Homophobia: What Jesus NEVER said and Biological Proof

[Don_Schneider]

Brendan,

I suppose I look at it this way - with so much violence and hate in the world today, if two homosexuals find happiness with each other - is that really something worthy of me being outraged by? My answer is no.

Dear Chris,

In what context are you writing here? Societal tolerance or religious tolerance, specially, Catholicism?

 

[mkingdomlvr]

I was referring to mainly the NT verses. So it is ok to kill people now? to steal, cheat, adulterate?

Do you really think the people of the ancient world had the drugs to cure all diseases? The best treatment would be to isolate them. it is sad that people looked down upon them.

You say the Bible is outdated yet you try to impose today’s standards on it? this makes little sense to me.

The OT gets thrown out the minute someone reminds you of the incest and polygamy-and I didn’t even get into all the killing that went on in the name of who had the better God.

The approval of slavery is in the NT…you do know that right? Paul talked about treating slaves well, but that didn’t include freeing them because owning people was wrong.

Of course they didn’t have the drugs-you’re making my point. We have learned more now and we don’t use the Bible to define and treat illnesses-we use science.

I’m just trying to make people aware that there are other ways to look at things besides labeling people as “diseased” and that their interpretation of Scripture just might be a tad inconsistent.

 

[Orogeny]

I would respectfully suggest that this would be a personal issue for you and your wife to address.

But this gets to the heart of what you wrote. I am born with an attraction to women that is God-given. Now that I am married, why would God insist that I not act out my inclination to have sex with as many women as possible? Why is that different than a homosexual having to abstain from sex with someone of the same sex?

Peace

Tim

 

[Brendan]

Brendan,

Thank you for your response.

While people may have been born with tendencies toward alcoholism and compulsive gambling, these actions are generally considered ‘diseases’. While homosexual behavior may be considered sinful or immoral by some, it is not a ‘disease’.

But that is an entirely subjective determination. We consider gambling addiction a ‘disease’ simply because of the moral aspects of it, it damages a persons finaces so that their family is negatively impacted. A biologist, for example, could find no pathogen infesting the gamblers body, so it certainly isn’t a disease in the biological sense.

The same is true for alcoholism. It’s addictive nature is not shown by any test, so that a biologist could do a bioposy, blood same etc… and show that my father-in-law (a recovering alcoholic) has any pathogen that caused alcoholism in him but not in this brothers.

The are classified as ‘diseases’ simply because they violate certain ‘taboos’, which really puts them in no different of a category as homosexuality.

I suppose I look at it this way - with so much violence and hate in the world today, if two homosexuals find happiness with each other - is that really something worthy of me being outraged by? My answer is no.

Enraged, no. To love them enough to help them overcome their moral faults, certainly, that is what we are called to do as Catholics.

There are many people who find ‘happiness’ doing things that the Church finds to be morally objectionable, such as burning crosses on people’s lawns. Does the very fact that someone finds happiness in an act mean that we should accept it, especially when we find the act repulsive. No, we must look beyond ourselves and our personal determinations of right\wrong to an objective source, the Church.

 

[7_Sorrows]

I don’t have time to negate St. Paul [which I can easily do] considering he heavily contradicted Jesus in a number of ways; not to mention that he never ONCE in the Bible said that you had to be a Christian to get to heaven, nor that gay people are terrible.
I will eventually post my essay on Paul and Moses. I wouldn’t be here unless I had belief in Catholics as intellectual beings, so here is PROOF being gay is biological:

Physiological
Recent studies have found notable differences between the physiology of gay people and non-gay people. There is evidence that:

Gay men have similar brains to those of straight women and gay women to those of straight men [48]
The average size of the INAH-3 in the brains of gay men is approximately the same size as INAH 3 in women, which is significantly smaller, and the cells more densely packed [women use their bra(name removed by moderator)ower more efficiently], than in heterosexual men’s brains.[5]
The suprachiasmatic nucleus was found by Swaab and Hopffman to be larger in gay men than in non-gay men,[49] the suprachiasmatic nucleus is also known to be larger in men than in women.[50]
The anterior commissure is larger in women than men and was reported to be larger in gay men than in non-gay men,[51] but a subsequent study found no such difference.[52]
Gay men report, on an average, slightly longer and thicker penises than non-gay men.[53]
Gay men’s brains respond differently to fluoxetine, a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor.[54]
The functioning of the inner ear and the central auditory system in lesbians and bisexual women are more like the functional properties found in men than in non-gay women (the researchers argued this finding was consistent with the prenatal hormonal theory of sexual orientation).[55]
The startle response (eyeblink following a loud sound) is similarly masculinized in lesbians and bisexual women.[56]
Three regions of the brain (medial prefrontal cortex, left hippocampus, and right amygdala) are more active in gay men than non-gay men when exposed to sexually arousing material.[57]
Gay and non-gay people emit different armpit odors.[58]
Gay men are more likely to have a counter-clockwise hair whorl pattern.[59]
Gay and non-gay people’s brains respond differently to two human sex pheromones (AND, found in male armpit secretions, and EST, found in female urine).[60][61][62]
Finger length ratios between the index and ring fingers may be different between non-gay and lesbian women.[55][63][64][65][66][67]
Gay men and lesbians are significantly more likely to be left-handed or ambidextrous than are non-gay men and women;[68][69][70] Simon LeVay argues that because “[h]and preference is observable before birth[71]… [t]he observation of increased non-right-handness in gay people is therefore consistent with the idea that sexual orientation is influenced by prenatal processes,” perhaps heredity.

---

. And I’m only going to elaborate on the gay issue ONCE because those who don’t want to listen just won’t: 96 percent of Americans have pre-marital sex, according to the Orlando Sentinel, and yet in the SAME LINE in Corinthians that condemns Christianity, fornication too is condoned. I am gay, and I’m also a very compassionate individual who does his best to better the world and his family. I WOULD NEVER wish my any of my family harm, even the people who have mistreated and slandered me. And if God is loving, neither will he for loving “abstractly.”

Additional Biological PROOF homosexuality is natural:

utexas.edu/courses/bio301…/Gay/Text.html

The American Psychiatric Association hasn’t considered homosexuality a mental illness SINCE 1971. Every single homophobic person here needs to actual READ the aabove, and thus get themselves in-check. It is ridiculous! Instead of fucising on this, reading the beatitudes of Jesus Christ!
guardian.co.uk/science/20…nce.psychology

i have never seen homosexuality as a mental illness. however, in the Old Testament is definitely says it is forbidden. i think Jesus had other things on his mind - like performing miracles, proclaiming the kingdom of God, etc. than speaking about homosexuality.

 

[po18guy]

I believe that gay people are born this way and that this is not an attraction that they simply choose. So if God made them that way, why would He then ask them to repress and deny who they are? As a Catholic, this is a question I have struggled with, and I have yet to hear an answer that to me is reasoned and logical.

Each of us is born with a cross to bear. A struggle, a burden. Those same burdens can either help to perfect us if we struggle against them, or they can be our destruction if we yield to them. Jesus told us that we each have a cross to bear as recorded in Matthew 16:24. Some crosses are that of infidelity. Others are conceit, love of money, attachment to possessions, gambling, drug addiction, alcoholism, and yes, same sex attraction. We are called to struggle against them in our following of Jesus. We experience sorrow and a sense of failure when we yield to those temptations in our lives. And, once we yield, what can we do except lash out toward others in a vain attempt at self-defense?

 

[Christopher68]

Dear Chris,

In what context are you writing here? Societal tolerance or religious tolerance, specially, Catholicism?

Don,

I’m writing in the context of how I personally feel about the issue. I’m sure others will feel differently - I get that. If we all agreed all the time - there would be no point in having this forum.

To your question specifically, I suppose I would say societal tolerance. I’m not asking the Church to change positions, if that’s what you are asking.

 

[Brendan]

. However, the Church is asking gay people to ‘never’ have sex. To me, there is a huge difference here.

Chris, as Catholics we fully believe that Christ supplies sufficent Grace to bear any Cross lightly, even happily.

Commiting a particular sex act does not define WHO a person is, so there is no denial of ‘self’ in being chaste. It is simply what one chooses to do. In this case, to properly conserve the marital act for that which it was created by God for, a Sacramental marital union.

 

[Christopher68]

Chris, as Catholics we fully believe that Christ supplies sufficent Grace to bear any Cross lightly, even happily.

Commiting a particular sex act does not define WHO a person is, so there is no denial of ‘self’ in being chaste. It is simply what one chooses to do. In this case, to properly conserve the marital act for that which it was created by God for, a Sacramental marital union.

Brendan,

I understand our Catholic position on this.

For non-Catholics and non-believers (who don’t share our beliefs on this) - who happen to be homosexual but who are upstanding law abiding citizens - I’m really not concerned with what they do in the privacy of their own home.

 

[po18guy]

Brendan,

I understand our Catholic position on this.

For non-Catholics and non-believers (who don’t share our beliefs on this) - who happen to be homosexual but who are upstanding law abiding citizens - I’m really not concerned with what they do in the privacy of their own home.

Rhetorical question: How do you convey Christ’s love of them if you tacitly condone what they do? If it is a mortal sin for you, it remains so for them as well.

And, since our very thoughts may convict us of sin, is there such a thing as the “privacy of their own home”? The privacy of our own home is precisely where Jesus told us to pray so that God would hear us. Can He not see us as well?

 

[po18guy]

i have never seen homosexuality as a mental illness. however, in the Old Testament is definitely says it is forbidden. i think Jesus had other things on his mind - like performing miracles, proclaiming the kingdom of God, etc. than speaking about homosexuality.

He told the adulteress to “go and sin no more” (John 8:3-11). He also told us that what comes from the hearts of men is what defiles us (Mark 7:20-22). Everything He said and did had a heavenly and eternal purpose. Should we then pick only that which we agree with to focus on?

 

[po18guy]

Brendan,

Thank you for your response.

While people may have been born with tendencies toward alcoholism and compulsive gambling, these actions are generally considered ‘diseases’. While homosexual behavior may be considered sinful or immoral by some, it is not a ‘disease’.

As an old guy, I can tell you that alcoholism and drug addiction were reclassified as “diseases” in the 1970s. Throughout all of human history, they had been moral character flaws. What changed, except the defining down of immorality? The result of this redefinition? More alcoholism and drug addiction, since it was now like catching the flu - no fault involved, only a “victim” of a brand new illness.

I suppose I look at it this way - with so much violence and hate in the world today, if two homosexuals find happiness with each other - is that really something worthy of me being outraged by? My answer is no.

How do you love them, as your neighbors, if you don’t care that they are on the road to hell? We are not to judge them, but only to point out that they are sinning. If we accept their behavior, are we not saying that our faith only applies to us, and that they can live by different rules of their own making?

As with alcoholism and drug addiction, the “normalizing” of homosexual behaviors has lead to, surprise!, more of that behavior. It is a downward spiral of removing the social stigma from sin after sin, until almost nothing is left to be sinful.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Brendan,

Thank you for your response.

While people may have been born with tendencies toward alcoholism and compulsive gambling, these actions are generally considered ‘diseases’. While homosexual behavior may be considered sinful or immoral by some, it is not a ‘disease’.

Up until 1992 homosexuality was classified as a disease when it was removed from the ICD-10 (International Classification of Diseases) (citation).

In 1975 the American Psychological Society removed it as a mental illness (citation).

So your argument here does not really work as we could stop looking at addictions as illnesses and just recognize that this is the way God made these people and we should help them live that way.

 

[jlhargus]

I put faith in WELL-INTENTIONED beings, which some of you are flaunting yourself as otherwise. Jesus advocated an acceptance of others while Paul said …

Don’t associate with non-Christians. Don’t receive them into
your house or even exchange greeting with them. 2 John 1:
10
Shun those who disagree with your religious views. Romans
16:17
Paul, knowing that their faith would crumble if subjected to
free and critical inquiry, tells his followers to avoid philosophy.
Colossians 2:8

JL: 2 John 1:7 Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist. 8 Watch out that you do not lose what you have worked for, but that you may be rewarded fully. 9 Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him. 11 Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked work.

Rms16:17 I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. 18 For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people. 19 Everyone has heard about your obedience, so I am full of joy over you; but I want you to be wise about what is good, and innocent about what is evil.

Col2: 6So then, just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live in him, 7rooted and built up in him, strengthened in the faith as you were taught, and overflowing with thankfulness. 8 See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.

Context is important, where and how does Paul contradict Christ?

1 Peter 3:1 Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, 2 when they see the purity and reverence of your lives. 3 Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as **braided hair **and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes. 4 Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight.

 

[Christopher68]

Rhetorical question: How do you convey Christ’s love of them if you tacitly condone what they do? If it is a mortal sin for you, it remains so for them as well.

And, since our very thoughts may convict us of sin, is there such a thing as the “privacy of their own home”? The privacy of our own home is precisely where Jesus told us to pray so that God would hear us. Can He not see us as well?

From a Catholic standpoint, I understand your point about ‘the privacy of their own home’. I pray in my home regularly! However, from a government and legal standpoint, this concept has immense value. Otherwise we would live in something similar to Stalinist Russia, and I can certainly do without that.

To your first point about ‘tacitly condoning’, I suppose you could say that we tacitly condone bad behavior all the time. For instance, we aren’t standing in front of casinos in Las Vegas warning of the dangers of compulsive gambling. If we see an extremely obese person at a restaurant eating a huge plate of food, we aren’t telling him he should put down his food and start exercising. And people make reckless spending and investment decisions all the time. I’m imperfect enough as it is - it would be foolish of me to go around pointing out imperfections in others.

 

[Brendan]

From a Catholic standpoint, I understand your point about ‘the privacy of their own home’. I pray in my home regularly! However, from a government and legal standpoint, this concept has immense value. Otherwise we would live in something similar to Stalinist Russia, and I can certainly do without that…

Would ‘privacy of their own home’ extent to other moral wrongs, such as child statutory rape?

Would it be Stalinistic for the government to regulate that (age of consent)? And if not, could they enter into the home to enforce it?

 

[po18guy]

And people make reckless spending and investment decisions all the time. I’m imperfect enough as it is - it would be foolish of me to go around pointing out imperfections in others.

This is where we, as followers of Christ fall down. Consider that He made a whip out of cords and drove the moneychangers out of the temple.

When we sit in His judgment seat, He will ask: “What did you tell your friends who were in mortal sin?” Is “It was a private matter” suffice?

 

[Captain_America]

I disagree about the “privacy of the home” phrase. Government (and public morals) don’t stop at someone’s front door. I don’t have a right to kill my child, or cut off his nose, just because he’s on my property.

 

[Christopher68]

Would ‘privacy of their own home’ extent to other moral wrongs, such as child statutory rape?

Would it be Stalinistic for the government to regulate that (age of consent)? And if not, could they enter into the home to enforce it?

I am referring to adults.

 

[Christopher68]

I disagree about the “privacy of the home” phrase. Government (and public morals) don’t stop at someone’s front door. I don’t have a right to kill my child, or cut off his nose, just because he’s on my property.

The examples you give are actual crimes. My reference to the ‘privacy of your own home’ refers to non-crimes.