Close friend who's gay, problem or not?

[BlueEyedLady]

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

mygenes.co.nz/summary.htm

That’s not a scientific source. Not even close. I can understand why you think it is, as NARTH has succeeded in fooling many people. But I encourage you to read about how they manipulate data, use very carefully selected, antiquated studies, and how everything, from their methods, to their analysis, to their conclusions have been denounced not only by the national scientific community, but by the global one.

Citing a rogue source that is so far outside of the scientific community and in a world where “peer review” is not a thing, does not allow you to say “It has been scientifically proven” with any credibility. (Nor does it give you a licence to lecture the Ph.D about what what constitutes science. I disagree with EasterJoy about a lot of things, but on this issue, her education and intellect is really showing.)

The fact is, that most of the studies, and most independent scientific bodies agree (scientific, not pseudoscientific) that homosexuality is not a choice, and that attempts to change sexual orientation can cause a lot of damage.

(And finally, the genetic thing is a red herring used by groups like NARTH. While researchers are exploring the biological origins of homosexuality, genes are just a very small part of that. Right now the theory with the most data supporting it is that it is caused by prenatal hormonal irregularities.)

 

[Catolico65]

Let’s go back to this post:

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.

Everything you references is not established theory, I suppose you just can’t see that or are not willing unfortunately.

At any rate I also cannot understand why a fellow Catholic would give deference to the main tactic of the gay lobby over the clear teachings of the Bible and the Catholic church.

 

[Catolico65]

That’s not a scientific source. Not even close. I can understand why you think it is, as NARTH has succeeded in fooling many people. But I encourage you to read about how they manipulate data, use very carefully selected, antiquated studies, and how everything, from their methods, to their analysis, to their conclusions have been denounced not only by the national scientific community, but by the global one.

Citing a rogue source that is so far outside of the scientific community and in a world where “peer review” is not a thing, does not allow you to say “It has been scientifically proven” with any credibility. (Nor does it give you a licence to lecture the Ph.D about what what constitutes science. I disagree with EasterJoy about a lot of things, but on this issue, her education and intellect is really showing.)

The fact is, that most of the studies, and most independent scientific bodies agree (scientific, not pseudoscientific) that homosexuality is not a choice, and that attempts to change sexual orientation can cause a lot of damage.

(And finally, the genetic thing is a red herring used by groups like NARTH. While researchers are exploring the biological origins of homosexuality, genes are just a very small part of that. Right now the theory with the most data supporting it is that it is caused by prenatal hormonal irregularities.)

Your comments give away your lack of objectivity in this matter. Peace.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Your comments give away your lack of objectivity in this matter. Peace.

Objectively, taking the word of an organization that is completely at odds with the rest of the scientific community and that makes its money by doing “conversion therapy” is indefensible. Simply calling me biased won’t cut it. You’re going to have to actually post something of substance.

 

[Catolico65]

Objectively, taking the word of an organization that is completely at odds with the rest of the scientific community and that makes its money by doing “conversion therapy” is indefensible. Simply calling me biased won’t cut it. You’re going to have to actually post something of substance.

What you can post is not science that is for sure. Nonetheless, you are in good company as there are many phd’s that fore go the precepts of the scientific method to promote their agenda.

 

[EasterJoy]

Everything you references is not established theory, I suppose you just can’t see that or are not willing unfortunately.

At any rate I also cannot understand why a fellow Catholic would give deference to the main tactic of the gay lobby over the clear teachings of the Bible and the Catholic church.

My point was not that these inclinations are biological, but that they might be without being in any way a violation of our beliefs concerning the nature of free will, and that these inclinations may certainly be deep-seated in an individual, although they may also prove transitory.

The clear teaching of the Catholic Church, as published in the Catechism of the Catholic Church
(vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm, in case you don’t have access to a copy), is this: “The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible.” Furthermore, in that same section of her Catechism, the Church has elected to state that the “psychological genesis” of those “who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex” is something that “remains largely unexplained”. The Church does not teach that the inclination is not biological in nature, does not teach that the phenomenon in any individual ought to be considered transitory, and certainly does not teach that this phenomenon or any other disorder of humankind that can tempt towards sin cannot be biological in nature. Instead, the Church also teaches in her Catechism that “Man’s freedom is limited and fallible” (CCC 1739) and that “Progress in virtue, knowledge of the good, and ascesis enhance the mastery of the will over its acts” (1734), which is to say that freedom of the will can be possessed in greater or lesser degrees, those advanced in virtue having the greater freedom to do good than those who have developed less self-mastery.

Where you got the idea that the Church teaches what you say, I do not know, but you give the rest of us here the unfortunate task of derailing this thread to correct you because you will not back down from your errors. Suffice it to say from here on out that no one reading this thread should assume that you are actually relating any authoritative teachings of the Church, because you are not. You are posting your own private revelations, which come from who-knows-where, but not from Rome. Having said that much in defense of the Church, I will retire from this interruption to the main point of the thread. There is no point in arguing with you about it any more.

 

[Catolico65]

My point was not that these inclinations are biological, but that they might be without being in any way a violation of our beliefs concerning the nature of free will, and that these inclinations may certainly be deep-seated in an individual, although they may also prove transitory.

The clear teaching of the Catholic Church, as published in the Catechism of the Catholic Church
(vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm, in case you don’t have access to a copy), is this: “The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible.” Furthermore, in that same section of her Catechism, the Church has elected to state that the “psychological genesis” of those “who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex” is something that “remains largely unexplained”. The Church does not teach that the inclination is not biological in nature, does not teach that the phenomenon in any individual ought to be considered transitory, and certainly does not teach that this phenomenon or any other disorder of humankind that can tempt towards sin cannot be biological in nature. Instead, the Church also teaches in her Catechism that “Man’s freedom is limited and fallible” (CCC 1739) and that “Progress in virtue, knowledge of the good, and ascesis enhance the mastery of the will over its acts” (1734), which is to say that freedom of the will can be possessed in greater or lesser degrees, those advanced in virtue having the greater freedom to do good than those who have developed less self-mastery.

Where you got the idea that the Church teaches what you say, I do not know, but you give the rest of us here the unfortunate task of derailing this thread to correct you because you will not back down from your errors. Suffice it to say from here on out that no one reading this thread should assume that you are actually relating any authoritative teachings of the Church, because you are not. You are posting your own private revelations, which come from who-knows-where, but not from Rome. Having said that much in defense of the Church, I will retire from this interruption to the main point of the thread. There is no point in arguing with you about it any more.

You are confused. Furthermore, just because the church doesn’t specify something means the oppostie is true.

What are the **facts **are that the Bible says that homosexuality is not natural and that and the Catechism says homosexuality is psychological and thus by inference not biological.

 

[thewanderer]

You are confused. Furthermore, just because the church doesn’t specify something means the oppostie is true.

What are the **facts **are that the Bible says that homosexuality is not natural and that and the Catechism says homosexuality is psychological and thus by inference not biological.

What the facts are is that nothing in the Bible or in Church teaching says that homosexuality, or other temptations to sin have a biological aspect. Acting upon them is unnatural, those desires are called disordered and unnatural, but that simply means contrary to natural law, not that it is impossible that there be any biological aspect to the temptations. You are free to believe there are no biological aspects to homosexuality, but you are wrong to imply that that is what the Bible teaches us. The Bible says no such thing. Those are simply the facts.

 

[thewanderer]

oops, this is how this should read.

What the facts are is that nothing in the Bible or in Church teaching says that homosexuality, or other temptations to sin have no biological aspect. Acting upon them is unnatural, those desires are called disordered and unnatural, but that simply means contrary to natural law, not that it is impossible that there be any biological aspect to the temptations. You are free to believe there are no biological aspects to homosexuality, but you are wrong to imply that that is what the Bible teaches us. The Bible says no such thing. Those are simply the facts.