Close friend who's gay, problem or not?

[Catolico65]

I take it you don’t believe bipolar disorder or another psychological disorder that can orient one towards sinful behavior (violence, propensity to additive substances, etc.) are nonexistent?

My sister has bipolar disorder, that is no excuse for sinning, and she will tell you that.

As far as other biological causes everything are just suggested links, and not established theories.

The bottom line is the relativists would like to obsolete all sin, starting with the gay lobby first.

But yes, I don’t know why you would impede your daughter’s friendships. I don’t understand how one is “gay” without the lifestyle. The idea of sexual orientation in itself is a 19th century Western psychological concept. I find all the distinctions between orientation, gender and sex all fictitious and scientifically unfounded.

Your agenda is showing my friend.

Homosexuality is not biological nor has been proven to be as such, in spite of the gay lobby’s objections.

Finally, I expect you’ve convinced yourself that mens and women bodies are the same, which is not logical to say the least and is nothing more than a fairy tale I might add.

 

[EasterJoy]

Please post you source where the Church teaches that God created people biologically to sin.

At any rate what I do know from science is that homosexual desire for the majority of people are temporary and it has proven to have no genetic source so it can’t be biological.

What I do know from the Bible is that God as the author of all biology did not design man to desire other men, but rather women and vice versa.

Also, the concept that people are born with biological defects, created by God, that causes them to sin neither is based on real science nor the Holy Bible. It is pure unsupported non scientific conjecture propagated by the gay lobby and relativists.

Did God create people to sin? What does that have to do with this thread? The young man in question seems to be living a life that is entirely chaste. Besides, we all know the reality of original sin and its many consequences, as taught in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (underline mine):

***401 **After that first sin, the world is virtually inundated by sin. There is Cain’s murder of his brother Abel and the universal corruption which follows in the wake of sin. Likewise, sin frequently manifests itself in the history of Israel, especially as infidelity to the God of the Covenant and as transgression of the Law of Moses. And even after Christ’s atonement, sin raises its head in countless ways among Christians.287 Scripture and the Church’s Tradition continually recall the presence and universality of sin in man’s history:

What Revelation makes known to us is confirmed by our own experience. For when man looks into his own heart he finds that he is drawn towards what is wrong and sunk in many evils which cannot come from his good creator. Often refusing to acknowledge God as his source, man has also upset the relationship which should link him to his last end, and at the same time he has broken the right order that should reign within himself as well as between himself and other men and all creatures.288*

Concerning homosexuals, the Church does not teach that this ought to be considered a trivial or temporary condition, but rather refers to people with deep-seated tendencies in that direction as “homosexual persons”. It does explicitly teach in the Catechism that homosexuals “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.” (Again: underline mine)

***Chastity and homosexuality **
**2357 **Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

**2359 **Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection. *

 

[Catolico65]

Did God create people to sin? What does that have to do with this thread? The young man in question seems to be living a life that is entirely chaste. Besides, we all know the reality of original sin and its many consequences, as taught in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (underline mine):

From the catechism here is the first part of the definition of sin:

“Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience”

and from the definition the of mortal sin:

Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent.

Therefore, the Catechism clearly establishes that in order for a person to commit a sin the act must be at conflict with their conscience and for that to happen they must be aware it is wrong on at least some level.

However, what the world would have us believe is that people are born **biologically **to commit certain actions/sin. Nonetheless, given that God is the author and designer of all biological systems this creates a polemic and allows only two possible interpretations:

1. People are created by biological design to do certain actions, such as have SSA or be alcoholic etc, because God ordained it and therefore cannot sin by the definition of sin as established by the CC.
2. People are not created by biological design to do certain actions.

In order to choose the correct interpretation we need to look at the evidence that is available to us.

One, we know that according to the Bible homosexuality is not natural nor ordained by God but that heterosexual desire is indeed natural. Two, from science we know that homosexuality is temporary for the majority of persons and that no definitive biological link has been found. Regarding alcoholism, no definitive link has been found for this condition either.

Therefore, given all the irrefutable evidence there can only be one logical conclusion - that people are not created by biological design to do certain actions.

I understand there is a lot of confusion about the biological origin of sin but the scientific facts are clear - there is no definitive link but there is definitely an insurmountable evidence that it is psychological in origin, just as the Catechism says it is.

The problem is the world has embraced homosexuality as normal and this truth is very inconvenient, so instead of accepting the logical conclusions of more than 10,000 studies they promote “suggested” links that are not definitive.

Obviously, some Christians and Catholics will not agree with the importance of understanding what really is sin and it’s cause but the reality is the enemy, the devil and his minions the gay lobby, completely understand the implications of making people believe that SSA is biological, and thus ordained by God, and have used this to convert 10’s of MILLIONS of Christians to their cause. This can be independently verified by going to the numerous homosexual advocate webpages. Understanding this and the simple logic I have presented should instill in my fellow Catholic the real danger of acquiescing to the scriptural and scientifically baseless theory that sin can be by design (biological) in origin.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

From the catechism here is the first part of the definition of sin:

“Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience”

and from the definition the of mortal sin:

Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent.

Therefore, the Catechism clearly establishes that in order for a person to commit a sin the act must be at conflict with their conscience and for that to happen they must be aware it is wrong on at least some level.

However, what the world would have us believe is that people are born **biologically **to commit certain actions/sin. Nonetheless, given that God is the author and designer of all biological systems this creates a polemic and allows only two possible interpretations:

1. People are created by biological design to do certain actions, such as have SSA or be alcoholic etc, because God ordained it and therefore cannot sin by the definition of sin as established by the CC.

Your argument would appear to be this:

1. If God created people with SSA, then these people would not have consciences that tell them homosexual sex is wrong.
2. If people’s consciences do not tell them homosexual sex is wrong, then they do not sin when they have homosexual sex.
3. People do sin when they have homosexual sex.
4. Therefore, people’s consciences do tell them homosexual sex is wrong.
5. Therefore, God did not create people with SSA.

There is no logical problem with the argument. However, the first premise is false. I can desire something while still believing it is wrong. Therefore, since the argument has a false premise, the conclusion is not established by your argument.

 

[EasterJoy]

From the catechism here is the first part of the definition of sin:

“Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience”

and from the definition the of mortal sin:

Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent.

Therefore, the Catechism clearly establishes that in order for a person to commit a sin the act must be at conflict with their conscience and for that to happen they must be aware it is wrong on at least some level.

However, what the world would have us believe is that people are born **biologically **to commit certain actions/sin. Nonetheless, given that God is the author and designer of all biological systems this creates a polemic and allows only two possible interpretations:

You are incorrect, and your logic is faulty.

From the CCC (underline mine):
*FREEDOM AND RESPONSIBILITY

1731 Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this or that, and so to perform deliberate actions on one’s own responsibility. By free will one shapes one’s own life. Human freedom is a force for growth and maturity in truth and goodness; it attains its perfection when directed toward God, our beatitude.

1732 As long as freedom has not bound itself definitively to its ultimate good which is God, there is the possibility of choosing between good and evil, and thus of growing in perfection or of failing and sinning. This freedom characterizes properly human acts. It is the basis of praise or blame, merit or reproach.

1733 The more one does what is good, the freer one becomes. There is no true freedom except in the service of what is good and just. The choice to disobey and do evil is an abuse of freedom and leads to "the slavery of sin."28

1734 Freedom makes man responsible for his acts to the extent that they are voluntary. Progress in virtue, knowledge of the good, and ascesis enhance the mastery of the will over its acts.

1735 Imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors.

1736 Every act directly willed is imputable to its author:

Thus the Lord asked Eve after the sin in the garden: "What is this that you have done?"29 He asked Cain the same question.30 The prophet Nathan questioned David in the same way after he committed adultery with the wife of Uriah and had him murdered.31

An action can be indirectly voluntary when it results from negligence regarding something one should have known or done: for example, an accident arising from ignorance of traffic laws.

1737 An effect can be tolerated without being willed by its agent; for instance, a mother’s exhaustion from tending her sick child. A bad effect is not imputable if it was not willed either as an end or as a means of an action, e.g., a death a person incurs in aiding someone in danger. For a bad effect to be imputable it must be foreseeable and the agent must have the possibility of avoiding it, as in the case of manslaughter caused by a drunken driver.

1738 Freedom is exercised in relationships between human beings. Every human person, created in the image of God, has the natural right to be recognized as a free and responsible being. All owe to each other this duty of respect. The right to the exercise of freedom, especially in moral and religious matters, is an inalienable requirement of the dignity of the human person. This right must be recognized and protected by civil authority within the limits of the common good and public order.32

II. HUMAN FREEDOM IN THE ECONOMY OF SALVATION

**1739 Freedom and sin. *Man’s freedom is limited and fallible. In fact, man failed. He freely sinned. By refusing God’s plan of love, he deceived himself and became a slave to sin. This first alienation engendered a multitude of others. From its outset, human history attests the wretchedness and oppression born of the human heart in consequence of the abuse of freedom.

You are on top of that accusing me of saying things I did not say. I did not say that people were born to commit certain offenses. I said that a) we are born in original sin, which is none of God’s doing but still puts us in a state of concupiscence and b) that the Church acknowledges that some people are constitutionally attracted to persons of their own sex, even though acting on that attraction would be gravely immoral. Finally, and yet again: The OP said very clearly that the young man in question is neither violating chastity nor advocating for anything like what you are implying he is. Really, you have been very rash about your judgments of him.

The Church does not teach that our free will operates without any fetters. The Church is willing to concede that a biological basis may be responsible for some psychological orientation towards homosexual acts. That is a million miles from saying that committing the act isn’t a sin–and more to the point, this friend of the OP’s daughter has not done a thing to imply that he thinks so!

 

[Catolico65]

Your argument would appear to be this:

1. If God created people with SSA, then these people would not have consciences that tell them homosexual sex is wrong.
2. If people’s consciences do not tell them homosexual sex is wrong, then they do not sin when they have homosexual sex.
3. People do sin when they have homosexual sex.
4. Therefore, people’s consciences do tell them homosexual sex is wrong.
5. Therefore, God did not create people with SSA.

There is no logical problem with the argument. However, the first premise is false. I can desire something while still believing it is wrong. Therefore, since the argument has a false premise, the conclusion is not established by your argument.

With all due respect I did not propose #3, #4 and #5 in any way, shape or form. What I did say is the Bible and the Catechism have established without a doubt that homosexuality is not natural and science has confirmed this.

As far as your comment “I can desire something while still believing is wrong” I did not state otherwise. and would be crazy if I did because this a simple concept we all learn as children.

In summary, your incorrect interpretations have caused you to come up with a false logic.

My recommendation to you is to give preference to the Word of God over pseudo sciecne and understand God’s design of us has a purpose, and SSA is not part of that purpose. Furthermore, taking this into account and the fact that science has proven SSA is temporary for the majority of people it is clear we can now without hesitation believe what the Bible has told us all along without reservation. Furthermore, SSA can change in a person and am one of just millions one should have confidence that change can happen instead of believing the diabolical homosexual lobby that wants to leave us chained for the rest of our living days. That chain is broken by the act of simple repentance frequently (not only during confession) for undesirable thoughts and anything that we feel guilty for. It doesn’t happen overnight but I am living proof of the millions out there that it works. Peace.

 

[Catolico65]

You are on top of that accusing me of saying things I did not say. I did not say that people were born to commit certain offenses. I said that a) we are born in original sin, which is none of God’s doing but still puts us in a state of concupiscence and b) that the Church acknowledges that some people are constitutionally attracted to persons of their own sex, even though acting on that attraction would be gravely immoral. Finally, and yet again: The OP said very clearly that the young man in question is neither violating chastity nor advocating for anything like what you are implying he is. Really, you have been very rash about your judgments of him.

The Church does not teach that our free will operates without any fetters. The Church is willing to concede that a biological basis may be responsible for some psychological orientation towards homosexual acts. That is a million miles from saying that committing the act isn’t a sin–and more to the point, this friend of the OP’s daughter has not done a thing to imply that he thinks so!

When you say there is a biological basis for sin you are stating they are born to commit sin. This is simple logic which the gay lobby has used to convert millions to their cause, like it or not.

Furthermore, neither the catechism nor the Bible speak of no biological origin of SSA, only psychological. I understand there is an opinion from a religious person that stated it could be biological, but this is no doubt in deference to what some studies have suggested. Nonetheless, with the recent information that homosexuality changes in most persons and that it can’t be genetic I expect this opinion to be clarified in the future.

If you doubt my claim that the gay lobby uses the biological origin as a main reason for promoting their cause you really need to do more research. I have been on various other forums and this is used quite frequently and has caused millions of Christians to accept it as true. After all it is only a logical premise - but based on pseudo science nothing more.

 

[EasterJoy]

With all due respect I did not propose #3, #4 and #5 in any way, shape or form. What I did say is the Bible and the Catechism have established without a doubt that homosexuality is not natural and science has confirmed this.

As far as your comment “I can desire something while still believing is wrong” I did not state otherwise. and would be crazy if I did because this a simple concept we all learn as children.

In summary, your incorrect interpretations have caused you to come up with a false logic.

My recommendation to you is to give preference to the Word of God over pseudo sciecne and understand God’s design of us has a purpose, and SSA is not part of that purpose. Furthermore, taking this into account and the fact that science has proven SSA is temporary for the majority of people it is clear we can now without hesitation believe what the Bible has told us all along without reservation. Furthermore, SSA can change in a person and am one of just millions one should have confidence that change can happen instead of believing the diabolical homosexual lobby that wants to leave us chained for the rest of our living days. That chain is broken by the act of simple repentance frequently (not only during confession) for undesirable thoughts and anything that we feel guilty for. It doesn’t happen overnight but I am living proof of the millions out there that it works. Peace.

I’m not sure where you got the idea that it is impossible to be born with a constitution that can manifest itself later in life in some disordered desire or other. Also, no one here said that to be born with a certain orientation towards some sort of sexual life is to be tormented for a lifetime with compulsions towards acting it out. For instance, testosterone can make a person more prone to violent acts, but that does not mean testosterone does not have a positive purpose. Neither does the trial that some men suffer with regards to desiring women they can’t have give them an excuse to say that it is unreasonable not to let them have them. No, to have a certain psychological makeup that makes some temptations more tempting than others means the person is in a condition that has to be mastered by cooperation with grace. That is the lot of all of fallen mankind! Moreover, the constitution that leaves one prone to a temptation may be the same one that gives one particular gifts. It is not as if we can assume that the temptation comes packaged alone, that it is not the vulnerability that concupiscence puts into an overall makeup which is entirely good.

If you are only saying that a person, especially a young person, might easily be going through a period of sexual confusion and should not rashly assume their current state is permanent, then by all means you are correct! It would not be that unusual. If you say, however, that a homosexual orientation is always transitory, is always something that can be extinguished rather than merely mastered, and never has any basis in biology, you overstep the facts. The Church acknowledges that this trial can be deep-seated, indeed. It is not clear what causes it, but experience says that expecting a person to rid himself of it completely via force of will is often not realistic. It is worth hoping for, but it is not by any means a thing to be demanded.

 

[Catolico65]

If you say, however, that a homosexual orientation is always transitory, is always something that can be extinguished rather than merely mastered, and never has any basis in biology, you overstep the facts.

With all due respect the Bible nor the catechism state that SSA is biological, in fact they state the contrary. I understand there are many suggestive studies that homosexuality is a biological condition, ie designed by God, but there is no definitive study that support this, none. Furthermore, the most definitive study based on the analysis of over 10,000 studies clearly establish that homosexuality is not genetic and the fact that it changes for the majority of people leads to the logical conclusion that it is not biological. Therefore, given that the CC has not claimed there is a biological source to SSA, quite the contrary in fact, there should be no logical reason not to defer to the latest comprehensive studies that demonstrate homosexuality is psychological in origin and thus not biological. Peace.

 

[joshvanrad]

The church does not condemn homosexual thoughts or tendencies. It only condemns those who act on homosexual thoughts due to it’s unnatural and disordered nature.

There is no inherent harm in associating with homosexuals.

Also, your daughter is legally an adult, so it’s time to start letting her explore the world for who she is meant to become as an individual. Guide her, but don’t control her.

Joshua C.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

With all due respect the Bible nor the catechism state that SSA is biological, in fact they state the contrary. I understand there are many suggestive studies that homosexuality is a biological condition, ie designed by God, but there is no definitive study that support this, none. Furthermore, the most definitive study based on the analysis of over 10,000 studies clearly establish that homosexuality is not genetic and the fact that it changes for the majority of people leads to the logical conclusion that it is not biological. Therefore, given that the CC has not claimed there is a biological source to SSA, quite the contrary in fact, there should be no logical reason not to defer to the latest comprehensive studies that demonstrate homosexuality is psychological in origin and thus not biological. Peace.

You keep making very ridiculous claims about homosexuality, and you keep saying “studies”, but unless you specifically cite something, you have no credibility.

 

[Catolico65]

You keep making very ridiculous claims about homosexuality, and you keep saying “studies”, but unless you specifically cite something, you have no credibility.

Why do you ask for a reference if you have already decided my claims are ridiculous?

mygenes.co.nz/summary.htm

 

[EasterJoy]

With all due respect the Bible nor the catechism state that SSA is biological, in fact they state the contrary. I understand there are many suggestive studies that homosexuality is a biological condition, ie designed by God, but there is no definitive study that support this, none. Furthermore, the most definitive study based on the analysis of over 10,000 studies clearly establish that homosexuality is not genetic and the fact that it changes for the majority of people leads to the logical conclusion that it is not biological. Therefore, given that the CC has not claimed there is a biological source to SSA, quite the contrary in fact, there should be no logical reason not to defer to the latest comprehensive studies that demonstrate homosexuality is psychological in origin and thus not biological. Peace.

Did you really write “psychological in origin and thus not biological”?!? Oy vey.

Before I quibble with your science (and I have more than a quibble with it), let’s cut to the chase.

Are you saying that a) homosexual tendencies must be presumed to be temporary in nature, b) homosexual temptations are something a person won’t have if they choose not to have them, and c) a person who self-identifies as a homosexual ought to be presumed to have chosen their attraction to persons of the same sex and must also be presumed to feel entitled to act on a temptation they are only pretending they can’t change?

IOW, do you believe that to allow someone to call themselves homosexual is to let them pretend that they are being subjected to an irresistible temptation when they are in fact dwelling on something they could choose not to dwell on? Do you think that this is always a ploy to gain access to an immoral lifestyle?

 

[confusedhuman]

I am still relatively young but i think that perhaps the most important thing that the catholic religion can teach is love. Not just for people who think exactly the same way we do but for everyone.
I do believe homosexuality is a sin. However, if you don’t want your daughter being friends with a a sinner the who can she be friends with?
I think that she can even help him to become closer to God and the catholic religion. By him seeing that even though she doesn’t agree with him on everything she still respects him and likes him as a person then maybe he won’t have such a negative view of the catholic religion.

 

[Catolico65]

Did you really write “psychological in origin and thus not biological”?!? Oy vey.

Before I quibble with your science (and I have more than a quibble with it), let’s cut to the chase.

Yes before that might we know a little about your background in the sciences?

Are you saying that a) homosexual tendencies must be presumed to be temporary in nature,

I am saying that is what the data is sayin for the MAJORITY of people.

b) homosexual temptations are something a person won’t have if they choose not to have them, and

Oh vey.

c) a person who self-identifies as a homosexual ought to be presumed to have chosen their attraction to persons of the same sex and must also be presumed to feel entitled to act on a temptation they are only pretending they can’t change?

Oh vey

IOW, do you believe that to allow someone to call themselves homosexual is to let them pretend that they are being subjected to an irresistible temptation when they are in fact dwelling on something they could choose not to dwell on? Do you think that this is always a ploy to gain access to an immoral lifestyle?

Oh vey

 

[Mc8r1de]

My advice to the OP is to lead by example… to continue to pray with your Daughter when and where you can. First & foremost, for her Vocation.

When it comes to people who identify as homosexual, there needs to be a strict boundary between someone who merely identifies themself as a homosexual - and someone who engages in activities relating to, God forbid - homosexual fornication. I believe this should extend to any guise where it tries to manifest itself as: including homosexual “marriage,” “civil union,” or “dating.” This is a defining issue of our time.

 

[EasterJoy]

Yes before that might we know a little about your background in the sciences?

I have a PhD in bioinorganic chemistry. Before going to graduate school, I had thought to be a physical therapist, so I did coursework in psychology, anatomy and physiology, and so on. Suffice it to say I can read a science paper, including in the health sciences.

I am saying that is what the data is sayin for the MAJORITY of people.

Oh vey.

Oh vey

Oh vey

Oy vey–is that a yes or a no? Please elaborate, because I’m honestly not sure what your point has been concerning the young man referred to in the original post, let alone what your point is concerning a person with deep-seated homosexual tendencies.

 

[Catolico65]

I have a PhD in bioinorganic chemistry. Before going to graduate school, I had thought to be a physical therapist, so I did coursework in psychology, anatomy and physiology, and so on. Suffice it to say I can read a science paper, including in the health sciences.

Well then you would know all of the studies up to date that propose a biological origin for homosexual are suggestive and preliminary only and shouldn’t be taken as any more than that. Here is a study, a compilation of the data of thousands of reports that eliminates genes from the picture. BTW, you should know better than to promote “suggested” biological links as real science.

mygenes.co.nz/summary.htm

Oy vey–is that a yes or a no? Please elaborate, because I’m honestly not sure what your point has been concerning the young man referred to in the original post, let alone what your point is concerning a person with deep-seated homosexual tendencies.

I used in it the same context that you did. If you carefully read my posts and contemplate the Bible and the catechism and reject pseudo science as factual it will make sense to you.

 

[EasterJoy]

Let’s go back to this post:

However, what the world would have us believe is that people are born **biologically **to commit certain actions/sin. Nonetheless, given that God is the author and designer of all biological systems this creates a polemic and allows only two possible interpretations:

1. People are created by biological design to do certain actions, such as have SSA or be alcoholic etc, because God ordained it and therefore cannot sin by the definition of sin as established by the CC.
2. People are not created by biological design to do certain actions.

In order to choose the correct interpretation we need to look at the evidence that is available to us.

One, we know that according to the Bible homosexuality is not natural nor ordained by God but that heterosexual desire is indeed natural. Two, from science we know that homosexuality is temporary for the majority of persons and that no definitive biological link has been found. Regarding alcoholism, no definitive link has been found for this condition either.

Therefore, given all the irrefutable evidence there can only be one logical conclusion - that people are not created by biological design to do certain actions.

Let’s contemplate the Bible:
*We know that the law is spiritual; but I am carnal, sold into slavery to sin. What I do, I do not understand. For I do not do what I want, but I do what I hate. Now if I do what I do not want, I concur that the law is good. So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. For I know that good does not dwell in me, that is, in my flesh. The willing is ready at hand, but doing the good is not. For I do not do the good I want, but I do the evil I do not want. Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. So, then, I discover the principle that when I want to do right, evil is at hand. For I take delight in the law of God, in my inner self, l but I see in my members another principle at war with the law of my mind, taking me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members.Miserable one that I am! Who will deliver me from this mortal body? *Rom. 7:15-24

That you drag alcoholism in as an example shows how wrong you are about the connection between morality and biology, because the genetic heritability of alcoholism and drug addiction has been shown to be 50-60%, based on twin and adoption studies. There are even certain genes *in mice *that predispose some animals to prefer alcohol under conditions when typical animals will not choose it and to become dependent on alcohol under conditions when genetically typical mice do not. Yes, specific chromosomes seem to be strongly correlated with alcohol dependence.

People get up every day at AA meetings and say, “My name is _____, and I’m an alcoholic.” Does that mean that they are claiming to be entitled to give in to drunkenness? By no means! It means that they have been forced to admit that they have a serious problem that they have not been able to control on their own. Those who achieve sobriety by making this admission will tell you not that they must inevitably be drunkards, but that they have to rely on a power other than themselves in order to stay clean and sober.

On that account, let’s drop this whole debate, because it doesn’t matter. Only if a person is criminally insane are they totally at the mercy of their compulsions, whether those are biological or not. It does not matter if SSA is biological or not, then! Even if it is, that does not mean a person with that inclination is driven to act on it. No one here is saying that they are. We are only saying that it is scientifically possible that the inclination is a) none of this young man’s doing, b) not something he will necessarily grow out of (although he may), and c) possibly something with a root in biology and may even (in some) having to do with hard-wiring in the brain that medicine currently cannot change.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

Yes before that might we know a little about your background in the sciences?

I am saying that is what the data is sayin for the MAJORITY of people.

Oh vey.

Oh vey

Oh vey

What does all of this have to do with the original poster and the original post? They have now been swallowed up by 3 pages of this unrelated conversation. It’s very rude, IMO.