Defending a Higher Law - Against homosexual marriage

[pepipop]

Pages 80-82 tfp.org/images/books/Defending_A_Higher_Law.pdf

I clicked on this doc. from another post and found it an excellent read and explains a lot regarding the arguments posed by homosexuality in today’s world.

I agree with all contained in the doc, however I still feel that there was not enough said regarding why a young boy/girl is attracted to the same sex, in the first place. Homosexuality has been with us since the beginning of time, so has always been an aberation in humanity. I do not believe it is genetic, and he mentions this fact through studies carried out with identical twins showing that not all twins will have the same sexual orientation. The doc., also states how gravely sinful the act is, mentioning sodom and gomarrah, throughout.

I still just do not get, though, how a young person would actively choose to be gay, and to also know it was a very sinful lifestyle choice. However, you will hear or read about young people knowing they are gay/were gay, from a very young age. If everyone started out with a heterosexual orientation and then made the choice to be gay because they thought it was more fun, more promiscious, etc., well then I could fully understand it to be sin of choice.
Any insights would be most welcome.

 

[SteveGC]

As far as I know, the Church acknowledges that homosexual orientation is not necessarily a conscience choice for some people. I don’t know if they go so far as to concede it may be genetic, but I just think they are silent on the issue one way or the other. At the same time, the Church accepts the many scientific studies which strongly suggest that SSA is a “learned” orientation, which is to say that it is common for it to be clearly non-genetic.

In either case, assuming this occurs very young in age (which it seems to in most cases), the Church sympathizes deeply with the burden faced by those afflicted, offers them counsel and guidance, strongly admonishes against discrimination from others, and attempts to guide them gently toward an understanding of their state in life and the need for chastity. That’s not to say all Catholics share this sentiment, but most devout ones do, and certainly it is the overall Church’s stance on the issue.

In the case where it is clearly non-genetic, the draw towards SS orientation is difficult to pin down, and certainly has many variables. The age where such an orientation begins is obviously a major factor in determining motivation and awareness in the individual. Some argue that very young children who were prematurely exposed to sexuality, i.e. movies, television, magazines, pornography, promiscuity of older siblings/adults in the family, perhaps sexual abuse to some degree, etc. are quite susceptible of later homosexual leanings. My guess is that it is because, while they are exposed to it and intrigued by it, at that young age they have no natural tendencies toward the opposite sex yet, and having already normally, if not exclusively, surrounded themselves with same sex friends, this new-found intrigue is played out, or experimented, or fantasized about, with those kids.

I think it’s also important to note that not all who identify themselves as homosexual are truly oriented SEXUALLY to the same sex, but rather identify with the identity, the plight, or the community that is homosexual. Often they do not fair well intimately with the opposite sex, regardless of their sexual attraction to them. And they find friendship, equality, and certainly a non-judgmental environment within the homosexual community. So they “become” homosexual, all the while, they have no inclination to actually lay down with the same sex.

Thanks for linking to the document. Will read it soon.

 

[1AugustSon7]

Human sexuality is at the core of our identity and psychology. It is extremely important to realize this: “Male and female made He them.” Humanity is not a condition that has subsequent break-downs of male or female. Humanity is either male or female. Your sex is part of your vocation as a being. It precedes you. Your identity, therefore, is determined by your sex. Hence the statement “I am a man” and “she is a woman” is absolute. On forms and surveys we are asked: “Male or female?” All else only qualifies or builds on it. It is who and what I am and who and what she is. When this understanding is lost, confused or blurred then a real identity crisis will follow. Confusion is the consequence.

The present rise in Sodomy is largely a consequence of confusion as regards our (human) nature. There is an anti-scientific belief that men and women are essentially the same and sex is simply accidental. This creates the illusion of a monosex and a single, common vocation for everyone independent of their sex. The only rational beings in existence that are like this are the angels. In reality, this invents a new being that simply does not exist in actuality. Because it does not exist, it is like a blank canvass that an artist begins to paint or draw and determine what it is to be or become. Such social engineering results in the destruction of authentic human sex and the loss of both masculinity and femininity, but masculinity first.

Why is masculinity lost first? Because genuine masculinity is almost completely a learned behaviour and, therefore, the most susceptible to loss or destruction. It is, therefore, the easiest to destroy. Nature itself attests to this. Consider that only the boy’s voice suddenly begins to change and deepen, which begins to make a most marked distinction between him and her. The woman does not undergo this transformation. Consider that men are more than content to remain, nonetheless, in a jeuvenile, adolescent state and nearly always require societal intervention and pressure to encourage him to “grow up.” He is liable to be content to be nothing more than a stud (sperm donor) and continue in a completely jeuvenile state. This state is absolutely destructive to society. When we survey criminals we often find they are men and men who, regardless of the their age, we generally call jeuvenile, in both mind and behaviour. They are anti-social in the strongest sense of them term and they tend to hate authority and its most obvious, natural representative in the father or patriarch or the state. The difference between the family man and the thug is, of course, enormous. They are appear to be practically two different beings. Both look alike but their thinking is completely foreign to each other and they tend to despise and detest each other instinctively. In reality, though, both are men but only one truly became a man while the other never did. The latter are the natural denizens of Soddom and Gomorrah. They stand in clear contrast to men like Abraham and Lot.

Consider, finally, the Hollywood film the Family Man with Nicholas Cage. Everyone familiar with this film knows that the same man (played by Nicholas Cage) was effectively presented with two potential courses in his life. The one involved little freedom or independence, glory or honour in the worldly sense, whilst the latter offered fame, wealth and an apparent freedom and independence. Marriage and a family, of course, was the former situation. What’s important here is that while he ultimately chooses the latter, he nonetheless appears perfectly acceptable and sociable, but we find that, nonetheless, he is completely superficial and jeuvenile. He is rich and powerful but nonetheless completely content to be little more than a stud when it comes to women and relationships. He occupies himself with expensive, but ultimately trivial, pursuits. He is becoming increasingly narcisistic with no end in sight. It practically requires Divine Intervention for him to see how far he has fallen and just how shallow of a man he is; in fact, he realizes he is but the shell of the man he could have been and that - for all his freedom, wealth and independence - he is not in the least bit satisfied or fulfilled like his counterpart-self who chose instead to get married. The married man really was a man.

Pages 80-82 tfp.org/images/books/Defending_A_Higher_Law.pdf

I clicked on this doc. from another post and found it an excellent read and explains a lot regarding the arguments posed by homosexuality in today’s world.

I agree with all contained in the doc, however I still feel that there was not enough said regarding why a young boy/girl is attracted to the same sex, in the first place. Homosexuality has been with us since the beginning of time, so has always been an aberation in humanity. I do not believe it is genetic, and he mentions this fact through studies carried out with identical twins showing that not all twins will have the same sexual orientation. The doc., also states how gravely sinful the act is, mentioning sodom and gomarrah, throughout.

I still just do not get, though, how a young person would actively choose to be gay, and to also know it was a very sinful lifestyle choice. However, you will hear or read about young people knowing they are gay/were gay, from a very young age. If everyone started out with a heterosexual orientation and then made the choice to be gay because they thought it was more fun, more promiscious, etc., well then I could fully understand it to be sin of choice.
Any insights would be most welcome.

 

[pepipop]

Why is masculinity lost first? Because genuine masculinity is almost completely a learned behaviour and, therefore, the most susceptible to loss or destruction. It is, therefore, the easiest to destroy. Nature itself attests to this. Consider that only the boy’s voice suddenly begins to change and deepen, which begins to make a most marked distinction between him and her. The woman does not undergo this transformation. Consider that men are more than content to remain, nonetheless, in a jeuvenile, adolescent state and nearly always require societal intervention and pressure to encourage him to “grow up.” He is liable to be content to be nothing more than a stud (sperm donor) and continue in a completely jeuvenile state. This state is absolutely destructive to society. When we survey criminals we often find they are men and men who, regardless of the their age, we generally call jeuvenile, in both mind and behaviour. They are anti-social in the strongest sense of them term and they tend to hate authority and its most obvious, natural representative in the father or patriarch or the state. The difference between the family man and the thug is, of course, enormous. They are appear to be practically two different beings. Both look alike but their thinking is completely foreign to each other and they tend to despise and detest each other instinctively. In reality, though, both are men but only one truly became a man while the other never did. The latter are the natural denizens of Soddom and Gomorrah. They stand in clear contrast to men like Abraham and Lot.

Very interesting post. I do believe, however, that females can also hold on to their juvenile state, wanting to party, many male partners, no maternal instincts, a similar narcisstic lifestyle that you protray to the male role. Some of these females, even if they marry and have children, can still hold on to their lifestyles of partying, makeup, monied lifestyle, etc…with limited interest in their children. So, I am not sure that I can agree that masculinity is lost first, in preference to femininity. The juvenile males, like the females - although females usually succumb earlier due to their biological clock - usually settle down when they get ‘too old’ to party.

 

[SteveGC]

Very interesting post. I do believe, however, that females can also hold on to their juvenile state, wanting to party, many male partners, no maternal instincts, a similar narcisstic lifestyle that you protray to the male role. Some of these females, even if they marry and have children, can still hold on to their lifestyles of partying, makeup, monied lifestyle, etc…with limited interest in their children. So, I am not sure that I can agree that masculinity is lost first, in preference to femininity. The juvenile males, like the females - although females usually succumb earlier due to their biological clock - usually settle down when they get ‘too old’ to party.

Consider, however, that perhaps what you’re seeing with that is preceded by what August was saying about males. In other words, would we see the juvenile clinging and promiscuity from females to a large extent if males were more prone to “grow up”, be actual men, commit to their responsibilities, be family men, etc etc.?

In my experience and observation, women don’t stray down the wrong path if they’re in the company of REAL men. That includes fathers, brothers, boyfriends, husbands, regular friends, etc.

Just a thought.

Incidentally, Voris over at RealCatholic has a decent short series on masculinity that fits in well with this topic. Here’s a link to one of the three or four videos they made.

 

[pepipop]

Consider, however, that perhaps what you’re seeing with that is preceded by what August was saying about males. In other words, would we see the juvenile clinging and promiscuity from females to a large extent if males were more prone to “grow up”, be actual men, commit to their responsibilities, be family men, etc etc.?

In my experience and observation, women don’t stray down the wrong path if they’re in the company of REAL men. That includes fathers, brothers, boyfriends, husbands, regular friends, etc.

Just a thought.

Quite true, I think the chicken and egg can be well defined if this is the case. Yes, if men acted more responsibly women would look up and respect them and wish to be feminine and looked after. Possibly, females are disappointed with male role models of today and this has caused females to react in a similar fashion, as they do not trust them. Females expect them to stray or not commit to a responsible relationship, which has been fuelled by the media’s negative protrayal of men as continually adulterous and that they need to be mothered and pandered to.

 

[pepipop]

Mind you in saying the above, some of these men will have had dominating mother’s, single parent families and/or usually have very limited masculine influences in their own lives.

 

[SevensKnight]

The link below is very helpful in learning the causes and exposing the sick illusion of homosexuality. It was a study done by Dr. Cameron:

biblebelievers.com/Cameron3.html

Dr. Cameron did a thorough research on the matter and found four (4) major causes:

1. Homosexual experience
2. Family abnormality
3. Unusual sexual experience, particularly in early childhood
4. Cultural influences

His findings also fit with some of the findings of Dr. Henry Makow. The link below are excellent reads:

henrymakow.com/a_glimpse_of_the_future_for_go.html
henrymakow.com/241001.html
henrymakow.com/why_do_women_love_gays.html

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Pages 80-82 tfp.org/images/books/Defending_A_Higher_Law.pdf

I clicked on this doc. from another post and found it an excellent read and explains a lot regarding the arguments posed by homosexuality in today’s world.

I agree with all contained in the doc, however I still feel that there was not enough said regarding why a young boy/girl is attracted to the same sex, in the first place. Homosexuality has been with us since the beginning of time, so has always been an aberation in humanity. I do not believe it is genetic, and he mentions this fact through studies carried out with identical twins showing that not all twins will have the same sexual orientation. The doc., also states how gravely sinful the act is, mentioning sodom and gomarrah, throughout.

I still just do not get, though, how a young person would actively choose to be gay, and to also know it was a very sinful lifestyle choice. However, you will hear or read about young people knowing they are gay/were gay, from a very young age. If everyone started out with a heterosexual orientation and then made the choice to be gay because they thought it was more fun, more promiscious, etc., well then I could fully understand it to be sin of choice.
Any insights would be most welcome.

There is also the possibility that it is hormonal, it has been show by studies that women who are very stressed in the first six weeks of pregnancy have a six fold increase in the chance that her son will be “gay”, it also typically causes their daughters to be even more feminine. If a person is gay then there is a substantially higher chance for male family members on the mother’s side to be gay which means that there are potentially genetic factors in the mother that can cause hormonal defects during pregnancy resulting in a higher chance of a gay son.

Even if is proven that nature plays no part that does not necessarily prove that it is choice, early childhood environment could also play a part in it (although when some get pet crushes at age 4 on the same sex that has to be some really early factors).

As far as I know, the Church acknowledges that homosexual orientation is not necessarily a conscience choice for some people. I don’t know if they go so far as to concede it may be genetic, but I just think they are silent on the issue one way or the other. At the same time, the Church accepts the many scientific studies which strongly suggest that SSA is a “learned” orientation, which is to say that it is common for it to be clearly non-genetic.

In either case, assuming this occurs very young in age (which it seems to in most cases), the Church sympathizes deeply with the burden faced by those afflicted, offers them counsel and guidance, strongly admonishes against discrimination from others, and attempts to guide them gently toward an understanding of their state in life and the need for chastity. That’s not to say all Catholics share this sentiment, but most devout ones do, and certainly it is the overall Church’s stance on the issue.

In the case where it is clearly non-genetic, the draw towards SS orientation is difficult to pin down, and certainly has many variables. The age where such an orientation begins is obviously a major factor in determining motivation and awareness in the individual. Some argue that very young children who were prematurely exposed to sexuality, i.e. movies, television, magazines, pornography, promiscuity of older siblings/adults in the family, perhaps sexual abuse to some degree, etc. are quite susceptible of later homosexual leanings. My guess is that it is because, while they are exposed to it and intrigued by it, at that young age they have no natural tendencies toward the opposite sex yet, and having already normally, if not exclusively, surrounded themselves with same sex friends, this new-found intrigue is played out, or experimented, or fantasized about, with those kids.

I think it’s also important to note that not all who identify themselves as homosexual are truly oriented SEXUALLY to the same sex, but rather identify with the identity, the plight, or the community that is homosexual. Often they do not fair well intimately with the opposite sex, regardless of their sexual attraction to them. And they find friendship, equality, and certainly a non-judgmental environment within the homosexual community. So they “become” homosexual, all the while, they have no inclination to actually lay down with the same sex.

Thanks for linking to the document. Will read it soon.

The Church makes no claim to the etiology of homosexuality, it is actually irrelevant to the Church’s teaching, everyone is called to chastity.

 

[pepipop]

The link below is very helpful in learning the causes and exposing the sick illusion of homosexuality. It was a study done by Dr. Cameron:

biblebelievers.com/Cameron3.html

Dr. Cameron did a thorough research on the matter and found four (4) major causes:

1. Homosexual experience
2. Family abnormality
3. Unusual sexual experience, particularly in early childhood
4. Cultural influences

His findings also fit with some of the findings of Dr. Henry Makow. The link below are excellent reads:

henrymakow.com/a_glimpse_of_the_future_for_go.html
henrymakow.com/241001.html
henrymakow.com/why_do_women_love_gays.html

Interesting, particularly Dr Cameron’s report. The other links highlight social changes that have occured and possibly fuelled homosexuality. However, as to whether it is the ‘illuminati’, which may or may not exist. One thing for sure is that satan does.

 

[SteveGC]

The Church makes no claim to the etiology of homosexuality, it is actually irrelevant to the Church’s teaching, everyone is called to chastity.

True enough. Sorry if my post suggested otherwise. Not intended. I can see where some of my wording might’ve been misleading. Which is why I included the following:

SteveGC:

but I just think they are silent on the issue one way or the other

and

[The Church]
attempts to guide them gently toward an understanding of their state in life and the need for chastity

…and I certainly understand that we are all called to chastity.

 

[Joe_5859]

I think we need to be careful about creating a false dichotomy. There are more possible explanations for the origin of the homosexual inclination than simply: 1) It is 100% genetic and therefore not a free choice; or 2) It is 100% not genetic and therfore is a free choice.

Simply because the cause is not genetic does not mean that it is a deliberate choice. I think that asserting such a thing is foolish as it runs contrary to many people’s experience.

Things also happen in our environment, from the earliest moments, that shape who we are in ways we do not often fully understand.

In any case, the cause of it doesn’t really change the fact that acting on the inclination runs contrary to the natural law and Catholic moral teaching.

 

[littlebum2002]

Autism is not genetic, yet people do not choose to be autistic.

The general scientific opinion right now is that sexual orientation is established through hormone levels while the child is in the womb. Not genetic, but not chosen either.

However, genetics may still play a part. For instance, certain genes may make one more susceptible to hormones int he womb, and therefore more susceptible to being gay. There is no gay gene, but there might be a gene which increases the likelihood of being gay,.

 

[SevensKnight]

I highly recommend you check out Dr. Cameron’s findings - he proves that there is absolutely nothing genetic causing homosexuality. (biblebelievers.com/Cameron3.html)

From his findings above, he points out to (4) four major causes:

*1. Homosexual experience: any homosexual experience in childhood, especially if it is a first sexual experience or with an adult any homosexual contact with an adult, particularly with a relative or authority figure (in a random survey, 5% of adult homosexuals vs 0.8% of heterosexuals reported childhood sexual involvements with elementary or secondary school teachers (5).

1. Family abnormality, including the following: a dominant, possessive, or rejecting mother, an absent, distant, or rejecting father, a parent with homosexual proclivities, particularly one who molests a child of the same sex a sibling with homosexual tendencies, particularly one who molests a brother or sister the lack of a religious home environment, divorce, which often leads to sexual problems for both the children and the adults, parents who model unconventional sex roles condoning homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle – welcoming homosexuals (e.g., co-workers, friends) into the family circle
2. Unusual sexual experience, particularly in early childhood: precocious or excessive masturbation, exposure to pornography in childhood, depersonalized sex (e.g., group sex, sex with animals) or girls, sexual interaction with adult males
3. Cultural influences: a visible and socially approved homosexual sub-culture that invites curiosity and encourages exploration pro-homosexual sex education
   openly homosexual authority figures, such as teachers (4% of Kinsey’s and 4% of FRI’s gays reported that their first homosexual experience was with a teacher)
   societal and legal toleration of homosexual acts depictions of homosexuality as normal and/or desirable behavior *

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

I highly recommend you check out Dr. Cameron’s findings - he proves that there is absolutely nothing genetic causing homosexuality. (biblebelievers.com/Cameron3.html)

From his findings above, he points out to (4) four major causes:

1. Homosexual experience: any homosexual experience in childhood, especially if it is a first sexual experience or with an adult any homosexual contact with an adult, particularly with a relative or authority figure (in a random survey, 5% of adult homosexuals vs 0.8% of heterosexuals reported childhood sexual involvements with elementary or secondary school teachers (5).

1. Family abnormality, including the following: a dominant, possessive, or rejecting mother, an absent, distant, or rejecting father, a parent with homosexual proclivities, particularly one who molests a child of the same sex a sibling with homosexual tendencies, particularly one who molests a brother or sister the lack of a religious home environment, divorce, which often leads to sexual problems for both the children and the adults, parents who model unconventional sex roles condoning homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle – welcoming homosexuals (e.g., co-workers, friends) into the family circle
2. Unusual sexual experience, particularly in early childhood: precocious or excessive masturbation, exposure to pornography in childhood, depersonalized sex (e.g., group sex, sex with animals) or girls, sexual interaction with adult males
3. Cultural influences: a visible and socially approved homosexual sub-culture that invites curiosity and encourages exploration pro-homosexual sex education
   openly homosexual authority figures, such as teachers (4% of Kinsey’s and 4% of FRI’s gays reported that their first homosexual experience was with a teacher)
   societal and legal toleration of homosexual acts depictions of homosexuality as normal and/or desirable behavior

His research continues to be from the same two studies which are seriously flawed (six major flaws, anyone one of which can make the data worthless)

 

[SevensKnight]

His research continues to be from the same two studies which are seriously flawed (six major flaws, anyone one of which can make the data worthless)

I disagree. Time Magazine had similar findings and conducted the experiments on several homosexual subjects. A good majority of them were “cured” and the major causes of homosexuality were parallel to Dr. Cameron’s findings.

time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,808760,00.html

 

[PoesLaw]

The doc., also states how gravely sinful the act is, mentioning sodom and gomarrah, throughout.

That’s why Yahweh ordered that homosexuals be killed in the Old Testament.

EDIT: This obviously doesn’t mean that WE should kill homosexuals, as God now deals with this by killing them himself and sending them the Hell forever.

I still just do not get, though, how a young person would actively choose to be gay, and to also know it was a very sinful lifestyle choice.

I think there is one explanation. It is something demonically induced. That must be why so many commit suicide and have mental illnesses.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

I disagree. Time Magazine had similar findings and conducted the experiments on several homosexual subjects. A good majority of them were “cured” and the major causes of homosexuality were parallel to Dr. Cameron’s findings.

time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,808760,00.html

I’m blocked from viewing most of the article

That’s why Yahweh ordered that homosexuals be killed in the Old Testament.

EDIT: This obviously doesn’t mean that WE should kill homosexuals, as God now deals with this by killing them himself and sending them the Hell forever.

I think there is one explanation. It is something demonically induced. That must be why so many commit suicide and have mental illnesses.

Talmud Bavli Sanhedrin 109b:

There were four judges in Sodom, [named] Shakrai, Shakurai, Zayyafi, and Mazle Dina.1 Now, if a man assaulted his neighbour’s wife and bruised her, they would say [to the husband], ‘Give her to him, that she may become pregnant for thee.’ If one cut off the ear of his neighbour’s ***, they would order, ‘Give it to him until it grows again.’ If one wounded his neighbour they would say to him [the victim], ‘Give him a fee for bleeding thee.’ He who crossed over with the ferry had to pay four zuzim, whilst he who crossed through the water had to pay eight. On one occasion, a certain fuller happened to come there. Said they to him, ‘Give us four zuzim [for the use of the ferry].’ But, protested he, ‘I crossed through the water!’ ‘If so,’ said they, ‘thou must give eight zuzim for passing through the water.’ He refused to give it, so they assaulted him. He went before the judge, who ordered, 'Give them a fee for bleeding and eight zuzim for crossing through the water. Now Eliezer, Abraham’s servant, happened to be there, and was attacked. When he went before the judge, he said, ‘Give them a fee for bleeding thee.’ Thereupon he took a stone and smote the judge. ‘What is this!’ he exclaimed. He replied, ‘The fee that thou owest me give to this man [who attacked me], whilst my money will remain in statu quo.’ Now, they had beds upon which travellers slept. If he [the guest] was too long, they shortened him [by lopping off his feet]; if too short, they stretched him out. Eliezer, Abraham’s servant, happened to go there. Said they to him, ‘Arise and sleep on this bed!’ He replied, ‘I have vowed since the day of my mother’s death not to sleep in a bed.’ If a poor man happened to come there, every resident gave him a denar, upon which he wrote his name, but no bread was given him. When he died, each came and took back his. They made this agreement amongst themselves: whoever invites a man [a stranger] to a feast shall be stripped of his garment. Now, a banquet was in progress, when Eliezer chanced there, but they gave him no bread. Wishing to dine, he went and sat down at the end of them all. Said they to him, ‘Who invited thee here?’ He replied to the one sitting near him, ‘Thou didst invite me.’ The latter said to himself, ‘Peradventure they will hear that I invited him, and strip me of my garments!’ So he took up his raiment and fled without. Thus he [Eliezer] did to all, until they had all gone; whereupon he consumed the entire repast. A certain maiden gave some bread to a poor man, [hiding it] in a pitcher. On the matter becoming known, they daubed her with honey and placed her on the parapet of the wall, and the bees came and consumed her. Thus it is written, And the Lord said, The cry of Sodom and Gomorrah, because it is great:2 whereon Rab Judah commented in Rab’s name: On account of the maiden [ribah].3

There was a lot of bad stuff going on in Sodom