Cause of homosexuality

[Sonic]

A pill to “cure” queer people… I hate to burst your bubble, but in my experience gay people are happy with who they are. It’s judgmental people who need a pill to cure discriminatory mindsets.

You a re way off base here. Buffalo did not say a “pill to cure queer people” or even Gay people. He said a pill to cure homosexuality. I refer you to Buffalo’s post cited below…

If there was a pill to cure homosexuality what do you think would happen? And why?

Dousias…

Homosexuality describes an action or series of actions performed by an individual. It does not describe a person. It describes what a person does. A person is called a Welder because they weld… not because they are a weld or because welding is part of their identity. The same applies to the term homosexual.

The term Gay refers to a movement, which is both political and sub-cultural. It does not mean a person with SSA. Gay includes many different sexual lifestyle groups working towards a common objective.

A person is an unique individual. They are not a “Gay” or a “Queer” or a “Homosexual”. These terms are misused quite badly and only leads to confusion in a discussion.

Since Buffalo was referring to a cure for an action, your admonishment of him on the basis of a “pill to cure” identity is redundant.

 

[Kevin42]

Homosexuality describes an action or series of actions performed by an individual. It does not describe a person.

The term Gay refers to a movement, which is both political and sub-cultural. It does not mean a person with SSA or a person committing a homosexual act.

A person is an unique individual. They are not a “Gay” or a “Queer” or a “Homosexual”. These terms are misused quite badly and only leads to confusion in a discussion.

Since Buffalo was referring to a cure for the action, your admonishment of him on the basis of a “pill to cure” identity is redundant.

As far as I am aware, your definitions do not fit the generally accepted definitions of homosexual, homosexuality, and gay. While you may take them to have alternative meanings, society at large (along with the dictionary) does not agree. When I say that I am gay, that mean I am attracted to the same-sex, and there is no reason for the assumption to also be made that I support any sort of political or cultural movement.

 

[Sonic]

As far as I am aware, your definitions do not fit the generally accepted definitions of homosexual, homosexuality, and gay. While you may take them to have alternative meanings, society at large (along with the dictionary) does not agree. When I say that I am gay, that mean I am attracted to the same-sex, and there is no reason for the assumption to also be made that I support any sort of political or cultural movement.

I was still editing my post when you wrote yours. So, you’ll find it slightly altered from the one you cited above.

Now, please tell me how you arrived that society at large does not agree. Popular usage can still be wrong or misused. If you look up the original intended usage of the term homosexual, you will find that psychologists meant that it be used to describe a person’s actions… not an individual.

Also, you will find the term Gay means many different things to many people. Not everyone uses the term to mean having an SSA attraction. This is an incredibly misunderstood term. Dig deeper and you will find that Gay includes a great many different sexual lifestyles all of which now refer to themselves as gay and wish to have their lifestyles accepted. In many cases, the only thing these lifestyles have in common is they are sexually oriented, want acceptance, and refer to themselves as Gay.

 

[Kevin42]

I was still editing my post when you wrote yours. So, you’ll find it slightly altered from the one you cited above.

Now, please tell me how you arrived that society at large does not agree. Popular usage can still be wrong or misused. **If you look up the original intended usage of the term homosexual, you will find that psychologists meant that it be used to describe a person’s actions… not an individual. **

Also, you will find the term Gay means many different things to many people. Not everyone uses the term to mean having an SSA attraction. This is an incredibly misunderstood term. Dig deeper and you will find that Gay includes a great many different sexual lifestyles all of which now refer to themselves as gay and wish to have their lifestyles accepted. In many cases, the only thing these lifestyles have in common is they are sexually oriented, want acceptance, and refer to themselves as Gay.

Although I was unaware that this was the originally intended use, that is not to say that I do not agree with you. However, despite being in agreement with your definition, I don’t think that your definitions apply to how these worlds are generally used, so I would hope you wouldn’t readily assume that other people would use these words in the same way you do. I for one usually accept (what I assume to be commonly accepted as well) that homosexual is a word used as an adjective in describing the sexual orientation of someone who is attracted to the same sex. Not that homosexuality describes an action that a person is involved in, but merely which gender they are romantically and sexually attracted to.

I am not sure what point your are trying to make, but my point is that because of the ambiguity associated with some of these words (which we have just demonstrated), when discussing homosexuality it is vital that all parties are aware of how words are being used. I can’t count how many times I have been told that being gay is wrong: some people mean this as gay acts and the gay movement is wrong, while others mean that being attracted to the same sex is wrong. They say the same thing, but don’t mean the same thing.

 

[Sonic]

I am not sure what point your are trying to make,

Exactly the point you just made.

but my point is that because of the ambiguity associated with some of these words (which we have just demonstrated), when discussing homosexuality it is vital that all parties are aware of how words are being used. I can’t count how many times I have been told that being gay is wrong: some people mean this as gay acts and the gay movement is wrong, while others mean that being attracted to the same sex is wrong. They say the same thing, but don’t mean the same thing.

It was an attempt at bringing this ambiguity of terms into the topic. Buffalo and Dousias are most likely arguing past each other. As long as no one brings it up, they’ll continue to argue past each other.

---

Okay… trying to bring this discussion back on topic…

Look, I once thought I was “Gay”, because of Gender identity issues. Those gender identity issues turned out to be a result of OCD. So, I’ve been around the whole questioning and struggling thing. I’m not a stranger to this issue, people who struggle with it, or the stuff that goes on that I couldn’t begin to describe here as proof.

Here’s an example of how people with OCD can struggle with the issue…
stuckinadoorway.org/forums/showthread.php?p=194815

When people refer to Gay, they often think of a person with SSA. They are too quick to assume, but do not realize that many people think they have SSA (mostly because they have been told they are Gay and don’t realize it’s something else). The confusion of terminology only makes it more difficult for these people. Imagine the great relief someone might have when they are finally told they have anxiety and not a SSA.

I had a friend who for many many years struggled with whether he had SSA. It turned out he had a combination of Asperger’s Syndrome and OCD. Both of these conditions contributed to him believing he was Gay. He had no other reason to believe otherwise and did some things he shouldn’t have done. Unfortunately, too many people were encouraging him to participate in behaviors for their own personal benefit. They didn’t really care to help him find out what was really going on.

Unfortunately, there are people in the Gay community that would rather continue to encourage someone with OCD that they are Gay simply on the principle that there is nothing wrong with being Gay. The problem with that is that telling people it’s okay does not alleviate the anxiety associated with OCD.

Edit: I should also mention, that in the examples I’ve cited above, a person has trouble figuring out exactly what their attractions actually are. It’s not a cut and dry issue, because things like OCD can be quite irrational and skews logic. That’s not to say that a person is not responsible for their actions. They still are. Still, it’s not productive to impose on a person to have a sexual attraction, when they aren’t sure about it themselves.

 

[Dousias]

Please show me again how I was judgmental.

Dear Buffalo,

You are not being judgmental, I stand corrected. It is my opinion that the majority of people on this list ARE passing judgment on others. You are a member of this forum and share their belief system. Not all who are out here walk in lock-step with them. Good for you! Welcome to enlightenment.

Blessed be, Dousias

 

[Dousias]

Animals that only act in a homosexual way reproduce?

Yes they do!
Not often, but they do!

This excerpt is from a piece done by WGBH Boston:

Asexual animals arose from diversified sexually reproducing ancestors. Often they are hybrids between two different species, and may possess two complete sets of chromosomes.

One such asexual organism is the whiptail lizard in the U.S. Southwest, Mexico, and South America, which consists only of females who reproduce by parthenogenesis.

Blessed be, Dousias

 

[Sonic]

Yes they do!
Not often, but they do!

This excerpt is from a piece done by WGBH Boston:

Asexual animals arose from diversified sexually reproducing ancestors. Often they are hybrids between two different species, and may possess two complete sets of chromosomes.

One such asexual organism is the whiptail lizard in the U.S. Southwest, Mexico, and South America, which consists only of females who reproduce by parthenogenesis.

Dousias, an animal that is asexual is neither heterosexual or homosexual. It is asexual.

Male and female animals (without the ability to change their reproductive orientation instinctively), who participate in homosexual actions, do not reproduce offspring. It is physically impossible to reproduce from a homosexual union… mainly because things are being plugged in places that have nothing to do with reproduction.

Bad example, but well intentioned.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Chochy,

To box a quote, you can do it in one of two ways:

(1)You can click the Quote button on the lower right hand corner of every post. That will paste the poster’s words right at the top of your own reply box. (And you don’t need to click the Reply button as well, just the Quote button.) That choice will also indicate to whom the quote belongs, at least the first time you include it in your reply. Keep the bracketed beginning and closing surrounds, which each have the word QUOTE in them, in caps, if you want to keep the poster’s entire quote.

If you want to refer only to part of his/her quote, backspace through all the parts you want to eliminate. Just make sure that you keep the word “QUOTE” (in caps & in brackets) framing both the start & finish of every section you (separately) want to quote. The word “QUOTE” in the closing bracket should always include a forward slash / just before the word “QUOTE” in all caps. That becomes obvious when you push the quote button at the bottom right of a post, and see those brackets automatically displayed.

(2) Alternatively, you can manually do the same thing within a poster’s quote – pasting the parts directly into your own reply, but again surrounding his or her words with the bracketed QUOTE and /QUOTE before and after the included words.

For further understanding, and to practice, you can go the tutorial section on CAF, & I think there’s even a “Sandbox” where you can practice this.

Good luck,
E.

 

[Dousias]

You a re way off base here. Buffalo did not say a “pill to cure queer people” or even Gay people. He said a pill to cure homosexuality. I refer you to Buffalo’s post cited below…

Dousias…

Homosexuality describes an action or series of actions performed by an individual. It does not describe a person. It describes what a person does. A person is called a Welder because they weld… not because they are a weld or because welding is part of their identity. The same applies to the term homosexual.

The term Gay refers to a movement, which is both political and sub-cultural. It does not mean a person with SSA. Gay includes many different sexual lifestyle groups working towards a common objective.

A person is an unique individual. They are not a “Gay” or a “Queer” or a “Homosexual”. These terms are misused quite badly and only leads to confusion in a discussion.

Since Buffalo was referring to a cure for an action, your admonishment of him on the basis of a “pill to cure” identity is redundant.

Dear Sonic,

The point I am stressing is really less about semantics and more about how we treat our fellow man. Do we think through the process and come to our own conclusions or do we just go with the local mindset? The local mindset is flawed because on one level it ignores who and what we are as human beings and on the second level is incredibly discriminatory. This is not the first time doctrine has come up wanting! In due time this point in doctrine will change for the good of all. Just like mixed race marriages did.

Can you relate some examples of doctrinal shift in the Church? Do some research on what changes took place during the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries.

Report back asap! (Hint: Google “Simony” for an eye opener!)

Blessed be, Dousias

 

[Dousias]

Dousias, an animal that is asexual is neither heterosexual or homosexual. It is asexual.

Male and female animals (without the ability to change their reproductive orientation instinctively), who participate in homosexual actions, do not reproduce offspring. It is physically impossible to reproduce from a homosexual union… mainly because things are being plugged in places that have nothing to do with reproduction.

Bad example, but well intentioned.

Hay, bad examples are better than no examples at all!

Buffalo said:

Animals that only act in a homosexual way reproduce?

Although that is poor English, I get his point. He is asking for examples of asexual reproduction and the example I gave is valid. Valid enough for government work!

Blessed be, Dousias

 

[Sonic]

The point I am stressing is really less about semantics and more about how we treat our fellow man. Do we think through the process and come to our own conclusions or do we just go with the local mindset? The local mindset is flawed because on one level it ignores who and what we are as human beings and on the second level is incredibly discriminatory. This is not the first time doctrine has come up wanting! In due time this point in doctrine will change for the good of all. Just like mixed race marriages did.

Can you relate some examples of doctrinal shift in the Church? Do some research on what changes took place during the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries.

Report back asap! (Hint: Google “Simony” for an eye opener!)

That would be true is it were simply a notion of cheap semantic argument. Unfortunately, definitions become a big issue when it comes to difficult discussions that are clouded. If I refer to cars as trucks and trucks as cars, then you might become confused if I said they were also bipeds. This is a confused issue that begs for clarity. Keeping it clouded and refusing to make judgments and definitions would be a serious disservice to humankind.

As for your appeal to charity, define it for me (in word and action) first before appealing for it. You’re language is very vague and that makes it un-compelling. You talk about doctrinal shifts, but your language is not one of authority to really make a case. Instead you give me some jive about local mindsets, simony, and mixed racial marriages and tell me to go trip the light fantastic across the internet highways. Quite frankly, you haven’t given me any reason to bother, and it removes you from any responsibility of being right or wrong by placing the task at my feet.

If I don’t do as you say, you can simply say I am being close minded. If I find information to the contrary, you can simply dismiss the information as flawed or misunderstood, and will likely change in the future due to some predicted doctrinal shift.

No thank you! Part of the reason I can think for myself is because the Catholic Church taught me by example how to. That’s something my University professors never did.

Edit: Btw, your admonishment based on identity is still redundant. Why? Because you approached Buffalo’s statement without first clarifying what he meant first.

 

[buffalo]

As far as I am aware, your definitions do not fit the generally accepted definitions of homosexual, homosexuality, and gay. While you may take them to have alternative meanings, society at large (along with the dictionary) does not agree. When I say that I am gay, that mean I am attracted to the same-sex, and there is no reason for the assumption to also be made that I support any sort of political or cultural movement.

Well not really - one big part of the gay agenda was to stop society from using the word homosexual and replace it with the word gay. If you use the word gay to describe yourself you are advancing the agenda. That is political and cultural.

 

[buffalo]

Yes they do!
Not often, but they do!

This excerpt is from a piece done by WGBH Boston:

Asexual animals arose from diversified sexually reproducing ancestors. Often they are hybrids between two different species, and may possess two complete sets of chromosomes.

One such asexual organism is the whiptail lizard in the U.S. Southwest, Mexico, and South America, which consists only of females who reproduce by parthenogenesis.

Blessed be, Dousias

As you rightly point out they are deviant.

The next question to be asked is whether these asexual mutated into this form.

 

[fix]

Ahhh Fix,
You are correct sir! No one would argue that point, but SSA is a specific issue that the Church makes a very definite stand on. That stand is fundamentally flawed. It assumes SSA is something that can be “healed” and the SSA just goes away.

The Church does say anyone needs healing in the medical sense. What She does say is that the inclination, like many inclinations, is objectively disordered. It is a philosophical issue.

Yes it is. We are given “choice” by our Creator to do as we please and are expected to make a better choice than a “baser” man might make. Our choices become our experience. That experience then melds with others to create a better world.

Right or wrong? What is the "wrong"here? SSA is neither, it just is. The Church is the source of opinion on many matters of the faithful’s life. For the most part the teachings are logical and contribute to a happy, joyful life. But it would be foolish to believe all teachings “hit the mark.” Don’t fret about this point too much because this is a failing of all religions, all philosophies, not just Catholicism.

Please see my answer below.

Define context, please?

Blessed be, Dousias

We know what truth is. We know what right and wrong are. We know that God ordained male and female. We know we live in fallen world.

If we start from a faulty premise, as some do today, then we will come to many erroneous conclusions. Some examples: Fertility is a disease, abortion is a medical procedure, same sex sex acts are good because they occur and some desire it, there are many more examples that could be listed but you get my point.

 

[Trunicate09]

if it is genetic that every impuse is genetic it would be saying “I hade no choice I had to kill those people I was born this way”.

Dude, please.

 

[Dousias]

Sonic,

So you actually agree with my stance!

That would be true is it were simply a notion of cheap semantic argument. Unfortunately, definitions become a big issue when it comes to difficult discussions that are clouded. If I refer to cars as trucks and trucks as cars, then you might become confused if I said they were also bipeds. This is a confused issue that begs for clarity. Keeping it clouded and refusing to make judgments and definitions would be a serious disservice to humankind.

The issue at hand is very clear to all involved. The Church teaches it’s followers flawed doctrine. It will see the “wrongness” in these teachings in due time. Fuzzing up the basic issue avoids the issue itself. Back to the point I am making, discriminating against a minority is wrong.

As for your appeal to charity, define it for me (in word and action) first before appealing for it. You’re language is very vague and that makes it un-compelling. You talk about doctrinal shifts, but your language is not one of authority to really make a case. Instead you give me some jive about local mindsets, simony, and mixed racial marriages and tell me to go trip the light fantastic across the internet highways. Quite frankly, you haven’t given me any reason to bother, and it removes you from any responsibility of being right or wrong by placing the task at my feet.

Sonic, when we buy into a theology we don’t lose responsibility to seek the truth. It took about three minutes on Google to discover what simony is and how the Church was involved. The point I was making is that Church doctrine shifts when confronted with changing times. We are in changing times and our society and culture are moving forward. The Church will address these issues just like they did with mixed-race marriage.

If I don’t do as you say, you can simply say I am being close minded. If I find information to the contrary, you can simply dismiss the information as flawed or misunderstood, and will likely change in the future due to some predicted doctrinal shift.

Then your mission, if you choose to accept it, is to find truth and also untruths in your beliefs. Share those with us.

No thank you! Part of the reason I can think for myself is because the Catholic Church taught me by example how to. That’s something my University professors never did.

Edit: Btw, your admonishment based on identity is still redundant. Why? Because you approached Buffalo’s statement without first clarifying what he meant first.

We agree you are thinking for yourself through the Church’s teachings. Beware that is a trap, my friend, a sneaky little trap that snags the unaware.

So I’m redundant. Sometimes truth needs to be heard over and over before it sinks in.

Blessed be, Dousias

 

[Dousias]

Fix,

You have it down. I cannot argue with all you have said. You believe what you believe and I can’t argue with your beliefs. Only a fool would do so.

But… Just because those thoughts are yours doesn’t mean everybody agrees with them. I don’t. In fact, I heartily disagree with them. But such is life…

Blessed be, Dousias

 

[Sonic]

Sonic, So you actually agree with my stance!

You go ahead and believe what ever you want to believe. I’ve already said what I wanted to say to you in the most charitable way allowed on this board.

The only people who ever lied to me were people that tied to encourage me to be Gay. The church never lied to me. It’s as simple as that. Goodbye.

 

[Sonic]

Sonic, So you actually agree with my stance!

Dude! Are you even following the conversation on this topic? If you had, then you would have realized why I’ve concluded to take your post with a grain of salt. I’ve heard similar rhetoric before. besides, your previous argument about asexual animals and your reply to Buffalo does not lend me to think your arguments are worth following up.

You’re telling me the doctrine is flawed, and I’ve already stated three times from my own personal experiences that the Church helped me to find myself. If I had continued to listen to arguments like yours, I’d have never found out I had OCD. Instead, I’d still think I was Gay. So, for me the Church has proven to work for me. You can understand that I don’t see it as flawed, because I studied what the church teaches and came to the conclusion that it was true. Quite frankly, I’m not confused or suffering from anxiety or any other mental incapacitation beyond replying to this topic. I’m able to cope and have developed a stronger more meaningful life.

I don’t know who you are talking to, but it’s certainly has not been to me. No, I’m not going to look up the subject or church teachings on simony or mixed race marriage, because it is not directly relevant to this discussion. Homosexuality (the actions) has nothing to do with simony or race.

You’re simply trying to show me that there will be a change in doctrine by trying to show it has occurred in the past. You have not shown me how there will be a change in church doctrine over the acceptance of homosexuality. Heck, you haven’t shown that a change in doctrine has taken place over simony or mixed racial marriages.

What do you have a crystal ball or something? No, so don’t make predictions about church doctrine unless you can prove that change will happen in the future. The burden of proof is in your court not mine. Say whatever you want to say, but at least keep the discussion in the context of the original topic. Keep in mind, it’s not my responsibility to back up you claims. You’re the one who is making these statements.