Homosexuality, heterosexuality and why we cant agree

[buffalo]

Or if it is caused by prenatal influences it is because to make a male gay would require insufficient levels of testosterone during brain development whereas for a female to be made lesbian would require additional testosterone (the former is a lot more likely to happen).

My point is that the fact that homosexuality is much more common in boys than girls proves nothing other than homosexuality is much more common in boys than girls.

We now know that the brain changes during our lifetime. Behavior can cause the brain change, not vice versa.

According to those researchers babies are born female and the father influence makes them men. So the question would be what level of hormones does an average female and male baby have?

 

[kch86]

We now know that the brain changes during our lifetime. Behavior can cause the brain change, not vice versa.

According to those researchers babies are born female and the father influence makes them men. So the question would be what level of hormones does an average female and male baby have?

I wouldn’t be so sure that brain structure doesn’t affect behaviour. As far as I’m aware, damage to the prefrontal lobe can result in psychopathic behaviour.

As far as I am aware, there is a surge of testosterone when the child is still in the womb that initially masculinises him, although levels of hormones remain low until puberty. Nevertheless, the masculinisation is significant as we can see that from very early on, boys and girls exhibit different behaviour patterns where girls are more likely to play with representations of animate objects such as dolls and boys are more likely to play with inanimate objects such as cars.

For the most part, I strongly doubt that homosexuality is caused by biological factors. If such a thing occurs, it probably only affects a minority of homosexual men. I am strongly inclined to believe that it is a psychological problem. As you said, behaviour can cause brain change. I’d fathom a guess that it’s not just behaviour, but psychology. And my supposition is that it might indeed be possible that changes in brain structure of homosexuals do occur, which may be why once established, homosexual inclination is very difficult, if not impossible, to reverse.

 

[buffalo]

s.

And my supposition is that it might indeed be possible that changes in brain structure of homosexuals do occur, which may be why once established, homosexual inclination is very difficult, if not impossible, to reverse.

That may be the case.

In the past parents were quick to focus in on that. If Johnny wanted to wear a dress, they would be told “boys don’t wear dresses” - or “boys don’t act that way”. The blurred lines that are prevalent today between genders cannot be helping this.

Early intervention is key.

 

[Khalid]

You cannot say that you love (agape) cheesecake, because cheesecake is an inanimate object with no need to be served.

Cheesecake does need to be served. How else is it going to get in my belly?

Oh, and behavior can definitely cause physical and not just psychological brain changes, as in the case of addicts to specific substances, such as alcohol, opiates, or other strong sedatives.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Cheesecake does need to be served. How else is it going to get in my belly?

You get it yourself! I don’t have the patience to wait for someone to serve my cheesecake.

 

[kch86]

Oh, and behavior can definitely cause physical and not just psychological brain changes, as in the case of addicts to specific substances, such as alcohol, opiates, or other strong sedatives.

That’s what I meant. But I also meant that the person does not have to act out or actually participate in homosexual behaviour for the physical change in the brain to occur. However, this is just speculation and we don’t really know.

Regardless of its causes, it’s immoral. But we all have immoral inclinations in one way or another and our duty as Christians is not to act on them.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

I don’t intend to re-animate a dying thread, particularly with a post that may be off topic, but I could not help but notice this…and it alarmed me:

If religion is true, then it ought to be defended, with war and violence if absolutely necessary, against those who would deny it its proper place in the ordering of man’s social and ethical life. And if it’s false, we ought to abandon it because it’s false, not because it causes war and violence.

While I can appreciate the zeal from which such a sentiment springs, I have a hard time reconciling the sentiment with what the Resurrection definitively teaches us about the nature of God–that God is Life and Love and has no part in death and violence. I also have a hard time squaring it with the witness of the martyrs who fought for the truth by living lives of love and being willing to die, not kill, for that Truth.

It seems to me that if we believe that our religion (which we know to spring from a radical experience of Divine Love in the Resurrection) should be defended through death and violence, then we are buying into the logic of this death-infected and sinful world, the logic of Judas and the zealots who would have preferred a warrior-king, a death-dealing deliverer to the life-giving Agnus Dei. And if such is the case, how are we better or more enlightened or more loving than any mob anywhere in the world whose violence is just another articulation of the old cry of “crucify him”? How does a logic of violence and death articulate the Love of the Resurrected Lord of Life? How can we participate in or advocate for death and expect a blessing from the one who has no share in death?

I would therefore argue that if our religion is causing us to advocate for or defend war, violence and death, then our understanding of our religion is false and must be abandoned.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[kch86]

Grace & Peace!

I don’t intend to re-animate a dying thread, particularly with a post that may be off topic, but I could not help but notice this…and it alarmed me:

While I can appreciate the zeal from which such a sentiment springs, I have a hard time reconciling the sentiment with what the Resurrection definitively teaches us about the nature of God–that God is Life and Love and has no part in death and violence. I also have a hard time squaring it with the witness of the martyrs who fought for the truth by living lives of love and being willing to die, not kill, for that Truth.

It seems to me that if we believe that our religion (which we know to spring from a radical experience of Divine Love in the Resurrection) should be defended through death and violence, then we are buying into the logic of this death-infected and sinful world, the logic of Judas and the zealots who would have preferred a warrior-king, a death-dealing deliverer to the life-giving Agnus Dei. And if such is the case, how are we better or more enlightened or more loving than any mob anywhere in the world whose violence is just another articulation of the old cry of “crucify him”? How does a logic of violence and death articulate the Love of the Resurrected Lord of Life? How can we participate in or advocate for death and expect a blessing from the one who has no share in death?

I would therefore argue that if our religion is causing us to advocate for or defend war, violence and death, then our understanding of our religion is false and must be abandoned.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

Mark, I can see what you are saying and I think that we agree. I don’t think you need to be alarmed, however, as I don’t believe that sw85 was advocating or defending war, violence and death. While we abhor war, we are not quite pacifists, and war and the just use of force is permitted in certain cases as an act of self-defence, and I believe that’s what sw85 had intended to convey by saying “if absolutely necessary.”

 

[Newbie2]

In the human race, some are born to hate and sin. I understand this, but why cant those of us, heterosexual or homosexual, just agree that love is love? Love is love no mater what shape or form. For me,** I believe that whatever kind of sexuality is right.** I would never degrade someones opinion on this, though. If you’re not a supporter of gay rights and homosexuality then why read things on it? Just to be rude and try to force someone who is uncomfortable into heterosexuality? Why cant people accept that what you say wont more than likely change someones firm opinions on something?

I’m assuming this belief does not extend to incest, pedophilia or polygamy.

That aside, the presumption is, and it usually is a valid presumption, that the “gay rights” crowd wants to force acceptance, not merely tolerance, of the homosexual behavior that we Catholic Christians teach as sinful.

The penalty of unrepentant sin is death and eternal punishment. We want this for nobody, hence our opposition to such behavior. There are on this forum chaste homosexual persons. I can imagine fewer enormous crosses to bear throughout life, and they are shining examples to us all of people who are constantly confronted with the temptation to sin, but manage with the grace of the Almighty to resist.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Homosexuality is a perversion.

If you were open about this in an Islamic country they’d throw the bunch of you in a wood chipper. Then you pervs would go back in the closet where you belong.

Then our opinions on thousands of years of history on depravity wouldn’t matter to you. Would it?

This post is full of anger and hate. You are helping Gay agenda.