Dealing with gays

[fix]

Assuming you are a married man, do you call it a temptation to make love to your wife? Some religious people would claim it’s a religious duty!
The problem lies in the options that the Church lays out for people who find themselves attracted only to persons of the same sex. They may remain celibate or they may marry someone of the opposite sex to whom they are not physically attracted.
The church has always maintained that celibacy is a divinely-given gift, for the sake of the Kingdom, not to be commanded by mortals.
Marriage with a person to whom one is not attracted would seem to be doomed.
So is there really an option? If we want to use semantics, we could say that homosexuals should practice continence, but who would we be fooling?
Then we talk about chastity, but isn’t a sexual relationship within marriage considered chastity?
So the Church offers lifetime continence and the isolation that attends that, without the grace of celibacy, or it offers fornication.
That’s charity?

Basically you want what you want. Moral law or not.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Come on, Fix!

Yes, we can present the Gospel offensively, but remember what Peter wrote:

Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence; and keep your conscience clear, so that, when you are abused, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame.

(1 Pet 3:15b-16, RSV)

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Yes, and people can claim illegitimate offense.

Is calling an adulteress a filthy harlot who deserves to be stoned beneficial to the truth?

 

[fix]

Is calling an adulteress a filthy harlot who deserves to be stoned beneficial to the truth?

Is claiming same sex attraction is not ordered toward the good offensive?

 

[fix]

Come on, Fix!

Yes, we can present the Gospel offensively, but remember what Peter wrote:

(1 Pet 3:15b-16, RSV)

I do not see much of people intentionally trying to offend others, but I see plenty of people claiming offense when there is no right to be offended.

 

[jonathan_hili]

I do not see much of people intentionally trying to offend others, but I see plenty of people claiming offense when there is no right to be offended.

I don’t think people intentionally mean to offend others.

Now…this is interesting!

Is there justifiable and unjustifiable offense? If there is, I think we often deal with the latter, because in our culture, any criticism of one’s lifestyle or worldview is perceived as an offense, but I don’t think the offense taken is justified. I mean, talk about anti-intellectualism!

 

[fix]

I don’t think people intentionally mean to offend others.

Now…this is interesting!

Is there justifiable and unjustifiable offense? If there is, I think we often deal with the latter, because in our culture, any criticism of one’s lifestyle or worldview is perceived as an offense, but I don’t think the offense taken is justified. I mean, talk about anti-intellectualism!

Being offended is mostly a choice. If I say hello to you and you claim offense you have no right to be offended. It is illegitimate offense.

Mostly these discussions evolve into one side claiming offense and using words like hate, intolerance, and homophobic. Just because one says they are offended by some argument does not mean one should be offended. There must be an objective element to being offended or else simply claiming one is offended is all it takes.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Being offended is mostly a choice. If I say hello to you and you claim offense you have no right to be offended. It is illegitimate offense.

Mostly these discussions evolve into one side claiming offense and using words like hate, intolerance, and homophobic. Just because one says they are offended by some argument does not mean one should be offended. There must be an objective element to being offended or else simply claiming one is offended is all it takes.

I agree, Fix.

I think legitimate offense is when what is said is directly, not indirectly, targeted at demeaning the person. If Person A says something and Person B takes offense because what was said indirectly qualifies Person B’s lifestyle, family, or whatever, then that offense may be illegitimate.

 

[Corki]

Does the label of “disordered” qualify?

However intended, it’s offensive.

How is that offensive? A disorder is anything that isn’t working like it was designed to do. That can be medically or psychologically; innate or acquired. It is a simple statement of fact, not a judgement or a label.

If I wrote a textbook on disorders of the eye and it included a discussion of blindness, would you say that the book and its author was being offensive to blind people?

No. The eye is designed to provide vision. If it is not working in that manner, there is a disorder. Human sexuality is designed to work in a complementary manner and to produce offspring. If it is not working in that manner, there is a disorder. An infertile married couple suffers from a disorder related to the latter function. A homosexual suffers from a disorder related to the former function.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Is claiming same sex attraction is not ordered toward the good offensive?

See posts #65 and #70

 

[TimeEntrance]

Certain temptations being much more likely in a given person than in other people doesn’t mean free will is an illusion, they still have the choice to act or not on those temptations.

Neuroscience will point to people with ticks or certain involuntary movement as evidence that free will is an illusion. And I will agree to this extent with neuroscience that free will is absent in those individuals who have some damage or disorder to their brains. As best I can understand it. I’m not in neuroscience. But it seems reasonable to me to conclude that free will if it exists is contingent on a healthy brain.

The drug addict or severe alcoholic may shed some light on this dilemma if in fact the chemical structure of the addict or alcoholics brain as been altered, thus leading them to uncontrollable cravings for their substance of choice. In the case of the severe alcoholic some alcohol may be needed or that person may go into a seizure and die.

The question is–and this is what I suspect the theological commentary was created to address–is the homosexual born gay by deterministic genetic or other biological factors? (e.g., hormones from the mother in her womb effecting the developing brain of the child so that they child’s brain determines its thoughts and arousal to be homosexual rather than heterosexual).

I suspect the theological comments (theology is neither biology nor neuroscience) are politically mustered comments meant to reconcile and compromise morally with the popular belief homosexuality is a deterministic trait derived at either conception or while developing in the womb of the mother.

Even your reply does not contradict the proposition in neuroscience that free will is an illusion. In fact, I suspect those in neuroscience would say your comment actually helps support their claim, and so does the theological argument of Catholic Church regarding homosexuality.

My understanding is that neuroscience suggests that do to chemistry and physics being deterministic, predictable, in nature that all human thoughts and choices are deterministic. But that it’s not a 1 or 2 thoughts or choices one might have but maybe 20 or 1,000,000. The point being that even in 1,000,000 the choice is determined and predictable given on any given number of (name removed by moderator)uts.

I do not follow your position at all? Does ever desire that comes into your mind mean it is good and should be entertained simply because it appears?

This is not a matter of a fleeting desire not encoded instructionally in my personal biological system (each person’s biology being unique to themselves–this is why some react differently to certain prescribed drugs than others, why each person’s immune system is different).

This is a matter of instructions encoded in me that make my orientation. Again, a deterministic quality.

My view is this, though I’m sure it will be unpopular to both homosexuals and heterosexuals. No one is born heterosexual or homosexual and human sexuality is more fluid than that. I don’t think those we call “bisexual” are precisely “50% hetero and 50% homo.”

If I am correct heterosexuals will likely react most negatively to this as it will injure their self perceptions of themselves with respects to their “invincible manliness” and what they thought they were (deterministically) at conception or at least at birth.

Those in science that prefer to believe free will is an illusion and that each humans thoughts are determined by the chemicals and structural neural pathways in their brain, already suggest pedophilia is probably a genetically heritable trait.

So, I guess for political purposes, the Church can treat hypotheses like these as if they were known scientific laws, or truths handed down by Jesus, and then say to laity and public, “It is okay to be a pedophile so long as you don’t have sexual contact with children.”

Really?

(Studies of the brains of homosexual and heterosexual men will show different chemical responses in their brains to images of men and women. Some that argue the genetic hypothesis is true will point to this as proof. It seems no proof at all to me. To me it’s more along the lines of that old question, “What came first, the chicken or the egg?”)

 

[TimeEntrance]

I should probably just add this:

I’m not trying to change Church views or teachings. The Church can continue its teaching that it is okay to be gay as long as you don’t have gay sex.

I just won’t follow the Church teaching where I find it intellectually and morally lacking for myself.

And if the Church teachings gets it into more scandal in the near or far future like it has over the whole Galileo affair that will be the fault of the Church.

It certainly will not be me to blame. My conscience will be free.

 

[fix]

See posts #65 and #70

I did. What is offensive about stating same sex attraction is not ordered correctly?

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

I did. What is offensive about stating same sex attraction is not ordered correctly?

I just pointed out where I said it wasn’t offensive in context.

 

[CopticChristian]

The question is–and this is what I suspect the theological commentary was created to address–is the homosexual born gay by deterministic genetic or other biological factors? (e.g., hormones from the mother in her womb effecting the developing brain of the child so that they child’s brain determines its thoughts and arousal to be homosexual rather than heterosexual).

I suspect the theological comments (theology is neither biology nor neuroscience) are politically mustered comments meant to reconcile and compromise morally with the popular belief homosexuality is a deterministic trait derived at either conception or while developing in the womb of the mother.

Even your reply does not contradict the proposition in neuroscience that free will is an illusion. In fact, I suspect those in neuroscience would say your comment actually helps support their claim, and so does the theological argument of Catholic Church regarding homosexuality.

This is not a matter of a fleeting desire not encoded instructionally in my personal biological system (each person’s biology being unique to themselves–this is why some react differently to certain prescribed drugs than others, why each person’s immune system is different).

This is a matter of instructions encoded in me that make my orientation. Again, a deterministic quality.

My view is this, though I’m sure it will be unpopular to both homosexuals and heterosexuals. No one is born heterosexual or homosexual and human sexuality is more fluid than that. I don’t think those we call “bisexual” are precisely “50% hetero and 50% homo.”

If I am correct heterosexuals will likely react most negatively to this as it will injure their self perceptions of themselves with respects to their “invincible manliness” and what they thought they were (deterministically) at conception or at least at birth.

So, I guess for political purposes, the Church can treat hypotheses like these as if they were known scientific laws, or truths handed down by Jesus, and then say to laity and public, “It is okay to be a pedophile so long as you don’t have sexual contact with children.”

Really?

(Studies of the brains of homosexual and heterosexual men will show different chemical responses in their brains to images of men and women. Some that argue the genetic hypothesis is true will point to this as proof. It seems no proof at all to me. To me it’s more along the lines of that old question, “What came first, the chicken or the egg?”)

Neuroscience will point to people with ticks or certain involuntary movement as evidence that free will is an illusion. And I will agree to this extent with neuroscience that free will is absent in those individuals who have some damage or disorder to their brains. As best I can understand it. I’m not in neuroscience. But it seems reasonable to me to conclude that free will if it exists is contingent on a healthy brain.

We know less about the brain than you imagine we do. I suggest you spend about 6 hours watching BBC/Brain Story…you can see it on youtube…I spent a weekedn watching this fascinating expose of what we don’t know, certainly much less than you project we know.

The drug addict or severe alcoholic may shed some light on this dilemma if in fact the chemical structure of the addict or alcoholics brain as been altered, thus leading them to uncontrollable cravings for their substance of choice. In the case of the severe alcoholic some alcohol may be needed or that person may go into a seizure and die.

I am not sure how this equates to much. HBO has a series on addiction that demonstrates that while under the influence of Meth there are brain changes that rever to normal when the substance is stopped. It should come as no surprise that our thoughts are generated by chemicals and exhange and a drug disrupts those patterns. Seizures and alcohol are not as simple as you paint it. Alcohol withdrawal takes many forms from tremor, hallucination and then Delerium tremens…seizures can be seen in withdrawal however DT and seizures is not common…I believe the quoted incidence is about 10%. So why you would bring this up in the context of your thoughts I do not understand.

My understanding is that neuroscience suggests that do to chemistry and physics being deterministic, predictable, in nature that all human thoughts and choices are deterministic. But that it’s not a 1 or 2 thoughts or choices one might have but maybe 20 or 1,000,000. The point being that even in 1,000,000 the choice is determined and predictable given on any given number of (name removed by moderator)uts.

BBC/Brain Story actually addresses this question and poses several questions in that regard. Another area of discourse on the Will can be found in a discourse by Baumiester “Willpower a forgotten power” with review of numerous studies of how the will works under different circumstance.

Those in science that prefer to believe free will is an illusion and that each humans thoughts are determined by the chemicals and structural neural pathways in their brain, already suggest pedophilia is probably a genetically heritable trait.

Point me to the science that says pedophelia is inherited.

 

[CopticChristian]

I should probably just add this:

I’m not trying to change Church views or teachings. The Church can continue its teaching that it is okay to be gay as long as you don’t have gay sex.

And if the Church teachings gets it into more scandal in the near or far future like it has over the whole Galileo affair that will be the fault of the Church.

It certainly will not be me to blame. My conscience will be free.

I just won’t follow the Church teaching where I find it intellectually and morally lacking for myself.

This is big of you. How is ityou can be informed that your intellectual superiority as you view what is lacking is correct?

 

[quiet52]

Originally Posted by Dakota Roberts
It doesn’t refer mentally, it simply means that an attraction to the same sex is contrary to the natural order.

Re: “disordered”: all sin and inclination to sin is “disordered”.
What is “ordered” (using Catholic terminology) is striving for holiness.
It is not the responsibility of the Church to change her terminology or her teachings in order to appease people or make them feel comfortable about the topic of sin. Even the words that Jesus spoke nearly 2,000 years ago “offended” many, but the onus is on them, not Him, to accept what is “ordered.”

 

[quiet52]

Thus now that you know the church has pushed for gay bans, why doesn’t it push for other moral bans? Afterall you think the church should seek to prevent evil from seeping into society? So if gay marriage is evil, why does it not push for bans of divorce, premarital sex, etc. . . . . .

“Push for moral bans” is an interesting way of describing “do not sin.” The Church does teach us not to sin in any way. Perhaps not as effectively as we wish she would, but she does.

The problem is simple, being gay is not a sin. Thus there should be no objection to allowing homosexuals to serve as Priests. Unfortunately, the reason for this was because of the pedophille issues in the Catholic church. . . .

The issue of not ordaining homosexual clergy is larger than the sins of pedophilia and ephebophilia. The issue includes priests actively engaging in homosexual behaviors with adults, and with priests preaching to the faithful that homosexual behaviors are not sinful.
No Catholic man has a “right” to the priestly vocation, and there are many reasons why men might not be accepted; homosexual inclination is just one of them.
The Catholic faithful has an inherent right to expect that their spiritual shepherds truly are able and willing to pass on the faith, with no impediments. It’s simply not realistic to expect that a homosexual priest, even a chaste one, will zealously defend and preach what the Church teaches about marriage and sexuality.

 

[quiet52]

I posted this list of resources on another thread, but thought it might be appropriate to post it here too.

Why Marriage Matters (Alliance Defending Freedom, an alliance of Christian lawyers defending attacks on religious liberty)
alliancedefendingfreedom…age-and-family

Marriage: Unique For a Reason (USCCB - Catholic teachings on marriage)
marriageuniqueforareason.org/

Archbishop Cordileone states case against gay “marriage” (interview by USA Today)
usatoday.com/story/news/n…hurch/2001085/
“To legalize marriage between two people of the same sex would enshrine in the law the principle that mothers and fathers are interchangeable or irrelevant.”

A Primer on Church Teaching Regarding Same-Sex “Marriage” (First Things blog)
firstthings.com/blogs/fir…iage/#comments

The Catechism of the Catholic Church
vatican.va/archive/ccc_cs…m/p3s2c2a6.htm