Cause of homosexuality

  • Thread starter Thread starter jpk1313
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I have asked for basic definitions but received no reply. Is their postion that if same sex attraction has some genetic basis that proves that it is consistent with health and morally acceptable to act on?
I believe so Fix. That is why the agenda has successful changed the wording to “gay” since homosexual tied them to the deviant act. It has largely been successful.

Most people are not differentiating between SSA and the “gay” lifestyle which expects us to embrace the act.
 
Yes, and the relativistic position says because something occurs it must be healthy.
Your dealing with a term we use in psychology called “normal functioning”. Homosexuality does not inhibit one from leading a happy and fulfilling life. This is why it was removed from the DSM. You run into some problems by defining what is healthy and what is not. For example: What if Einstein and Newton had Autism? what if Van Gogh was Schizophrenic? Lincoln was without a doubt Dysthymic. What if Hemingway was Bi-Polar? … all these people made significant contributions to the world. Sure, the foremost shot himself (Van Gogh too, but he had A LOT of problems) , but that was after people started to say he wasn’t “healthy” so he had ECT, which he attributed to losing his creativity.
 
Your dealing with a term we use in psychology called “normal functioning”.
And that must be defined properly as well.
Homosexuality does not inhibit one from leading a happy and fulfilling life.
How are you using happy and fulfilling?
This is why it was removed from the DSM.
You mean it was removed for political reasons.
You run into some problems by defining what is healthy and what is not.
We sure do, that is exactly why I mention it.
For example: What if Einstein and Newton had Autism? what if Van Gogh was Schizophrenic? Lincoln was without a doubt Dysthymic. What if Hemingway was Bi-Polar? … all these people made significant contributions to the world. Sure, the foremost shot himself (Van Gogh too, but he had A LOT of problems) , but that was after people started to say he wasn’t “healthy” so he had ECT, which he attributed to losing his creativity.
What is your point? That pathology needs to be overlooked and called health because sometimes people with serious pathology contribute to society? Relativism shows up here again.
 
I believe so Fix. That is why the agenda has successful changed the wording to “gay” since homosexual tied them to the deviant act. It has largely been successful.

Most people are not differentiating between SSA and the “gay” lifestyle which expects us to embrace the act.
I think your putting way to much thought into this. Do I call you Heterosexual or straight? I don’t call my black friends African American, and they don’t call me a Caucasian. What two consenting adults do in private together isn’t anyone’s business. So they may be flamboyant sometimes, but that’s not going to turn kids gay. If anything it will teach them to respect personal differences.
 
I was saying that if you say “God did not Make people that way” you are either excluding genetics as a factor, or saying God lets the natural order of things determine our genes.
God allows a lot of things, but what he actually does is different. God allows tsunamis, child abuse, and the fallen nature of our world. I do not believe he causes such things. God allows fathers to be uncaring and unloving towards their sons, God allows mothers to be overprotective and enmeshed, in a phrase, God allows homosexuality to develop. He does not, however, cause it. Why does he allow it? Because in our weakness we are made strong. God knows that unless we have a desperately painful thorn in our side we will not seek him out, so he allows the thorn to be put there by the Satan, the world, our ourselves because he can transform our suffering into holiness.
 
I think your putting way to much thought into this. Do I call you Heterosexual or straight? I don’t call my black friends African American, and they don’t call me a Caucasian. What two consenting adults do in private together isn’t anyone’s business. So they may be flamboyant sometimes, but that’s not going to turn kids gay. If anything it will teach them to respect personal differences.
Catholics understand that private sin does influence public behavior.
 
You may think Homosexuality is a sin and there going to hell, but that doesn’t mean you have to force your opinion on everyone else. I think most people that are religious cant face there fear of death and its a form of magical thinking to cope with this reality, is that pathological? Still, I have Christian friends and I don’t force my opinion on them, we just don’t talk about it because in the grade scheme of things its really not that important.
 
Health, pathology, right, and wrong get to be plastic terms today among those who reject the objective moral truth. Not surprising because accepting the truth means changing how we live our lives.

The problem is those who reject the truth have no problem forcing their relativism on the rest of society.
 
You may think Homosexuality is a sin and there going to hell, but that doesn’t mean you have to force your opinion on everyone else. I think most people that are religious cant face there fear of death and its a form of magical thinking to cope with this reality, is that pathological? Still, I have Christian friends and I don’t force my opinion on them, we just don’t talk about it because in the grade scheme of things its really not that important.
Would it be better for you if we discussed whether or not the homosexual act conforms to natural law?
 
I found this interesting in my research on homosexuality. Claiming it is genetic is a powerful argument, too bad it is false. The human genome project was finished and did not find a “gay gene”. Sorry.

trueorigin.org/gaygene01.asp
 
And that must be defined properly as well.

How are you using happy and fulfilling?

You mean it was removed for political reasons.

We sure do, that is exactly why I mention it.

What is your point? That pathology needs to be overlooked and called health because sometimes people with serious pathology contribute to society? Relativism shows up here again.
Happy and fulfilling means Maslow’s theory of Self-Actualization, and that’s why it was removed from the DSM, because homosexuality doesn’t predispose interference with this. Maslows theory was partially based off Einstein. Lincoln was also very healthy and satisfied with his life. His depression could easily have been caused by being ostracized for his dissenting views, and fighting against an archaic society. Much of which could be said for why Homosexuals might become depressed. The other 3 Van Gogh, and Newton may have been exposed to toxins which caused mental breakdowns, and Hemingway may have had a genetic disease…
 
Your dealing with a term we use in psychology called “normal functioning”. Homosexuality does not inhibit one from leading a happy and fulfilling life. This is why it was removed from the DSM. You run into some problems by defining what is healthy and what is not. For example: What if Einstein and Newton had Autism? what if Van Gogh was Schizophrenic? Lincoln was without a doubt Dysthymic. What if Hemingway was Bi-Polar? … all these people made significant contributions to the world. Sure, the foremost shot himself (Van Gogh too, but he had A LOT of problems) , but that was after people started to say he wasn’t “healthy” so he had ECT, which he attributed to losing his creativity.
Yeah, uh, where are you getting the idea that “Homosexuality does not inhibit one from leading a happy and fulfilling life?” If you look at buffalo’s links I’m sure it’ll show what I’ve discovered, but from what I’ve seen in studies homosexuality has much higher correlation with drug and alcohol abuse, depression, suicide, and pathology in general. If you call that happiness, fine, but I call that hell. Even from a psychological point of view, though, it necessarily inhibits happiness because it tries to satisfy a legitimate need in an incorrect way. Homosexual men have had their need in early childhood for affection, affirmation, love, and acceptance from father denied them by father, and usually they also had this denied them by their male peers, resulting in a huge deficit. When this gnawing emotional deficit becomes confused in adolescence with the sex drive, homosexuality develops. Sadly, though homosexuality is seeking to meet the legitimate needs of the boy, it will never bring him satisfaction because it’s trying to meet a need for masculine emotional vulnerability in a sexual way. In truth, the reason why I’ve sought therapy for homosexuality is only secondarily because of my moral objections to having a predisposition towards sinful behavior, it’s primarily because I want my needs met legitimately, I want satisfaction, we might say “happiness.” Just so that no one is confused, I would like to make the point that “homosexuality,” as defined as a state of sexual attraction to the same sex, is not sinful, “homosexual behavior,” “homosexual acts,” and a “homosexual lifestyle” are sinful. I’m not just defending myself here, either, from what I can tell no one here is condemning people, they’re condemning behavior, and the distinction can never be drawn to frequently. I would call myself a homosexual, so I have only compassion and love for my fellow homosexual men.
 
And that act is designed to do exactly what?
Id have to look it up, but I know it happens quite frequently among many species of birds. A female bird will lay eggs while two males who are stronger and can provide a higher level of defense protect eggs. This isn’t just parenting, there is sexual behavior between the pair… It’s really just a method of social bonding. In some cultures men hold hands and hug each other, even though they are not gay these practices are seen by some as mildly sexual.
 
Id have to look it up, but I know it happens quite frequently among many species of birds. A female bird will lay eggs while two males who are stronger and can provide a higher level of defense protect eggs. This isn’t just parenting, there is sexual behavior between the pair… It’s really just a method of social bonding. In some cultures men hold hands and hug each other, even though they are not gay these practices are seen by some as mildly sexual.
So an unprotected egg cannot hatch?
 
Yeah, uh, where are you getting the idea that “Homosexuality does not inhibit one from leading a happy and fulfilling life?” If you look at buffalo’s links I’m sure it’ll show what I’ve discovered, but from what I’ve seen in studies homosexuality has much higher correlation with drug and alcohol abuse, depression, suicide, and pathology in general. If you call that happiness, fine, but I call that hell. Even from a psychological point of view, though, it necessarily inhibits happiness because it tries to satisfy a legitimate need in an incorrect way. Homosexual men have had their need in early childhood for affection, affirmation, love, and acceptance from father denied them by father, and usually they also had this denied them by their male peers, resulting in a huge deficit. When this gnawing emotional deficit becomes confused in adolescence with the sex drive, homosexuality develops. Sadly, though homosexuality is seeking to meet the legitimate needs of the boy, it will never bring him satisfaction because it’s trying to meet a need for masculine emotional vulnerability in a sexual way. In truth, the reason why I’ve sought therapy for homosexuality is only secondarily because of my moral objections to having a predisposition towards sinful behavior, it’s primarily because I want my needs met legitimately, I want satisfaction, we might say “happiness.” Just so that no one is confused, I would like to make the point that “homosexuality,” as defined as a state of sexual attraction to the same sex, is not sinful, “homosexual behavior,” “homosexual acts,” and a “homosexual lifestyle” are sinful. I’m not just defending myself here, either, from what I can tell no one here is condemning people, they’re condemning behavior, and the distinction can never be drawn to frequently. I would call myself a homosexual, so I have only compassion and love for my fellow homosexual men.
I think your making generalizations based upon your own experience. Clearly you feel as though this originated in childhood rather than the way you always felt. Believe it or not most gays aren’t sexually active. I imagine it can be a lot harder to find a partner when your sexual preference represents a mere fraction of the population.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top