Catholicism and the Gay Gene

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hope1960
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
That’s the point - you’re trying to make “psychological” mean something like “diagnoseable mental disorder” or something, and that’s plain old not what it means here. It just means “thing in the brain.” All attraction is psychological.
 
Yes.

I’m not saying anything major here. I’m saying sexual attraction is something that is experienced primarily within the brain (although it does have a physical component), and thus it’s a thing that’s psychological. Just like my “psychological state” can refer simply to whether I’m happy or sad or tired or whatever, without any of those being pathological.
 
And when you’re saying that I’m “trying to make ‘psychological’ mean something like ‘diagnosable mental disorder’ and that’s plain old not what it means here,” you’re talking about my comments on the Catechism using the word psychological, right?
 
Last edited:
Right. “Psychological” is just a reference to how attraction happens.
 
Hey, thank you for your patience. Not everybody on here is patient, and all they want to do is argue.
 
Last edited:
Hope1960 said:
Hey, thank you for your patience. Not everybody on here is patient, and all they want to do is argue.
Click to expand...
I wonder why? You keep asking the same thing over and over, even in more than one thread.
We give you the same answer but you won’t accept it.
We even tell you that what you are asking is irrelevant because it won’t change the teaching of the Church because an infallible teaching cannot be changed.
 
That’s nice, but the article I posted was written more recently, hence its information is more in line with what science is currently thinking.
 
Last edited:
If all the answers were the same there’d be no need for me to keep asking.
 
Hope1960 said:
the article I posted was written more recently, hence its information is more in line with what science is currently thinking.
Click to expand...
Recency of investigation is not itself a measure of quality or reliability.
 
Most people are well aware that in science, the more current the thinking, the more likely it is to be closer to accuracy.
 
Hope1960 said:
Most people are well aware that in science, the more current the thinking, the more likely it is to be closer to accuracy.
Click to expand...
No, I’d suggest most people don’t think that is true in complex issues (and certainly not in the behavioural sciences) nor do I think that the date of publication is a guide to reliability. Or are you saying that any study in 2018, or 2019, or … that reports something at odds with your Dec 2017 reference would invalidate the conclusions from 2017? I don’t agree.

It is very difficult to come to definitive conclusions in some areas, and studies may continue to produce inconsistent conclusions for decades.
 
Last edited:
Science “says” a lot of things. Sex outside of the marriage between 1 man and 1 women is sin. Trust the Bible. God is willing, wanting and able to save your soul for all eternity. “Science” can not!
 
Two threads. The second wasn’t intended to be a duplicate of the first, but rather to ask a question about something mentioned on the first without derailing the thread.
 
Hope1960 said:
Two threads. The second wasn’t intended to be a duplicate of the first, but rather to ask a question about something mentioned on the first without derailing the thread.
Click to expand...
Why can’t you understand that answers to the questions you are asking do not in any shape or form impact the infallible teaching of the Church?
If a gay gene is discovered tomorrow so what. Zero impact on Church teaching!!
 
Hope1960 said:
If God doesnt make mistakes, couldn’t one say His making a gay gene, (which the article is my OP, sounds like is possible,) is a mistake?
Click to expand...
I think I read that a persons genetic makeup is subject to the behaviors of their particular ancestors. For example, the genetic makeup of a person who’s grandparents experienced famine may make them vulnerable to obesity.
I’m no scientist but this seems to offer evidence that a person’s genetic makeup can make them vulnerable to same sex attraction.

Theologically it implies, not that God made a mistake, but that the human genome, like the body it’self, subjects the intellect to the powers of nature.
 
He needs to be prepared to deal with and handle his skeletons beforehand and during the marriage, or is a great danger his wounds will lash out into problems. we tend to have an ongoing need for male friendships, and so that should not be neglected while entering a marriage, or loneliness could drive us back into homosexual desperation.And I think it would generally be a bad idea to enter into a relationship with absolutely no sexual chemisty. But assuming some chemistry happens, its definately a possibility.

Wait a minute, a ssa male and a ssa female? I missed that part. I really don’t know. I don’t understand female ssa, but possibly the combined uncomplimentary emotional issues of both partners, could make it pretty difficult.
 
That doesn’t answer the question…I think Pianistclare wrapped it all up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top