Columnist argues false dichotomy for nature vs nuture debate on gays

[Digger71]

Riley259:

. 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.

You are using crude majorityism as your definition of ‘normal’.

Blood groups merrily reflect the problem.

bloodbook.com/rare.html

“One way of defining a Blood type as rare is when more than 200 donors must be screened to find one compatible donor with Blood of that desired type.”

"A person’s Blood type is considered as very rare if only one person in 10,000 has or lacks similar Blood antigens. "

So, at rates of 0.5% and 0.01% for some blood types these are far from ‘normal’. But the species rate is consistent, so for the species there is a ‘normal’ value.

Thus 2% seems to be a species norm. Once you leave behind crude majorityism and look at species wide frequencies you actually get a better sense of what ‘normal’ is.

Riley259:

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.

John 13:23 “Now there was leaning on Jesus’ bosom, one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved. Simon Peter threefore beckoned to him, that he should ask who it should be of whom he spake. He then lying on Jesus’ breast saith unto him, Lord, who is it?” John 19:26-27 “When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son. Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour the disciple took her unto his own home.”

I know three gay couples who’s stories reflect this. In one case the biological son is dead, yet his mother is still cared for in that house. It used to give me problems, but faith illuminates reason, and reason must be based on facts. So I cannot accept our Churches doctrine.

 

[Digger71]

LittleDeb:

So let’s explore: Everything the right hand can do the left hand can also do,

Touch your right hand to your left elbow. Now do the same with your right hand and your right elbow. Se, your left and right hand cannot do the same things.

LittleDeb:

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.,

And as we have seen, the left and right hands cannot do the same things either…so the analogy still stands.

LittleDeb:

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.)

Such as a vow of celibacy. for example? In terms of ‘normal’ you mean ‘average’, in terms of natural you are simply using majorytism. And your argument is a reductionist argument that gives priority to reproduction. But…Lets try these:

Ecclesiastes 4:9-11 “Two are better than one; because they have a good reward for their labour. For if they fall, the one will lift up his fellow: but woe to him that is alone when he falleth; for he hath not another to help him up. Again, if two lie together, then they have heat: but how can one be warm alone?”

Better to lie with a man than no one?

Ecclesiastes 6:3 “If a man beget an hundred children, and live many years, so that the days of his years be many, and his soul be not filled with good, and also that he have no burial; I say, that an untimely birth is better than he.”

It seems it is better to be good, than procreate hundreds…

Isaiah 56:3-5 “neither let the eunuch say, Behold I am a dry tree. For thus saith he Lord unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please one, and take hold of my covenant. Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my wall a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters.”

As eunuchs seem to be a reference to gay people in many places (inside and outside of scripture) this is deeply interesting.

So, it gives food for thought, I think.

LittleDeb:

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

Well, there is one thing a woman cannot do for a man, she cannot love him as a man would. There is one thing a man cannot do for a woman, he cannot love her like a woman could. Men and women can love one another. You see, in the reductionist biological view, this has no value, it’s all about genitals.

In the world we live in, brains and emotions, compliments are much more nuanced. Minds and emotions compliment, not just bodies. And men do fit with men. the body permits it, the brain find pleasure in it, and love is expressed in it.

And as we have seen, reproduction, even in the bible, is not always called to the highest honour.

I like your argument. It is skillful, but based on biological reductionism. If you accept, as I do, that a vow of celibacy can create spiritual children, it is not such a leap of faith to believe that the apparently infertile relationships of gay people also have spiritual offspring.

 

[LittleDeb]

Thank you, Digger, for your response. We actually have in common many points. These points, however, do not bring us to the same conclusion.

Digger71:

Touch your right hand to your left elbow…

This is exactly what I meant. It takes only a left hand to touch a right elbow. (leaving all other body parts out.) This was my example that one cannot BE the other, not that one cannot do the complementary behavior

Ecclesiastes 4:9-11 “Two are better than one; because they have a good reward for their labour. For if they fall, the one will lift up his fellow: but woe to him that is alone when he falleth; for he hath not another to help him up. Again, if two lie together, then they have heat: but how can one be warm alone?”

Better to lie with a man than no one?

I am bothered if you take this “lie together” to a sexual connotation. This is referring to working together NOT sexual contact. It would highly bother me if you took the “lying together” with my grandparents on a cold Christmas morning that we did as children to have any sort of sexual side to it.

Ecclesiastes 6:3 “If a man beget an hundred children, and live many years, so that the days of his years be many, and his soul be not filled with good, and also that he have no burial; I say, that an untimely birth is better than he.”

It seems it is better to be good, than procreate hundreds…

I would be the first to agree with you there. Since the contraception movement has tried (and failed) to prevent birth, there are some young men out there who are literally reproducing hundreds without thought to their welfare. (I would hesitate to use the word “procreate” in my example as it means “for beginning,” by definition.)

Isaiah 56:3-5 "neither let the eunuch say, Behold I am a dry tree. For thus saith he Lord unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please one, and take hold of my covenant. Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my wall a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters

."

As eunuchs seem to be a reference to gay people in many places (inside and outside of scripture) this is deeply interesting. No one has ever said that people with same sex attraction are not welcome in heaven. It is only the ACTS of homosexuality that are sinful. I love all of my friends who suffer same sex attraction and I hope we can ALL be united in heaven. Also, eunuch many times referred to one who had no reproductive genitals (through accident or birth) it was rare that it referred to people of same sex attraction in Scripture. I have no qualms with your reference to them included in this particular passage since chaste people who suffer same sex attraction know that they most likely will never reproduce and may in fact refer to themselves as a “dry tree.”

Well, there is one thing a woman cannot do for a man, she cannot love him as a man would. There is one thing a man cannot do for a woman, he cannot love her like a woman could. Men and women can love one another. You see, in the reductionist biological view, this has no value, it’s all about genitals.

I am not sure I see your point. My (female) best friend and I have a deep love for each other. We’ve known each other far longer than we’ve known our husbands. Each of us though, would choose our own husbands, without question, if we were forced to. Sure, the love I have for my friend is different. She loves me as a woman SHOULD love a woman. It is a deep, abiding friendship. It really bothers me when people try to mutate that kind of love into a sexual love.

I honestly believe that some of my friends homosexual acts have developed from an inability to express love outside of sex. I have many friends of each gender. The closest are deep, deep friendships. You are right, this is not about genitals. If something happened to my husband’s genitals we are still husband and wife. Nothing but death can dissolve that union.

In the world we live in, brains and emotions, compliments are much more nuanced. Minds and emotions compliment, not just bodies. And men do fit with men. the body permits it, the brain find pleasure in it, and love is expressed in it.

Again I am bothered by your charge that these “feelings” somehow override natural law. Since “men fit with men” this is somehow a good thing? My 16 month old son could shove a bean up his nose. This does not mean that is where a bean belongs. He would end up at the hospital if my husband or I couldn’t get it out. Complementary means they must truly belong together not just “peg A can fit into slot B.”

continued…

 

[LittleDeb]

And as we have seen, reproduction, even in the bible, is not always called to the highest honour.

Reproduction is not. Procreation however is THE highest honor in all of Scripture. (Please realize you are talking to someone whose reproductive system “breaks” fairly regularly. This does not take away my procreative union with my husband.) I am aware that procreation and reproduction are often used interchangeably. They have a lot of similarities, but are at their core not the same thing.

I like your argument. It is skillful, but based on biological reductionism. If you accept, as I do, that a vow of celibacy can create spiritual children, it is not such a leap of faith to believe that the apparently infertile relationships of gay people also have spiritual offspring.

As someone who knows those with real vows of celibacy they do not create “spiritual children” as it has no reproductive power. They can be Godparents but that is not the same thing. This is a similar argument to saying that procreation and reproduction are the same thing. While a (heterosexual) couple can adopt that does not mean their union procreated or literally “gave life” to that particular child. It CAN however give life to another child since the union follows natural law.

As Catholics we are concerned with what the union means. We are NOT the reproductive police. The Catholic Church has never said to anyone that they must have children or must not, just that the UNION in each act be open to them. What is of concern is the holiness of the union. An unholy heterosexual union is just as sinful as a homosexual union. So again, even IF the same sex attraction tendency were biological it is just as sinful to act upon it as it is to act upon a heterosexual tendency that was unholy.

 

[Digger71]

LittleDeb:

As Catholics we are concerned with what the union means.

Oh Debs,

This has been a great struggle for me, and I was going to mention it above, but I used to believe that gays where just lust driven. No children, buggery, disdain for teaching, contempt and iconoclasm. Perversity lauded, like they were spitting on the bible and drinking blood.

What a twat I was.

When heterosexual relationships shine, they shine through the family, through love for eachother and the nurturing of children, it is by necessity inward looking. When gay relationships shine it’s through amazing friendhsips and inclusiveness, in my experience.

I have said before I cannot hold with the Church in this and still hold good conscience. If het relationships mean creation then gay relationships mean agape.

LittleDeb:

just that the UNION in each act be open to them.

But homosexual relationships are open to them, not by crude biological means, but by divine intervention. If the dead can be raised…

LittleDeb:

What is of concern is the holiness of the union. An unholy heterosexual union is just as sinful as a homosexual union. So again, even IF the same sex attraction tendency were biological it is just as sinful to act upon it as it is to act upon a heterosexual tendency that was unholy.

Exactly. So exactly. But in my heart I cannot and do not accept that God gave heterosexuals marriage or celibacy as choices and gays, just celebacy.

 

[Digger71]

LittleDeb:

Thank you, Digger, for your response. We actually have in common many points. These points, however, do not bring us to the same conclusion.

Digger71:

Touch your right hand to your left elbow…

This is exactly what I meant. It takes only a left hand to touch a right elbow. (leaving all other body parts out.) This was my example that one cannot BE the other, not that one cannot do the complementary behavior

Well, yes and no. You evoked compliments to each other and reflections of eachother. It strikes me that there is a concept that gay relationships are warped reflections of straight relationships, but what if they are the compliment, which seems reasonable to me. I see the love is tsimilar, but they are not the same because they are not meant to be the same.

LittleDeb:

I am bothered if you take this “lie together” to a sexual connotation. This is referring to working together NOT sexual contact. It would highly bother me if you took the “lying together” with my grandparents on a cold Christmas morning that we did as children to have any sort of sexual side to it.

I take it to mean ‘companionship’ in general, and the importance of society. But it has not escaped my notice that this has a relationship interpretation that can go beyond this, and can be interpreted as I indicated. I rejected this view once, but then why shouldn’t this be inspired guidence?

LittleDeb:

I would be the first to agree with you there. Since the contraception movement has tried (and failed) to prevent birth,

That is not fair or accurate now is it. The pro-contraception movement isnt trying to prevent birth, just unwanted births. It hasnt failed, it has succedded. Look to spain where the birth rate has falled from 5.2 to 1.3.

"
No one has ever said that people with same sex attraction are not welcome in heaven. It is only the ACTS of homosexuality that are sinful…

I do not accept this. The condemnations I have found in the bible all refer to paganism and pagan priests dressed as women. The Vatican is dedicated to natural law and that doctrine is so strange, selective and filtered by apriori reading, that I cannot accpet it.

LittleDeb:

I love all of my friends who suffer same sex attraction and I hope we can ALL be united in heaven…

I love all my friends, but I am poor at differentiating, I try to love strangers too. Still, I do not accept the gay ones ‘suffer’ same-sex attraction. And my main worry is not that they wont be there, but I wont be.

part II to come

 

[Digger71]

LittleDeb:

Also, eunuch many times referred to one who had no reproductive genitals (through accident or birth) it was rare that it referred to people of same sex attraction in Scripture.

I’ll bring this to you. I heard the argument some 15 years ago, and I suppose like most ideas it took years before anyone researched it. The author is Islamic, but what is interesting (for me) is the constrast in my head between the current dictionary definition, and the facts on the ground.

well.com/user/aquarius/

I would read it all.

LittleDeb:

We’ve known each other far longer than we’ve known our husbands. Each of us though, would choose our own husbands, without question, if we were forced to.

Without question? Seldom can structural betrayal sounded so sweat or so reasonable.

“Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” St.John 15:13

LittleDeb:

Sure, the love I have for my friend is different. She loves me as a woman SHOULD love a woman.

I don’t think you should speak for her. But if each would abandon the other for your husband then…I think you conspire to dishonour the concept of friendship.

It is a deep, abiding friendship. It really bothers me when people try to mutate that kind of love into a sexual love.

Have you considered that what you feel is the shadow of true friendship? That your feelings are the mutated ones? Warped by biology and hormones, cultural factors and doctrine?

You are right, this is not about genitals. If something happened to my husband’s genitals we are still husband and wife. Nothing but death can dissolve that union.

So wonderful to hear.

Again I am bothered by your charge that these “feelings” somehow override natural law. Since “men fit with men” this is somehow a good thing? My 16 month old son could shove a bean up his nose. This does not mean that is where a bean belongs. He would end up at the hospital if my husband or I couldn’t get it out. Complementary means they must truly belong together not just “peg A can fit into slot B.”

continued…

I do not follow or accept natural law arguments. It’s faults are manifold, from poor observation, to selective interpretation, to over interpretation. I think it was aquinas who concluded that it was sinful to frustrate an organs primary or coprimary function. But I seldom hear condemnations of blindfolds,mittens and earplugs.

Secondly men fit men better than men fit women. I think a priest called Wolfe susaid this:

“The cods for the bum, aint nothing to match it
were it meant for the **** it t’would be shaped like a hatchet.”

 

[Ana]

Digger71:

Secondly men fit men better than men fit women. I think a priest called Wolfe susaid this:

“The cods for the bum, aint nothing to match it
were it meant for the **** it t’would be shaped like a hatchet.”

That is really crude and offensive.

 

[Digger71]

Ana:

That is really crude and offensive.

It is a quote from an earlier time, when language was used differently. It was not written for modern sensibilities. Though I do not have my sources with me, I seem to recall it was merely considered ‘disdainful’ of natural law arguments.

But here’s an interesting point for you. Many of us Catholics speak what we think is the truth, whether it is offensive ot not, and some become labled for thier efforts. Given equal conviction other can also speak the truth and it seems offensive to us. As morals are invisible, I claim the only difference is in actions.

 

[LittleDeb]

Digger,
While I could have lived my entire life without reading that poem and been much happier, I do see where you were going with it. Please refrain from that for my sake in the future.

This seems to boil down to perceptions. The original article’s author posed that being homosexual is indeed genetic. Others, including yourself, have said that there is a genetic tendency so it is natural. You have taken the extra step to explain how that might justify actions. I commend that. I disagree, but commend the effort.

The major points where you and I diverge seem to be the following:

1. Since you hold that there is a “gay gene” it is God’s will that it is acted upon. I do not agree. The author of said article supports your view.
2. Since the numbers of people who claim homosexuality is 2% (by your statistics) of the western population, this number is high enough to constitute “a natural varient.” I again disagree. These types of surveys are incredibly biased toward proving a point that science cannot prove alone.
3. Finally, you seem to hold that natural law is a flawed logic. I have stayed Catholic all my life because all of its teachings are based in natural law. I completely disagree that “men fit men better than women.” This argument smacks in the face all those who hold heterosexual relationships as good and healthy. I am a woman who is very aware of her own body (and her husband’s body.) I practice Natural Family Planning so I know more about how God designed us for procreation than my own (non-NFP) Ob/gyn. And I have given birth, so I know what shape goes where and what the human body is capable of doing. There is no argument that can sway me from natural law.

Where we agree is thus: No matter what the biology or environmental factors that might cause people to engage in homosexual acts they are still loved by God. We also agree that we should pray for all sinners everywhere to be reunited in heaven. I will be praying for you, Digger and I hope you will pray this sinner too.

 

[mlchance]

LittleDeb:

This seems to boil down to perceptions. The original article’s author posed that being homosexual is indeed genetic. Others, including yourself, have said that there is a genetic tendency so it is natural.

The question of a “gay gene” or a “genetic tendency” doesn’t really boil down to perception. Instead, it’s about wishful thinking. There is no scientific evidence to support that wishful thinking, but that doesn’t stop those who dissent from the truth of natural law from imaging things are different. We see the same sorts of sophistry and denial from those who seek to rationalize abortion (i.e., the fetus isn’t really human, or “ensoulment” doesn’t occur until such-and-such time, or the unborn aren’t human until their hearts beat, et cetera).

IOW, the rational argument against homosexuality cannot be refuted, so people resort to fantasy, strawmen, and equivocation.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Digger71]

LittleDeb:

Digger,
While I could have lived my entire life without reading that poem and been much happier, I do see where you were going with it. Please refrain from that for my sake in the future.

As you wish. I’ve always tried to get to the meaning despite gross forms, which has given me a certain tolerance for gross expressions which nevertheless seem to contain accuracy.

LittleDeb:

This seems to boil down to perceptions. The original article’s author posed that being homosexual is indeed genetic. Others, including yourself, have said that there is a genetic tendency so it is natural. You have taken the extra step to explain how that might justify actions. I commend that. I disagree, but commend the effort.

Thnks. But it is not just that. I think ‘tendency’ is the wrong word. Do you simply have a heteroseuxual ‘tendency’, or are you hetersexual. How often have you been tempted by other women. I do not mean a woman making a pass at you, but of you falling deeply and physically in love with a women (true temptation)?

‘Tendency’ is a dimissive and derogatory term implying alternatives. I dont see this to be true.

LittleDeb:

The major points where you and I diverge seem to be the following:

1. Since you hold that there is a “gay gene” it is God’s will that it is acted upon. I do not agree. The author of said article supports your view.

Then it seems grossly unfair, and I will demand an explanation when the time comes. More likely is human error.

LittleDeb:

1. Since the numbers of people who claim homosexuality is 2% (by your statistics) of the western population, this number is high enough to constitute “a natural varient.” I again disagree. These types of surveys are incredibly biased toward proving a point that science cannot prove alone.

Actually the heavily biased surveys produce results between 10-30%. I trust these figures more simply due to cross-referenced consistancy and the fact some are not collected for this purpose (reports of offenders sexuality, fr example). In this case you are mistaken.

LittleDeb:

1. Finally, you seem to hold that natural law is a flawed logic.

Not just myself. The is-ought problem has been long-known. But the problems of arguing from conclusion and the necessity of a ‘white list’ of activities is also known.

LittleDeb:

I have stayed Catholic all my life because all of its teachings are based in natural law. I completely disagree that “men fit men better than women.” This argument smacks in the face all those who hold heterosexual relationships as good and healthy.

It is a simple fact of a ‘round peg in a round hole’, so to speak. It is not metaphysical.

LittleDeb:

I am a woman who is very aware of her own body (and her husband’s body.) I practice Natural Family Planning so I know more about how God designed us for procreation than my own (non-NFP) Ob/gyn. And I have given birth, so I know what shape goes where and what the human body is capable of doing. There is no argument that can sway me from natural law.

Gross biology, as well es physical examination tells us otherwise. A woman gentials have 2 reproductive purposes, the receive the seed via an organ that is cylindrical and generally quite short, and to give birth to a hefty baby. The form is clearly a compromise between the two functions, and argument otherwise is pointless.

Where we agree is thus: No matter what the biology or environmental factors that might cause people to engage in homosexual acts they are still loved by God. We also agree that we should pray for all sinners everywhere to be reunited in heaven. I will be praying for you, Digger and I hope you will pray this sinner too.

I don’t think you need my prayers. I think you are doig fine all by yourself.