Read about ancient Greece where the male/male bond and friendship was considered higher than the relationship between men and women even if married. But despite the closeness of the bond, despite the incidence of homosexual activity in some instances, the Greeks never mistook these friendships for marriage which had a specific societal role.

As with the word “gay” which has effectively been ruined (now we don our 'bright" apparel anoyone?) we are now ruining the word marriage which has become effectively meaningless with activist homosexuals, activist judges and frankly irresponsible men and women who didn’t honor what they once held dear.

Lisa

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Then I assume the Church/Christians successfully staved off that use of the word and its original usage was restored?

Given that both uses predate the Norman invasion of England I don’t think we can say which is the original for wed as the OED lists them both as circa 1000. For marriage it shows it going back to the 14th century.

This thread should be a good example of the real consequences of teaching that homosexuality is or very well could be innate. My advice is to remember that in order to really be effective in leading people to Christ we need to put our personal opinions aside, whether or admit our lack of understanding, and defer to His Church, after all that is what He created it for. Otherwise we can actually lead people from Christ as this misdirected advice is rooted in personal vanity as opposed to service to God and love. Paz.

How pleasant sounding, but in reality vacuous a thing to say.

 

[pnewton]

1. Love between two men or two women is in fact higher than marriage,

Holy Matrimony is one of the seven Sacraments that bestow the grace of God.

Now if you are using the word “love” in the since of the theological virtue, I think you are correct. However, in the context of homosexuality, or any sort of romantic or filial love, it is not higher than marriage

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Holy Matrimony is one of the seven Sacraments that bestow the grace of God.

Now if you are using the word “love” in the since of the theological virtue, I think you are correct. However, in the context of homosexuality, or any sort of romantic or filial love, it is not higher than marriage

Yes I am using it in the context of theological virtue, a friendship founded in pursuit of what is good and true, a friendship involving Christ.

I concede I rather poorly phrased it, I meant love between two people of the same sex being greater than love between spouses, see Jonathan and David.

In medieval English Catholicism love between true friends was regarded as more enduring than marriage as marriage is dissolved at death whereas love between true friends would persist beyond it and they would affirm the other’s fidelity to Christ on Judgement Day.

 

[pnewton]

Yes I am using it in the context of theological virtue, a friendship founded in pursuit of what is good and true, a friendship involving Christ.

The theological virtue has little to do with friendship. On this level, one can love enemies as well as friends. Romance would not even be a consideration. This has nothing to do with whether one is homosexual, heterosexual or anything else. It is something that comes only from God and allows us to put the others above ourselves. Paul said Love is the greatest of all, but again, this would not be anything romantic or filial.

 

[LisaA]

Yes I am using it in the context of theological virtue, a friendship founded in pursuit of what is good and true, a friendship involving Christ.

I concede I rather poorly phrased it, I meant love between two people of the same sex being greater than love between spouses, see Jonathan and David.

In medieval English Catholicism love between true friends was regarded as more enduring than marriage as marriage is dissolved at death whereas love between true friends would persist beyond it and they would affirm the other’s fidelity to Christ on Judgement Day.

Not exactly a reference but more a report on various philosophies. In Ancient Greece the love between two men was considered the highest of all loves. Sometimes it included a sexual component but not always, maybe not even in most cases.

Marriage however was between men and women, despite the attitude toward male/male friendships.

Thus to claim this is “higher” is simply spouting an opinion. No single sex friendship or partnership no matter how close can EVER create a new life. Thus I think that male/female love as expressed in Sacramental marriage where two literally and figuratively become one is a much more SIGNIFICANT relationship than any same sex relationship.

Lisa

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Not exactly a reference but more a report on various philosophies. In Ancient Greece the love between two men was considered the highest of all loves. Sometimes it included a sexual component but not always, maybe not even in most cases.

Marriage however was between men and women, despite the attitude toward male/male friendships.

Thus to claim this is “higher” is simply spouting an opinion. No single sex friendship or partnership no matter how close can EVER create a new life. Thus I think that male/female love as expressed in Sacramental marriage where two literally and figuratively become one is a much more SIGNIFICANT relationship than any same sex relationship.

Lisa

Marriage isn’t the highest vocation, celibacy is.

 

[LisaA]

Marriage isn’t the highest vocation, celibacy is.

You have some really interesting opinions. I thought male/male or female female friendships were the highest form of relationship. Do you really think that celibacy is the highest vocation? I would suggest that creating new life in the context of a sacramental marriage has all of the elements of the Trinity, honors the incredible privilege of being a co-creator of a human being, and seems to be far more in keeping God’s will for humanity than being a celibate (which is laudable but not necessarily the highest vocation). Check Genesis for some support of my theory here…you might find I’m right

Lisa

 

[Monkey1976]

You have some really interesting opinions. I thought male/male or female female friendships were the highest form of relationship. Do you really think that celibacy is the highest vocation? I would suggest that creating new life in the context of a sacramental marriage has all of the elements of the Trinity, honors the incredible privilege of being a co-creator of a human being, and seems to be far more in keeping God’s will for humanity than being a celibate (which is laudable but not necessarily the highest vocation). Check Genesis for some support of my theory here…you might find I’m right

Lisa

Bl. John Paul II would seem to agree with those “interesting opinions”:
Bl. John Paul II:

While the lay life has a particular mission of ensuring that the Gospel message is proclaimed in the temporal sphere, in the sphere of ecclesial communion an indispensable ministry is carried out by those in Holy Orders, and in a special way by Bishops. The latter have the task of guiding the People of God by the teaching of the word, the administration of the sacraments and the exercise of sacred power in the service of ecclesial communion, which is an organic communion, hierarchically structured. As a way of showing forth the Church’s holiness, it is to be recognized that the consecrated life, which mirrors Christ’s own way of life, has an objective superiority.

 

[Catolico65]

Marriage isn’t the highest vocation, celibacy is.

There you go again.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

You have some really interesting opinions. I thought male/male or female female friendships were the highest form of relationship. Do you really think that celibacy is the highest vocation? I would suggest that creating new life in the context of a sacramental marriage has all of the elements of the Trinity, honors the incredible privilege of being a co-creator of a human being, and seems to be far more in keeping God’s will for humanity than being a celibate (which is laudable but not necessarily the highest vocation). Check Genesis for some support of my theory here…you might find I’m right

Lisa

THE COUNCIL OF TRENT Session XXIV:

Can. 10 If anyone says that the married state excels the state of virginity or celibacy, and that it is better and happier to be united in matrimony than to remain in virginity or celibacy,[15] let him be anathema.

source
1 Corinthians 7:

32 But I would have you to be without solicitude. He that is without a wife, is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God.
33 But he that is with a wife, is solicitous for the things of the world, how he may please his wife: and he is divided.
34 And the unmarried woman and the virgin thinketh on the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. But she that is married thinketh on the things of the world, how she may please her husband.
35 And this I speak for your profit: not to cast a snare upon you; but for that which is decent, and which may give you power to attend upon the Lord, without impediment.

Given that it is heresy to believe that marriage is better than celibacy I am rather comfortable in believing that celibacy is better than marriage.