Homosexuality And Why The Church Is Wrong

[oldbrit2009]

If you’re saying that parading about something you are proud of is idiotic, fine, you can think that. That is a matter of opinion and nothing to do about the Catholic Church’s views on homosexuality.*

No, Beginning this thread I had no hidden agenda and my mind was not already made up. I sought advice and received it.*

As much as I disagree with your opinions, I respect them. What I can say is that times are changing, and homosexuality is not a big deal anymore in the world, and only remains one in the church.*

Just to share a personal story about coming to terms with my sexuality. About this time last year, I went to mass every single day. Often after the service I would sit outside the church, look up and pray that one day I would wake up ‘straight’. I would have done anything to be “normal”.

I wanted to change because the Catholic Church said that if I was to ever fulfill my sexual destiny, it would be sinful.*

Over time it dawned on me that it wasn’t wrong. Coming out was definitely a difficult experience, as I’m the polar opposite to the homosexuals portrayed in the media, and it was a shock to everybody I told. Life has gotten better, so much better.

Homosexuality is not unnatural. SSA is found in all different species, but homophobia is only found in one. So tell me which is more ‘unnatural’?*I’m happy to say that we live in a society where the minority has changed to the their being more homosexuals than homophobes.

Homosexuality is not unnatural. SSA is found in all different species, but homophobia is only found in one. So tell me which is more ‘unnatural’?*I’m happy to say that we live in a society where the minority has changed to the their being more homosexuals than homophobes

Homosexual behaviour in animals is an anomaly. An anomaly found in nature does not make it ‘natural’.
How can behaviour that leads to the demise of a species be considered ‘natural’? The natural behaviour for any species is to act in such a way as to perpetuate that species.
This whole “SSA occures in nature” argument is nonsense. Cannibalism exists in nature. Is that any sort of argument to defend human cannibalism?

Humans and animals share certain characteristics and abilities but one ability animals do not posses is to be able to distinguish between right and wrong. They have no moral awareness as we humans have. Animals may well indulge in what appear to us humans to be homosexual behaviour, but in reality they are just following sexual instincts blindly. Therefore animals do not know any better, we do!

 

[Johnny760]

Mr Sylvester,
Just a note, you said gay men people shouldn’t feel insecure and dress up in womens clothes. You seem to have gotten the terms homosexual and transgender a tad mixed up. Homosexuals have no intention or desire, presumeably like you, to dress up as the opposite sex. Transgender people however, believe they were born the opposite sex, and some dress as who the feel they were born to be.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Wow I’ve never been stalked like this before!

Excuse me? If you resent the scrutiny of your unbidden disclosure of general confusion of thoughts in this open forum, including erroneous understanding of Catholic teaching and derision of ‘judgmental’ Catholics in a number of your postings, stop posting.

You seem to be in and out of threads, not paying attention to the substance of replies to your claims. Be reminded this is a Catholic forum; non-Catholics who participate in discussion should not be surprised with reaction to their proffered views and claims.

That said, I remain hopeful your journey leads you to the Truth.
,

 

[MrSylvester]

Mr Sylvester,
Just a note, you said gay men people shouldn’t feel insecure and dress up in womens clothes. You seem to have gotten the terms homosexual and transgender a tad mixed up. Homosexuals have no intention or desire, presumeably like you, to dress up as the opposite sex. Transgender people however, believe they were born the opposite sex, and some dress as who the feel they were born to be.

Presumably like me? I chuckled at that. I never had the intention or the desire to dress up as a female thank you very much. If that isn’t an insult backfire, I don’t know what is. The thing is, if you google gay pride parade, you’ll see tons of NSFW pictures of gay men dressing up as if they were women or rather, what THEY THINK women dress up as as no respectable women would do half the things they do in public unless she was lady gaga or some alien thing, whatever.

I am well aware of transgender people who feel that they are the other sex when they have the body of the other, etc… but there are also transvestites and drag queens who despite not being transgender/sexual still engage in rampant homosexuality. I should know. I have a relative who is transgender who loves us to death and I know how much they suffered. Does that mean I’d tell them to change their sex because they’re obviously suffering and have a great cross to bear. To be honest no, not because it’d be a sin but because it’d cause more suffering. They’d have to accept the fact that their sexual organs aren’t real sexual organs, that their breasts aren’t natural but plastic, that they’ll have to wear tons of makeup in order to hide the fact that they’re transgender. I actually heard a story of a guy whose girlfriend was transgender yet he didn’t know it. They’d be in self denial. These people need help not sexual propaganda.

The fact that there are both camp gays (like the pople at gay pride parades, Harry Hay who was a sicko, Oscar Wilde who wasn’t to my knowledge a sicko and Quentin Crisp. Possibly Freddie Mercury. Same counts for butch lesbians) and ‘straight’ gays who despite lusting after the same sex don’t act flamboyantly or like idiots and act like any normal men would (Chuck Palahniuk, author of Fight Club, Magneto-ok, Ian McKellen, Stephen Fry who is also an anti-catholic and arrogant jackass, James Randi who despite being a famous atheist is actually a very clever guy. Possibly Freddie Mercury.)is undeniable.

 

[Corki]

Homosexual behaviour in animals is an anomaly. An anomaly found in nature does not make it ‘natural’.
How can behaviour that leads to the demise of a species be considered ‘natural’? The natural behaviour for any species is to act in such a way as to perpetuate that species.
This whole “SSA occures in nature” argument is nonsense. Cannibalism exists in nature. Is that any sort of argument to defend human cannibalism?

Humans and animals share certain characteristics and abilities but one ability animals do not posses is to be able to distinguish between right and wrong. They have no moral awareness as we humans have. Animals may well indulge in what appear to us humans to be homosexual behaviour, but in reality they are just following sexual instincts blindly. Therefore animals do not know any better, we do!

Thank you for bringing this up. There is no species in the world that could survive if homosexual behavior were the norm for the species. It is an abberation of the normal, often brought about by some extreme pressure in the surronding environment.

The other example, canibalism is, in fact, not an anomoly at all in many species. Nor is infanticide, incest, or fighting to the death to gain access to a mate. But we wouldn’t want these to be declared normal for humans.

 

[Uzziah1]

The only reason why I’m writing this is because I’m sick and tired of being called ‘evil’ just because of my sexual orientation.

I strongly believe I’m a loving person. I love my life, my family and friends. ALL human beings are creatures of love, no matter what they are attracted to.

At the end of the day that’s all it is, a sexual orientation. Just because I’m gay doesnt mean I’m ‘evil’. I’m tired of the Catholic Church in particular persuading people that it’s wrong. It is not, nor has it ever been.

In reference to another thread about gay couples being allowed to adopt, to quote one of this websites answers “Adoption is for the benefit of the child involved”. Are you saying a child is better to be in a foster home rather than be adopted by a same-sex couple? I am telling you that any child would be lucky to have two dads or two mothers.

Homosexuality is not contagious, its not caused by mothers ‘loving’ their child that bit too much. I was born this way.

I always wonder why the Church continues this mentality, when thousands of people (teenagers in particular) are committing suicide because they can’t live with being gay because YOU are telling them they are evil?

I know the chances of a half decent rebuttal to this is slim, but I had to let you know my opinion.
-Johnny

I suspect that everybody in this website is going to hate what I say here.

First, I beluieve that homosexual feelings are pre-wired. I think that vis-a-vis male gays Joseph Nicolosi may be correct: The were “super male kids” who at around age 4 indelibly imprinted with their mothers’ sexual predelictions – men – because their fathers were either emotionally unavailable of simply rarely home. Gays commonly deny this because it implkies trhat their homosexual feelings are a dysfunction.

They are a dysfunction.

Second, I believe that male homosexuality is innately promiscuous. Because it is a dysfunction, it is “somatically disordered” – it doesn’t work the way human sexually should. The promiscuity is one of the ways it expresses this disorder.

HOWEVER, because it is somatically disordered and therefore innately promiscuous, I believe that male homosexuals tend to be less morally liable for promiscuous sexual behavior in the eyes of God than male straights.

I believe that Christ Himself very gently criticizes homosexual behavior in one of the gospels, when He refers to those who are “born eunuchs,” Matthew 19:12. Note that if those terms do indeed refer to homosexuality – and I believe that they do – there is implied in them a presumption that they will not engage in sexual behavior (in accord with Leviticus).

However, I believe that Christ is gentle on the subject because He comprehended the internal push toward homosexual promiscuity with male homosexuals.

 

[nickybr38]

I suspect that everybody in this website is going to hate what I say here.

First, I beluieve that homosexual feelings are pre-wired. I think that vis-a-vis male gays Joseph Nicolosi may be correct: The were “super male kids” who at around age 4 indelibly imprinted with their mothers’ sexual predelictions – men – because their fathers were either emotionally unavailable of simply rarely home. Gays commonly deny this because it implkies trhat their homosexual feelings are a dysfunction.

They are a dysfunction.

Second, I believe that male homosexuality is innately promiscuous. Because it is a dysfunction, it is “somatically disordered” – it doesn’t work the way human sexually should. The promiscuity is one of the ways it expresses this disorder.

HOWEVER, because it is somatically disordered and therefore innately promiscuous, I believe that male homosexuals tend to be less morally liable for promiscuous sexual behavior in the eyes of God than male straights.

I believe that Christ Himself very gently criticizes homosexual behavior in one of the gospels, when He refers to those who are “born eunuchs,” Matthew 19:12. Note that if those terms do indeed refer to homosexuality – and I believe that they do – there is implied in them a presumption that they will not engage in sexual behavior (in accord with Leviticus).

However, I believe that Christ is gentle on the subject because He comprehended the internal push toward homosexual promiscuity with male homosexuals.

This confuses me…

it is pre-wired and yet a result of dysfunction in their family? Can it be both?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Uzziah1,

I do not think you or your post is hated… relax…

Let me add something that I think has gotten very little attention: the sheer numbers of homosexual/transgender individuals are very, very small. In identifying these groups as miniorities - we are making a tremendous understatement. Now, let me back this up:

“A recent research synthesis by Gary Gates of the Williams Institute, a think tank at UCLA Law School dedicated to sexual-orientation law and public policy, suggest that among adults int eh US, Canada and Europe, 1.8% are bisexual men and women, 1.1% are gay men and 0.6 are lesbians. This infrequency makes it hard to find participants for research studies, leading researchers to study easy-to-access grops of persons (such as visible participants in advocacy groups) who may not be representative homosexual population.” “Same Sex Science”, S. L. Jones, First Things, Feb 2012, No. 220, p28.

Now, this may sound like a lot of words devoid of real meaning - but, what I see is that if you have garbage for data, no matter how sophisticated your statistical program as you look for statistical significance - you are going to have garbage for an outcome (GIGO). If, however, this questionalbe outcome is published with conclusions drawn from bogus data - no one is really benefitting. Real science is not being conducted, real people are not being addressed, real problems are not being solved but real money is being spent to chase this mirage.

With so few out there who are really homosexual - and the rush to get some kind of research in print - there is a significant probablility that the sample of individuals will not be representative of the population (of homosexuals) at large.- but, just small, biased, sub-groups. One may think that this reported number must be grossly understated - just look at the size of the ‘Pride’ parades. Well here is the issue - all those in the parade are no homosexual in orienttion or in deed. They sympathize with a miniority who is not treated the same way as the majority and equate this with illegal discrimination - and want to get laws and social norms changed so that everyone is eveyone’s equal in all things. Then the courts have gotten hold of this concept and tried to legislate from the bench that there will be same-sex marriage as a constitutional right. Things are getting needlessly complex.

Ultimately, Reverand 17 hit the nail on the head - and did it without a parade. Homosexual behavior is sinful behavior. [Note; those heterosexuals whose behaviors include adultery and fornication are practicing sinful acts, too.] And, complaints from individual posters who do more whining than reading the thoughtful responses they have received are not helpful.

God bless

I suspect that everybody in this website is going to hate what I say here.

First, I beluieve that homosexual feelings are pre-wired. I think that vis-a-vis male gays Joseph Nicolosi may be correct: The were “super male kids” who at around age 4 indelibly imprinted with their mothers’ sexual predelictions – men – because their fathers were either emotionally unavailable of simply rarely home. Gays commonly deny this because it implkies trhat their homosexual feelings are a dysfunction.

They are a dysfunction.

Second, I believe that male homosexuality is innately promiscuous. Because it is a dysfunction, it is “somatically disordered” – it doesn’t work the way human sexually should. The promiscuity is one of the ways it expresses this disorder.

HOWEVER, because it is somatically disordered and therefore innately promiscuous, I believe that male homosexuals tend to be less morally liable for promiscuous sexual behavior in the eyes of God than male straights.

I believe that Christ Himself very gently criticizes homosexual behavior in one of the gospels, when He refers to those who are “born eunuchs,” Matthew 19:12. Note that if those terms do indeed refer to homosexuality – and I believe that they do – there is implied in them a presumption that they will not engage in sexual behavior (in accord with Leviticus).

However, I believe that Christ is gentle on the subject because He comprehended the internal push toward homosexual promiscuity with male homosexuals.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The only reason why I’m writing this is because I’m sick and tired of being called ‘evil’ just because of my sexual orientation.

I strongly believe I’m a loving person. I love my life, my family and friends. ALL human beings are creatures of love, no matter what they are attracted to.

At the end of the day that’s all it is, a sexual orientation. Just because I’m gay doesnt mean I’m ‘evil’. I’m tired of the Catholic Church in particular persuading people that it’s wrong. It is not, nor has it ever been.

Johny760
Can you briefly source/quote where you see the Church is wrong? I don’t think I have seen any authoritative document that could be correctly understood to say you are evil due to your sexual orientation, though I may well be wrong.

 

[FSGRY]

LOLhttp://www.50centloseweight.com

 

[Catholic80]

Can nobody see the pain and the cry for help in Johnny’s post?

If someone is bearing the heavy cross of SSA, and they truly want to do what is good and right, and at the same time, they have to bear all of the rhetoric and hatred that is spewed at people with SSA because of the gay agenda, it is not only confusing, but excruciatingly painful.

Imagine yourself with SSA, wanting to be “normal,” chaste, moral, and wanting more than anything to do the right thing, but unable to shake this SSA (just like anything that is difficult to overcome) and on top of that, instead of finding moral support and encouragement, you find people who debate about the evils of SSA to no end, who do you think that person is going to side with or feel most comfortable around?

His post wasn’t Catholic bashing as much as it is a cry of pain and frustration. He’s hurting and this is his way of crying out for help. Why else would he post here?

Trust me, NO ONE wants to suffer. And when someone condemns your suffering, it only increases your suffering.

That all said, as many of you have posted, the CC does not condemn SSA. It condemns the ACT of homosexuality. There is now more of an awareness and support for people who suffer with SSA. But, we still have a long way to go.

For anyone suffering with SSA, I believe there is a website that can help and clarify some things : couragerc.net/

 

[Uzziah1]

This confuses me…

it is pre-wired and yet a result of dysfunction in their family? Can it be both?

Dr. Nicolsi argues that it IS both: A mix of two things: What he calls “super-maleness” – the pre-wired component – and an emotionally unavailable or physically non-present father – the non-pre-wired component.

This is what he says happens: A minority of male children are born pre-wired to be “super-males” – males with a GIANT love for “dad,” and with an overwhlming need to “tool around after” dad, watch him carefully, imitate him perfectly.

However, if dad is not available for the kid to be with, the “copying machine” in his head doesn’t turn off. In effect it says, “I gotta have someone to copy! I gotta have someone to copy! I gotta have someone to copy!”

And though they were born the way they were to copoy dad, if dad isn’t around they copy mom – and her likes and dislikes.

And so they copy their mom’s love of men."

And at around age 4, indelible imprinting occurs.

That’s the theory.

Dr.Nicolosi trains parents how to identify infant “supermales,” and trains thwe fathers how to be affectionate witrh them.

 

[Uzziah1]

Hi, Uzziah1,

I do not think you or your post is hated… relax…

Let me add something that I think has gotten very little attention: the sheer numbers of homosexual/transgender individuals are very, very small. In identifying these groups as miniorities - we are making a tremendous understatement. Now, let me back this up:

“A recent research synthesis by Gary Gates of the Williams Institute, a think tank at UCLA Law School dedicated to sexual-orientation law and public policy, suggest that among adults int eh US, Canada and Europe, 1.8% are bisexual men and women, 1.1% are gay men and 0.6 are lesbians. This infrequency makes it hard to find participants for research studies, leading researchers to study easy-to-access grops of persons (such as visible participants in advocacy groups) who may not be representative homosexual population.” “Same Sex Science”, S. L. Jones, First Things, Feb 2012, No. 220, p28.

Now, this may sound like a lot of words devoid of real meaning - but, what I see is that if you have garbage for data, no matter how sophisticated your statistical program as you look for statistical significance - you are going to have garbage for an outcome (GIGO). If, however, this questionalbe outcome is published with conclusions drawn from bogus data - no one is really benefitting. Real science is not being conducted, real people are not being addressed, real problems are not being solved but real money is being spent to chase this mirage.

With so few out there who are really homosexual - and the rush to get some kind of research in print - there is a significant probablility that the sample of individuals will not be representative of the population (of homosexuals) at large.- but, just small, biased, sub-groups. One may think that this reported number must be grossly understated - just look at the size of the ‘Pride’ parades. Well here is the issue - all those in the parade are no homosexual in orienttion or in deed. They sympathize with a miniority who is not treated the same way as the majority and equate this with illegal discrimination - and want to get laws and social norms changed so that everyone is eveyone’s equal in all things. Then the courts have gotten hold of this concept and tried to legislate from the bench that there will be same-sex marriage as a constitutional right. Things are getting needlessly complex.

Ultimately, Reverand 17 hit the nail on the head - and did it without a parade. Homosexual behavior is sinful behavior. [Note; those heterosexuals whose behaviors include adultery and fornication are practicing sinful acts, too.] And, complaints from individual posters who do more whining than reading the thoughtful responses they have received are not helpful.

God bless

Homosexuality is sinful behavior, but though heterosexual misbehavior is also a sin, we heteros have a convenient outlet while we damn the homosexuals.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Catholic80,

You have brough up some excellent considerations. Let me add one other to the list. Pain is the body’s way of saying that there is a problem. If I were to touch a hot stove and not immediately withdraw my hand because I felt no pain - I would suffer very serious and potentially fatal burns as this thermal injury continued without interruption. Physical pain is good in the sense that it signals tissue damage - and the body wants to be protected from injury, or if injured, to limit the damage. If felt, pain makes us act towards relief.

Oh, yes, Johnny does appear to be in pain and is crying out for help - not much doubt about that. The real issue is just what kind of relief is even theoretically available -and from there we can move to what relief is available in a practical sense. In my opinion, there are some similarities between homosexuality and substance abuse. I realize there are limitations with this analogy - but, we need to move from what we know to learn what it is that we don’t know.

Some claim that alcoholism (just one of many substances that are abused) has a gene and others claim it is a developed problem. This seems to be the thinking about homosexuality. The majority of people are not alcoholic, and even fewer people are homosexual - and the majority population is critical of both groups. People who realize that alcohol has made their lives unmanageable seek help from some outside source - professional or lay groups or support groups - and the same response is true for homosexuals. Not every element will fit in this analogy - so just look at what does fit and what it is tha we can learn from the experience.

SSA is not a sin, is not a moral failing, and for some people the attraction does not lead to any immoral behavior. Homosexual behavior is inherently disordered and is an example of immoral behavior. Some people know that they can never drink alcohol because they just drink until they are drunk - and that type of excess is immoral. The alcoholic who does not want to live this life of substance abuse must resign themselves each day that they will be sober. This is not something that the non-alcoholic person must think about - and the alcoholic truly wants to be normal and to drink in normal ways and amounts like others do. This simply does not happen because every time the alcoholic trys to act like others - the alcohol takes over and he gets drunk or on a binge or dies from a lethal dose.

Crying out for help to be like others is understandable… but really lacks insight. Johnny is telling us that he is NOT like others yet he wants to be that way, seen that way and treated that way. Johnny will need to modify his behavior - and this is first done by modifying his thoughts. SSA is out there and pops up all the time - the real issue is are those thoughts going to be dismissed or invited to stick around for a while. I would like for Johnny to actually assess how he wants to relieve his own pain - not that others can not help him - only that the real relief can only come when he recognizes that he is hurting and that he can do something about it.

It is at this point that I think it is imporant to talk about prayer and asking God for the Grace to be pure and chaste - just like unmarried people need to be pure and chaste. Anything short of this is simply not going to work and will simply be entertaining a delusion that I can act as I wish without consequences.

Support and encouragement comes from people giving a person a helping hand up, giving a kind word, and showing the way. While holding the person’s hand can be useful - it really does not have long term abilities - and runs the risk of enshrining dependence or enabling the other person to continue to deceive themselves.

God bless

Can nobody see the pain and the cry for help in Johnny’s post?

If someone is bearing the heavy cross of SSA, and they truly want to do what is good and right, and at the same time, they have to bear all of the rhetoric and hatred that is spewed at people with SSA because of the gay agenda, it is not only confusing, but excruciatingly painful.

Imagine yourself with SSA, wanting to be “normal,” chaste, moral, and wanting more than anything to do the right thing, but unable to shake this SSA (just like anything that is difficult to overcome) and on top of that, instead of finding moral support and encouragement, you find people who debate about the evils of SSA to no end, who do you think that person is going to side with or feel most comfortable around?

His post wasn’t Catholic bashing as much as it is a cry of pain and frustration. He’s hurting and this is his way of crying out for help. Why else would he post here?

Trust me, NO ONE wants to suffer. And when someone condemns your suffering, it only increases your suffering.

That all said, as many of you have posted, the CC does not condemn SSA. It condemns the ACT of homosexuality. There is now more of an awareness and support for people who suffer with SSA. But, we still have a long way to go.

For anyone suffering with SSA, I believe there is a website that can help and clarify some things : couragerc.net/

 

[Elizabeth502]

Homosexuality is sinful behavior, but though heterosexual misbehavior is also a sin, we heteros have a convenient outlet while we damn the homosexuals.

No one’s “damning” anyone, so please don’t use the pronoun “we,” because the rest of us are not included in your statement.

Celibate priests also do not have “a convenient outlet.”
Divorced Catholics without an annulment do not have “a convenient outlet.”
Unmarried Catholics remaining true to Catholic morality do not have “a convenient outlet.”

And there are millions of such heterosexuals. Time to deal with it and stop with the pity party.

 

[Uzziah1]

No one’s “damning” anyone, so please don’t use the pronoun “we,” because the rest of us are not included in your statement.

Celibate priests also do not have “a convenient outlet.”
Divorced Catholics without an annulment do not have “a convenient outlet.”
Unmarried Catholics remaining true to Catholic morality do not have “a convenient outlet.”

And there are millions of such heterosexuals. Time to deal with it and stop with the pity party.

But what did you think of the REST of the analysis, dear friend?

 

[Elizabeth502]

But what did you think of the REST of the analysis, dear friend?

If you’re referring to your posts 225 and 220, I will indeed respond to those later. I merely want to reiterate that there would be only one way (and which would depend on some proven research, and/or buying into a yet-unproven theory for support of this argument) that homosexuals can be considered “having a heavier cross to bear” in the aspect of deprivation (not in the aspect of being a minority sexual-preference population):

That argument would be that there’s more compulsion or supposedly irresistible mutual attraction among homosexuals than among heterosexuals. (That the attraction is of a quantitatively different category than is true for heterosexuals.) Actually, that’s quite a Pandora’s Box to suggest that, because that indeed is one of the arguments of one of the pro-homosexual theorists on this forum, and is certainly a subtext of the homosexual advocacy groups in this country: the “special [categorically different] nature” of homosexual attraction. But the two-edged sword within this Pandora’s Box is that it simultaneously makes the argument vulnerable to the research about the addictive qualities --for want of a better phrase-- of homosexual relationships – qualities which are not equally or comparably present in heterosexual relationships, and which are further evidence of the unhealthiness (the “binding” qualities) of this lifestyle.

Got to get ready for Mass. More later.

 

[Uzziah1]

If you’re referring to your posts 225 and 220, I will indeed respond to those later. I merely want to reiterate that there would be only one way (and which would depend on some proven research, and/or buying into a yet-unproven theory for support of this argument) that homosexuals can be considered “having a heavier cross to bear” in the aspect of deprivation (not in the aspect of being a minority sexual-preference population):

That argument would be that there’s more compulsion or supposedly irresistible mutual attraction among homosexuals than among heterosexuals. (That the attraction is of a quantitatively different category than is true for heterosexuals.) Actually, that’s quite a Pandora’s Box to suggest that, because that indeed is one of the arguments of one of the pro-homosexual theorists on this forum, and is certainly a subtext of the homosexual advocacy groups in this country: the “special [categorically different] nature” of homosexual attraction. But the two-edged sword within this Pandora’s Box is that it simultaneously makes the argument vulnerable to the research about the addictive qualities --for want of a better phrase-- of homosexual relationships – qualities which are not equally or comparably present in heterosexual relationships, and which are further evidence of the unhealthiness (the “binding” qualities) of this lifestyle.

Got to get ready for Mass. More later.

The Pandora’s Box is the over-simplification that homosewxuality is somehow “the opposite of” heterosexuality

Sex is not a storage battery with a “+” end and a “-” end.

One clever psychologist – I’m fairly sure that it was one of the psychologists analyzing the University of Chicago survey results that the average homosexual male had huge numbers of sex partners – suggested that women are dyed-in-the-wool “settle-downers,” whereas men are dyed-in-the-wool “grazers,” and that whereas heterosexual relationships involve one settle-downer and one grazer, male homosexual relationships always involve two grazers.

in other words, male homosexuality may be innately promiscuous.

I think that God will, because it is innate, generally be gentler with homosexual promiscuity than heterosexual promiscuity.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

The Pandora’s Box is the over-simplification that homosewxuality is somehow “the opposite of” heterosexuality

Sex is not a storage battery with a “+” end and a “-” end.

One clever psychologist – I’m fairly sure that it was one of the psychologists analyzing the University of Chicago survey results that the average homosexual male had huge numbers of sex partners – suggested that women are dyed-in-the-wool “settle-downers,” whereas men are dyed-in-the-wool “grazers,” and that whereas heterosexual relationships involve one settle-downer and one grazer, male homosexual relationships always involve two grazers.

**in other words, male homosexuality may be innately promiscuous.
**
I think that God will, because it is innate, generally be gentler with homosexual promiscuity than heterosexual promiscuity.

Yes, females trend towards monogamy and males not so much (males are still obviously fully culpable for infidelity and fornication). The reason this is is that testosterone is linked to sex drive and males have lots and lots. Having children (and raising them!) drops testosterone levels quite a bit (IIRC about 1/3) so children do strengthen a marriage (obviously for two people of the same sex it isn’t going to happen). Stress overall makes sex drive in females drop and males rise.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Uzziah,

I do not think this is really the thrust of the topic - a t least not the topic I responded to. Claiming hetersexuals have a ‘convenient outlet’ is truly dismissive and in my opinion, misses the point totally.

God bless

Homosexuality is sinful behavior, but though heterosexual misbehavior is also a sin, we heteros have a convenient outlet while we damn the homosexuals.