Columnist argues false dichotomy for nature vs nuture debate on gays

[Aaron_I]

BillP:

So what is the problem with ordaining men who have the inclination but don’t act on it?

If the Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, decides that a homosexual inclination should bar one from the priesthood, then I will submit to its authority. If this is what they choose, then I think the justification would fall somewhere along the lines of confusing the gender roles. They are not being barred for being sinful, but because they cannot accurately represent the proper role of the priest to the Church. This is part of the reason why women cannot be priests. If you cannot understand and appreciate the different, complementary roles of men and women in society, then you are blind to scripture.

 

[Digger71]

The entire “nature” “nurture” issue is moot.

**It presumes that the way we are born is always normal and healthy - when in fact it is not always that way. For example, if a child is born with either 1 leg or a 3rd leg or a severely deformed leg. **

But homosexuality is nothing like being crippled or deformed. It more like the difference between black hair and red hair, only an issue when its made an issue, generally by others.
Rob's Wife:

IF homosexuality is something some are born with - that in itself does not make it natural.

And at this point we’ve read enough to know it’s time to reach for the latest copy of Nature.

 

[Digger71]

Aaron I.:

If the Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, decides that a homosexual inclination should bar one from the priesthood, then I will submit to its authority.

And if the Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, decides that a homosexual inclination is a prerequisite for the priesthood you would say the same thing, undoubtedly.

 

[Rob_s_Wife]

Digger71:

But homosexuality is nothing like being crippled or deformed. It more like the difference between black hair and red hair, only an issue when its made an issue, generally by others.

I disagree. They’re mental &/or emotional sexuality formation is deformed. Like many mental or emotional disorders, being born that way doesn’t make it normal or natural.

 

[Riley259]

Digger71:

But homosexuality is nothing like being crippled or deformed. It more like the difference between black hair and red hair, only an issue when its made an issue, generally by others.

And at this point we’ve read enough to know it’s time to reach for the latest copy of Nature.

Being homosexual is fundamentally different than being heterosexual. The difference between red and black hair is an invalid analogy because in that case you’re talking about different variances of normality. Homosexuality cannot be described as normal under any circumstances - as the church states, it is intrinsically **disordered. **Given biology, the complementarity of the sexes and the procreative aspects of human beings, it’s clear that normality only encompasses heterosexuality.

 

[BillP]

mlchance:

So much for the virtues of obedience and humility.

– Mark L. Chance.

Well I don’t really have a way to be disobediant as I don’t make decisions about who gets ordained, nor am I homosexual, nor am I seeking ordination.

And I’m not aware that Humility requires checking one’s brain at the door, especially in the absence of a issuance of a definitive dogma

 

[LittleDeb]

The writer, Ellen Goodman, is published nationwide so we get her in our left-slant paper locally.

I noticed a few major points about her article that have not been touched on. Firstly, she is tending towards “mob mentality,” If a thousand people believe something, sheer numbers do not make it so. Truth has a way of being Truth even when there are no believers. I do tend to view her as anti-Catholic in her writings, as she presents arguments from this, “well enough people now believe it so it must be true” view. She looks for others who support her ideas so she can take on The Big Bad Catholic Church. I had a professor in college who did exactly that. It isn’t convincing whether the topic is deep-seated homosexual tendencies or the interpretation of English literature.

I have ceased to read her articles because of her antics. As I read this article without knowing it was she it sounded sadly familiar. She writes many article that have nuances of sounding like they are acurately portraying Church teaching but then in her description misrepresents The Church.

The other point that she really made wrong and has followed by some in this thread I would like to address. She says that it is only “gay men” who will suffer. This is not true. Upon close reading of the actual document you will notice the wording (paraphrased) of excluding those who support the “gay culture.” This would also exclude some heterosexual men from the priesthood if they are in support of the gay culture.
That is within The Church’s authority to do so.

This writer never looks at the oposing side as a possibility. She hurls opinions as facts. “79% think…” So? I could find 89% of a polled group who think Goodman is an idiot. Does that make it fact? Nope. Too bad in this case.

 

[mlchance]

Riley259:

What’s your definition of the mainstream of scientific and psychological thought … a liberalized, secular viewpoint?

What two of the experts say:

Dean Hamer, M.D.: “There is not a single master gene that makes people gay … I don’t think we will ever be able to predict who will be gay.”

Simon LeVay (author of the much-publicized “gay brain” research that made international headlines) has stated: “It’s important to stress what I didn’t find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn’t show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain.”

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Digger71]

Riley259:

Being homosexual is fundamentally different than being heterosexual. The difference between red and black hair is an invalid analogy because in that case you’re talking about different variances of normality. Homosexuality cannot be described as normal under any circumstances - as the church states, it is intrinsically **disordered. **Given biology, the complementarity of the sexes and the procreative aspects of human beings, it’s clear that normality only encompasses heterosexuality.

10% of people are left handed. That is normal and natural for the species. 2% are homosexual. That is normal and natural for the species. I note, with no surprise that in French ‘gauche’ means left and clumbsy. And that ‘sinister’ also derives its name from left. It seems clear to me that minority groups always suffer prejudice.

 

[Digger71]

BillP:

And I’m not aware that Humility requires checking one’s brain at the door, especially in the absence of a issuance of a definitive dogma

Were you not? How very lapse of your educators not to mention it.

 

[Riley259]

10% of people are left handed. That is normal and natural for the species. 2% are homosexual. That is normal and natural for the species. I note, with no surprise that in French ‘gauche’ means left and clumbsy. And that ‘sinister’ also derives its name from left. It seems clear to me that minority groups always suffer prejudice.

You’re comparing apples with oranges here and again, you’re confusing a variance of normality (handedness) with something that is intrinsically disordered (homosexuality). Just because homosexuality occurs in 2% of the population, it doesn’t mean it is normal. From an evolutionary mandate alone, homosexuality has no apparent benefit yet it still occurs in a small minority of people - this points to environmental and psycho-sexual factors (rather than an exclusive gay gene) as contributing causes. Just because something happens, it doesn’t mean it’s supposed to happen

 

[LittleDeb]

10% of people are left handed. That is normal and natural for the species. 2% are homosexual. That is normal and natural for the species. I note, with no surprise that in French ‘gauche’ means left and clumbsy. And that ‘sinister’ also derives its name from left. It seems clear to me that minority groups always suffer prejudice.

Please clarify and quote your source for this statistic, “2% are homosexual.” 2% of the world’s population act on homosexual desires? 2% suffer same sex attractions? 2% believe they are “gay?” I would be willing to accept that 2% of the world’s population might suffer same sex attraction. I would also be willing to accept that 2% of the world’s population suffer from any named physical or mental disorder. This does not constitute “normal and natural” for the species.

Being left-handed is NOT a disorder. Being born with no hands is a disorder. I say kudos to those like my very close friend who have learned to overcome their own personal disorders to live full, moral, productive lives.

 

[goofyjim]

I do not worry about the cause of my same sex attractions. I keep them in check by prayer and the sacraments. I define myself as heterosexual as this is still my true sexuality as a gift from God. Of course, at the age of 41, it may be too late to ever marry, but that is in God’s hands. The single life is just as good a vocation as the others.

 

[Riley259]

goofyjim:

I do not worry about the cause of my same sex attractions. I keep them in check by prayer and the sacraments. I define myself as heterosexual as this is still my true sexuality as a gift from God. Of course, at the age of 41, it may be too late to ever marry, but that is in God’s hands. The single life is just as good a vocation as the others.

Keep living the faith authentically and you will be fine. Have you read David Morrison’s excellent book, Beyond Gay? He talks about gradually rediscovering his true heterosexual nature after an extended period of time of being chaste and living the ways of the Church. He still has some same-sex attractions but feels them diminishing with time. I will pray for you.

 

[Digger71]

LittleDeb:

Please clarify and quote your source for this statistic, “2% are homosexual.” 2% of the world’s population act on homosexual desires? 2% suffer same sex attractions? 2% believe they are “gay?” I would be willing to accept that 2% of the world’s population might suffer same sex attraction. I would also be willing to accept that 2% of the world’s population suffer from any named physical or mental disorder. This does not constitute “normal and natural” for the species.

Being left-handed is NOT a disorder. Being born with no hands is a disorder. I say kudos to those like my very close friend who have learned to overcome their own personal disorders to live full, moral, productive lives.

2% of men in western cultures self-identify as exclusively homosexual This is reflected in sexual surveys, in self-identification of sexual attraction to adults in sex offenders. A much larger percentage dabble, or try it once.

Being gay is exactly like being left handed. It posses no problems except when faced with right-handed corkscrews and scissors (built for right handers, so obviously cause difficulty). Being gay presents no problems except for the prejudice built by straight people.

There is no love or morality in this vendetta against gay people. It is time for it to stop.

 

[Riley259]

2% of men in western cultures self-identify as exclusively homosexual This is reflected in sexual surveys, in self-identification of sexual attraction to adults in sex offenders. A much larger percentage dabble, or try it once.

Being gay is exactly like being left handed. It posses no problems except when faced with right-handed corkscrews and scissors (built for right handers, so obviously cause difficulty). Being gay presents no problems except for the prejudice built by straight people.

There is no love or morality in this vendetta against gay people. It is time for it to stop.

Are you saying that being left-handed is intrinsically disordered and that the use of the left hand violates the natural law? Obviously, the above statement is ludicrious but that’s precisely the analogy you are making when you say that “being gay is exactly like being left handed”. In reality, the analogy is absurd because sexuality consists of complementary and procreative aspects to the natural law and human survival in general. The use of the left hand versus the right has no such implications and does not impact any natural order that is a consequence of either one’s use. If you’re going to argue your case and want to be taken seriously, please come up with a more relevant analogy.

 

[LittleDeb]

2% of men in western cultures self-identify as exclusively homosexual This is reflected in sexual surveys, in self-identification of sexual attraction to adults in sex offenders. A much larger percentage dabble, or try it once.

Being gay is exactly like being left handed. It posses no problems except when faced with right-handed corkscrews and scissors (built for right handers, so obviously cause difficulty). Being gay presents no problems except for the prejudice built by straight people.

There is no love or morality in this vendetta against gay people. It is time for it to stop.

Thank you for clarifying your statistic. It helps to understand your POV.

Since you hold that “being gay” is exactly like being left handed, I am willing to explore that idea with you as long as no one considers it a thread hijack. Before I go any further I would ask that you refrain from statements similar to “There is no love or morality in this vendetta against gay people.” Since you have no idea of the depths of love or morality of my soul or anyone else’s, calling it a vendetta does nothing good for the discussion.

Since those that are right or left handed are that way by their very nature and some hold that same sex attraction could have a root in nature this is your statement that they are the same. I am presuming you are not holding that being left-handed, while annoying in a right-hand dominant world, has any of the long term, life-altering struggles attached to it as those who suffer same sex attraction. That said I will say I can see where you are coming from that left and right and sexual attraction could be perceived as the same.

So let’s explore: The right and left hand are entirely equal to each other. All men and women are entirely equal to each other. Everything the right hand can do the left hand can also do, so that that makes them the same, right? Everything a man can do a woman can also do, so that makes them the same too, right? Hmmm. I think I would disagree with both those points, left and right are not the same just as men and women are not the same.

Since being left-handed is being argued as the same type of natural tendency as having same sex attraction it must therefore be accepted as just as normal to being being left-handed. So here is where we diverge strongly. Men and women are complementary. They are not the same. Men cannot be pregnant and women cannot impregnate. There is a major difference. It does matter who we mate with as this is what is normal and natural for us to continue as a species. Any else is a disorder. (Including other forms of unnatural infertility.)

If you look at left-hand/right-hand you will note one important difference. There is one thing the right hand cannot do. It cannot BE the left hand and vice versa. Right and left hands are not the same. They are complementary. Having a right and left hand is what is normal and natural for the species, but they are not interchangeable. Right and left hands by their nature are mates. Males and females by their nature are mates.

Being born with a same sex attraction, IF it were the genesis of homosexual tendencies, would be much more biologically compared to being born with two right hands.

 

[MikeinSD]

I read this thread and other threads re: gay men or homosexuality. Science says homosexuality is a normal varient of human sexuality:
apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html
psych.org/psych_pract/copptherapyaddendum83100.cfm
These are the professional organizations of psychology and psychiatry and their findings are peer-reviewed and repeatedly tested.

The Catholic church teaches homosexuality is sinful and intrisically disorder. The Catholic church has every right to teach this. All faithful Catholics should follow Catholic teachings.
Every faith has rights to teach it’s beliefs and set the boundries for it’s believers.

This argument goes round and round. I do not think there will be any agreement between science and Catholic faith on homosexuality. Catholics should follow the teachings of their church. Non-catholics and people of other, or no, faiths can follow their religions or accept the scientific facts of sexual orientation. It is a free country. And Americans can and do disagree.

Fortunately, Americans believe all citizens are entitled to protections of the US consititution. We believe that civil rights extend to all citizens regardless of religion, sexual orientation, ethnic heritage, etc.

 

[Riley259]

MikeinSD:

I read this thread and other threads re: gay men or homosexuality. Science says homosexuality is a normal varient of human sexuality:
apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html
psych.org/psych_pract/copptherapyaddendum83100.cfm
These are the professional organizations of psychology and psychiatry and their findings are peer-reviewed and repeatedly tested.

The Catholic church teaches homosexuality is sinful and intrisically disorder. The Catholic church has every right to teach this. All faithful Catholics should follow Catholic teachings.
Every faith has rights to teach it’s beliefs and set the boundries for it’s believers.

This argument goes round and round. I do not think there will be any agreement between science and Catholic faith on homosexuality. Catholics should follow the teachings of their church. Non-catholics and people of other, or no, faiths can follow their religions or accept the scientific facts of sexual orientation. It is a free country. And Americans can and do disagree.

Fortunately, Americans believe all citizens are entitled to protections of the US consititution. We believe that civil rights extend to all citizens regardless of religion, sexual orientation, ethnic heritage, etc.

From an evolutionary and biological standpoint alone, men and women were designed to use their sexual organs in a procreative way - stripped down, that is their purpose with or without theological undertones. Why would someone have an attraction to the same sex that from an evolutionary standpoint wouldn’t promote perpetuation of the human race. The answer is under normal circumstances, they wouldn’t but for a variety of reasons (even the APA acknowledges that a bunch of factors including environmental and biological probably play a part) things go astray with an individual with same-sex attractions. This can’t possibly be considered a normal variant of human sexuality. It is a variant and it does take place in 2% of the population but it is not normal. When you add a religious and theological dimension to it such as the work of John Paul II and his Theology of the Body series, you can see how the complementarity of the sexes and the potential life-giving union of the couple (in a sacramental marriage) is itself sacramental and an image of God’s own selfless Triune Love - no other alternative can mirror that. Of course, we must strive to always love and protect our homosexual brothers and sisters because despite their condition, they are children of God and have incomparable worth and dignity like every other human being. We must always treat them with love, respect, and dignity and pray for them in their walk with Christ. Always speak the truth in charity.

 

[Digger71]

Riley259:

From an evolutionary and biological standpoint alone, men and women were designed to use their sexual organs in a procreative way

Technically not true. The reproductive organs are also used for excretion. Indeed extrection seems to be the primary purpose…it serves that purpose before and after the sexually reproductive years.

The genitals are not, in any case, a perfect fit, that is because ‘good enough’ is the rule with evolution.

And in any case evolution doesnt ‘design’ per se. So the word should not be used in this context.

If we are going to use evolutionary arguments, by the way, two things should be noted. The first is we have imperfect knowledge, so the best we can say is that 'homosexuality provides no known evolutionary benefit. This, of course, leaves the ‘unknown’ benefits. Secondly, recent research shows that gay men have more cousins, etc on the maternal side. Perhaps it is an inevitable outcome of heterosexuality.