Homosexuality- Nature and nurture but not a choice (?)

[yngve]

Hi Everyone.

I don’t mean to be ironic, but I am glad that here are so many genetic graduates, molecular biology graduates or psychology graduates and therefore we all have a ‘really’ scientific debate on this issue.
I am aware that most of us say things that ourselves heard in church and read in news papers, that being of course second hand information.

Let’s be straight ( ) the church doesn’t have the smallest clue in dealing with this issue. It has always failed. As a result, gay people see the Church as a place where they can go and be blamed.

I am doing a PhD in molecular biology and have a B.Sc. in Chemistry and M.Sc. in Clinical Psychology and I am a practicing Roman-catholic. So, I usually don’t say much on issues I am not qualified in, but the gay issue is one of my primary interests.

First: There may be people that act as homosexuals because they might have been disillusioned in their marriage or previous relationship. However, these cases are rare and they can be ‘cured’ through therapy, though many don’t require that.

The vast majority of homosexuals are this way due to a set of conditions determined by the competition between nature and nurture, but a combination by both. i.e each gene comes with a promoter (a part which tells when the gene should or should not express itself). That’s why we don’t have red blood cells in our hair and hair on our liver. So due to some biochemical modifications that are or may be not induced by the environment, the promoter tells the gene that it should be transcribed.

There were studies trying to link homosexuality to a certain allele of a the chromosome X published in 1993. They managed to identify that 88% of the homosexuals have this gene and heterosexuals don’t. The study has been replicated with lower percentages, but still, it is mainstream accepted but needs improvement. There is not a single gay gene as there is not a single gene in determining hair or eye colour. But we are working on it, and the results are soon to follow.

Other studies are on identical twins which tend to favor homosexuality as being genetic, but not exclusively 100%. i.e there are cases when identical twins exposed to identical environments develop into homosexual and heterosexual respectively.

Some studies assert that these promoters can be activated in the mother’s womb if the boy has had a lot of older brothers, due to an immune response of the mother to the Y chromosome of the child.

NO STUDY concluded or can ever conclude that it is a choice. So, I ask you respectfully to stop propagating all these lies to your children or in your Sunday schools. You will answer in front of God for this. Plus, why would anyone chose to face this kind of discrimination and to suffer like this.

There is a kind of therapy suggested by the fundamentalist “Christians” called “Reparative therapy”. This is the one of most damaging form of “therapies” that exist. Not only that it has an apparent success of 0.5 % (this success is valid for the first 2 years after therapy, and beyond that, no motorization way maintained) *this being understood that 99.5% of the cases have not only failed, but were seriously damaged and had to take real therapies to undo this damage. 1/3 of the cases having this kind of therapy have attempted suicide as a result of the therapy.

One solution would be indeed celibacy. But what if the homosexual person doesn’t have the vocation for celibacy. What do we ask from him? I am sure that for many of you it is easy to say: “Remain single, that’s what God wants” and then return to your spouse and watch a lovely movie together and take the kinds to school in the morning. To all of you who do that I dedicate this song: John Michael Talbot - Would you crucify Him. youtube.com/watch?v=huYKjSqs2RY

Remember that your word count to someone, and maybe your children are gay and afraid to tell you, and when they leave home, you never hear from them or commit suicide. You have a responsibility. Get informed and act as a consequence. Don’t be dilettantes as this can lead to much more damage than you can imagine. All what I’ve said here is documented by published studies and I can offer them to you upon request.

I’ve posted this in another forum as well, but I thought i deserved it’s own thread. Please comment of what I’ve written and I’ll be glad to reply

God bless.
Yngve

 

[passus]

Let’s be straight ( ) the church doesn’t have the smallest clue in dealing with this issue.

Your authority supersedes the Church’s in what regard?

It has always failed.

How?

As a result, gay people see the Church as a place where they can go and be blamed.

How “gay people” see the Church (ignoring for a moment your vast generalization) really has no bearing on what the Church teaches. The Church does not teach the condemnation of homosexuals but rather encourages love, care, and prayer for them.

If you believe something to the contrary, then support it with teaching from the Church’s documents.

I am doing a PhD in molecular biology and have a B.Sc. in Chemistry and M.Sc. in Clinical Psychology and I am a practicing Roman-catholic. So, I usually don’t say much on issues I am not qualified in, but the gay issue is one of my primary interests.

Yeah, sorry, but this is one appeal to ethos which just isn’t working.

NO STUDY concluded or can ever conclude that it is a choice.

Who said it is?

So, I ask you respectfully to stop propagating all these lies to your children or in your Sunday schools.

Because that’s something we teach in our Sunday schools? How many Catholic Sunday school classes have you personally sat in on to come to that determination?

There is a kind of therapy suggested by the fundamentalist “Christians” called “Reparative therapy”.

Catholics =/= Fundamentalist Christians

One solution would be indeed celibacy. But what if the homosexual person doesn’t have the vocation for celibacy. What do we ask from him? I am sure that for many of you it is easy to say: “Remain single, that’s what God wants” and then return to your spouse and watch a lovely movie together and take the kinds to school in the morning.

The Gospel is not always “easy” to accept. We have crosses to bear. The alternative would be to offer homosexual people a watered-down Gospel and, ultimately, facilitate a delusion to them that their behavior is acceptable in the eyes of God while we have direct evidence to the contrary! This is un-charitable, un-loving, and un-Christian.

 

[yngve]

How “gay people” see the Church (ignoring for a moment your vast generalization) really has no bearing on what the Church teaches. The Church does not teach the condemnation of homosexuals but rather encourages love, care, and prayer for them.

It’s not a generalization. Only a few sporadic members can really impose themselves celibacy(having no vocation for it) and this has a devastating impact on their mental health.

If you believe something to the contrary, then support it with teaching from the Church’s documents.

I am familiar and I’m sure you are all familiar with the teachings of the Church on this issue. But morality issues are not dogma and are a matter of change. Unfortunately when the Church will say it is OK to be gay (though it always has been), too many would have ruined their lives or committed suicide. Then what? Apologies?

Yeah, sorry, but this is one appeal to ethos which just isn’t working.

My point is that this is what I do and this is what I was trained for, so I have a little competence in this field.

Who said it is?

No one had to say it. I said it if you like. There are data bases for this issue and the response “You query didn’t return any results” is not publishable as it is

Because that’s something we teach in our Sunday schools? How many Catholic Sunday school classes have you personally sat in on to come to that determination?

I hadn’t have to sit in Sunday school classes to make this determination.

Catholics =/= Fundamentalist Christians

Indeed, not my point

The Gospel is not always “easy” to accept. We have crosses to bear. The alternative would be to offer homosexual people a watered-down Gospel and, ultimately, facilitate a delusion to them that their behavior is acceptable in the eyes of God while we have direct evidence to the contrary! This is un-charitable, un-loving, and un-Christian.

The alternative would be to accept them and educate them in the spirit of the Church Jesus founded. Being determined biologically, you can’t ask a homosexual to be anything else than he is. Yes, we have crosses to bear, but inventing a burden doesn’t get us closer to God.

 

[Newbie2]

Hi Everyone.
… therefore we all have a ‘really’ scientific debate on this issue.

Scientific debate on a theological issue…hmmm…how well will that work?

.

… the church doesn’t have the smallest clue in dealing with this issue. It has always failed. .

Failed how? In condemning homosexual behavior as sinful? In ministering to homosexual persons? Can you be a little more specific?

I am doing a PhD in molecular biology and have a B.Sc. in Chemistry and M.Sc. in Clinical Psychology and I am a practicing Roman-catholic.

OK. Qualified in science. Qualified in theology? Do you really know the Church’s positions on this “issue”?

There may be people that act as homosexuals because they might have been disillusioned in their marriage or previous relationship. However, these cases are rare and they can be ‘cured’ through therapy, though many don’t require that.

The vast majority of homosexuals are this way due to a set of conditions determined by the competition between nature and nurture, but a combination by both. i.e each gene comes with a promoter (a part which tells when the gene should or should not express itself).
You assume that a gene is responsible for the behavior?

There were studies … published in 1993. They managed to identify that 88% of the homosexuals have this gene and heterosexuals don’t. The study has been replicated with lower percentages, but still, it is mainstream accepted but needs improvement. There is not a single gay gene as there is not a single gene in determining hair or eye colour. But we are working on it, and the results are soon to follow.

So no “gay gene” has yet been identified. And Christians are not “mainstream”.

NO STUDY concluded or can ever conclude that it is a choice. So, I ask you respectfully to stop propagating all these lies to your children or in your Sunday schools. You will answer in front of God for this. Plus, why would anyone chose to face this kind of discrimination and to suffer like this.

Hmmm. Now wait a minute…you wrote earlier that:
“First: There may be people that act as homosexuals because they might have been disillusioned in their marriage or previous relationship. However, these cases are rare and they can be ‘cured’ through therapy, though many don’t require that.”

For these people, it IS a choice, no? Your assertion negates the need for a “study” to prove it in this group, no?

What lies are you talking about? That homosexual behavior can be avoided? That it’s not genetic? That hasn’t been proven.

There is a kind of therapy suggested by the fundamentalist “Christians” called “Reparative therapy”.

Your statistics conflict with others that give a much higher percentage of success. In any case, what’s your point? That homosexual behavior is unavoidable? Or that there’s a tendency for some people to be homosexuals?? ???

All what I’ve said here is documented by published studies and I can offer them to you upon request.

All you’ve said is that there is a chance that there is a “gay gene”. Big deal. The Church is not particularly concerned with one’s tendency towards behavior, but more so with the behavior.

I’ve posted this in another forum as well, but I thought i deserved it’s own thread. Please comment of what I’ve written and I’ll be glad to reply

God bless.
Yngve

I think you are missing the forest through the trees. Homosexual orientation is not considered sinful. Now if you’re stumping for better understanding of the trials that homosexually orientated people experience and clamoring for support in that struggle from the Church and her members, I think you’ll find little or no opposition in this forum.

But if you’re playing the “they have a gay gene and can’t help how they behave” card, you’re all wet. Moral theology is all about how we behave, not giving excuses for immoral and sinful behavior.

 

[Corki]

1. The Church does not teach that homosexuality is a choice. The Catechism specifically says that the exact reasons why someone would have SSA are inconclusive.
2. Celibacy is not a vocation. There are three vocations: marriage, the religious life and the single state. All are available to someone with SSA. But God decides ones vocation, the individual answers.
3. All people, regardless of state of life, are called to chastity. Many struggle with this and many fall for a variety of reasons. SSA may be one of those reasons why staying away from sins against chastity is a struggle.
4. The Church does indeed accept homosexuals and “educate them in the spirit of the Church Jesus founded.” This does not mean that we give them or anyone else license to sin.
5. The Church does not ask a homosexual person to be anything else than what they are. Your claim that she does is baseless.
6. I teach Sunday school, which you claim not to attend. I assert that you have no idea what I teach.

So are you trying to say that those with this genetic disposition are less able than others to restrain their sexual urges? Wouldn’t that make homosexuality akin to a sexual addiction?

 

[Newbie2]

It’s not a generalization. Only a few sporadic members can really impose themselves celibacy.
You’ve seen behavioral studies on this? No?

I am familiar and I’m sure you are all familiar with the teachings of the Church on this issue. But morality issues are not dogma and are a matter of change. Unfortunately when the Church will say it is OK to be gay (though it always has been), too many would have ruined their lives or committed suicide. Then what? Apologies?

Not necessarily. And what do you mean by “…OK to be gay”? You seem to be using very imprecise terminology for a scientist. “Be gay” = practice homosexuality or “Be gay” = be homosexually oriented?

I hadn’t have to sit in Sunday school classes to make this determination.

Therefore, it is an assumption on your part. Very UN-scientific.

The alternative would be to accept them and educate them in the spirit of the Church Jesus founded. Being determined biologically, you can’t ask a homosexual to be anything else than he is. Yes, we have crosses to bear, but inventing a burden doesn’t get us closer to God.

Nor does supporting our Christian brothers and sisters in immorality, as you seem to imply is the answer. Using your logic, IF a “pedophilic gene” or a “violence gene” should ever be found, the Church can’t ask a pedophile or a thug to be anything else than they are.

And what do you mean by “be”? You fail to address the difference in a homosexually oriented person and a person engages in homosexual activity, a distintion that the Church CLEARLY makes.

 

[LilyM]

I am familiar and I’m sure you are all familiar with the teachings of the Church on this issue. But morality issues are not dogma and are a matter of change.

Someone hasn’t spent enough time with those teachings, clearly.

‘Morality issues’ (aka ‘teachings on faith or morals’ as opposed to ‘disciplines’) are PRECISELY the subject matter which DOES constitute dogmatic and unchangeable teaching!

In fact a Papal pronouncement cannot be infallible (dogmatic and thus unchanging) UNLESS it is on an issue of faith or morals (aka 'morality issues).

 

[yngve]

You’ve seen behavioral studies on this? No?

I have seen studies done of religious people. Not on Catholic, because probably no one wants to incriminate a particular denomination. There are other denominations that require studies upon them because they are more full of hate.

Not necessarily. And what do you mean by “…OK to be gay”? You seem to be using very imprecise terminology for a scientist. “Be gay” = practice homosexuality or “Be gay” = be homosexually oriented?

I can use scientific terminology, though English isn’t my native language. I don’t know if it would be helpful everywhere. Yes, be gay means being homosexual oriented and practicing homosexuality. My point is that is cruel to deny a homosexual orientated person a the right to practice homosexuality as it is for heterosexuals.

Therefore, it is an assumption on your part. Very UN-scientific.

very ironic. It was more like a figure of speech. Generally, Sunday school is the place where religious education takes place. I didn’t say I didn’t sit in Sunday school, I just said I didn’t considered it relevant for the matter in discussion.

Scientific debate on a theological issue…hmmm…how well will that work?

It wasn’t a scientific debate, but scientific claims were brought into discussion

You assume that a gene is responsible for the behavior?

No, I assume that the combined effect of the expression products of a number of genes are responsible for the behaviour, as for any complex behaviour.

So no “gay gene” has yet been identified. And Christians are not “mainstream”.

I’ve just said that a number of genes needs to be isolated. Too bad you don’t see Catholics as ‘mainstream’. Remember the Galileo Galilei event? Remember when the Church though that the earth was in the centre of the Universe? Or when she believed and made others believe that the earth was created in 7 days?

Hmmm. Now wait a minute…you wrote earlier that:
“First: There may be people that act as homosexuals because they might have been disillusioned in their marriage or previous relationship. However, these cases are rare and they can be ‘cured’ through therapy, though many don’t require that.”

For these people, it IS a choice, no? Your assertion negates the need for a “study” to prove it in this group, no?

What lies are you talking about? That homosexual behavior can be avoided? That it’s not genetic? That hasn’t been proven.

Yes, there is no study. There were isolated cases reported in therapy. The cause was easily localized. The matter wasn’t regarded as relevant enough to conduct a study on.

Your statistics conflict with others that give a much higher percentage of success. In any case, what’s your point? That homosexual behavior is unavoidable? Or that there’s a tendency for some people to be homosexuals?? ???

Yes, I assert that homosexuality cannot be avoided. As neither heterosexuality cannot be avoided. Moreover, it cannot be repair. Did you wonder why? because there’s nothing to repair.

All you’ve said is that there is a chance that there is a “gay gene”. Big deal. The Church is not particularly concerned with one’s tendency towards behavior, but more so with the behavior.

Really? Are you saying that the Church doesn’t care if a person is created homosexual by God, its only purpose is to stop their homosexual behaviour? What do you have to say about the strong evidence of homosexuality in the animal world?

 

[yngve]

Someone hasn’t spent enough time with their Catechism.

‘Morality issues’ (aka ‘faith or morals’ as opposed to ‘disciplines’) are PRECISELY the subject matter which DOES constitute dogmatic teaching! And dogmatic teaching, as you surely know, can never change. Ergo teaching on ‘morality issues’ (aka ‘faith or morals’) can never change.

A Papal pronouncement cannot be infallible (dogmatic) UNLESS it is on an issue of faith or morals (aka 'morality issues).

Really? Is kissing before marriage a mortal sin nowadays? How about the Middle Ages?

 

[LilyM]

Really? Is kissing before marriage a mortal sin nowadays? How about the Middle Ages?

The Church (by which I mean the Magisterium as a whole, not individual priests or bishops who are not given teh charism of infallibility and do not speak authoritatively for the whole church) has never given any blanket teaching on the subject, in the middle ages or now, to my knowledge.

What teaching there has been, in the Middle Ages and now, would be consistent through time - something to the effect that it depends on the situation, who, why and how you kiss, whether the kiss provokes you to lust or not.

In the middle ages, of course, most marriages were preceded by some sort of formal betrothal ceremony, involving exchange of rings and formal promises to marry. I daresay such would at least sometimes have been ‘sealed with a kiss’ as many marriage ceremonies are these days.

 

[Paladin_V]

1. The Church does not teach that homosexuality is a choice. The Catechism specifically says that the exact reasons why someone would have SSA are inconclusive.
2. Celibacy is not a vocation. There are three vocations: marriage, the religious life and the single state. All are available to someone with SSA. But God decides ones vocation, the individual answers.
3. All people, regardless of state of life, are called to chastity. Many struggle with this and many fall for a variety of reasons. SSA may be one of those reasons why staying away from sins against chastity is a struggle.
4. The Church does indeed accept homosexuals and “educate them in the spirit of the Church Jesus founded.” This does not mean that we give them or anyone else license to sin.
5. The Church does not ask a homosexual person to be anything else than what they are. Your claim that she does is baseless.
6. I teach Sunday school, which you claim not to attend. I assert that you have no idea what I teach.

So are you trying to say that those with this genetic disposition are less able than others to restrain their sexual urges? Wouldn’t that make homosexuality akin to a sexual addiction?

Well said. Actually, perfectly said.

I might just add… the head of the Church is Christ, God Himself, and it is He who directs all that it teaches. When we study the world through science (that is, rational observation), we would do well to consult with it’s designer and creator so that we can determine what our observations mean, imply, and require of us. Since He set up the Church specifically for this sort of consultation, well then we would do well to go to the Church.

 

[buffalo]

I suppose we can look forward for the Church to change the homosexual act from an intrinsic evil to it’s OK.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I have a confession to make.

Sometimes I would really like to be a Hun. I hate to admit it, but I think I really do have it in me. I mean, all that riding with the wind, shooting twenty arrows a minute or whatever, and the looting and the pillaging and drinking mead or kumiss or something with my Hun brothers; tearing chunks of roasted meat off with my teeth, slapping the serving wenches on the rump, terrorizing farmers and Roman soldiers alike. Had I been born 1500 years ago or so, and been raised in a Hunnic camp, I think I have enough of the Hun in me that I think I could have made the grade. God help me, I think I could have.

But I wasn’t born in a Hunnic camp 1500 years ago. I was born here and now. I could still be a Hun of a sort. I could go to California and see if i could join the Hell’s Angels or the Mongols or some group like that, and come close to being a Hun. And, I suspect it might be fun…at least for awhile. In doing so, I would be indulging a propensity; an inclination.

But I don’t do that. I don’t do it because it would be wrong to do it, my worst inclinations notwithstanding. Nor do I cheat on my wife, though there’s plenty of that out there to do, and I have to admit I’ve been tempted. But I don’t do it because it would be wrong to do it, my worst inclinations notwithstanding.

I once heard someone sarcastically refer to male homosexuals as “human sexual ashtrays”. Not a very charitable thing to say, but when you read about the gay lifestyle, it’s not too hard to think of it in that way. I recall reading that there is some homosexual group in California that parodies nuns and call themselves the “sisters of perpetual indulgence”. Might just have hit the mark with that one.

Nobody really studies homosexuality because it has been declared “normal” by the political correctness police. One might get funding from some gay-friendly outfit or other to come up with a study “proving” that people are “born gay”. But you would never get funding to really investigate it, and if you did it on your own and determined that it was largely an aberration; rather like compulsive eating or doing street drugs; a superindulgence of some kind; a disconnect of sexual gratification from the responsibilities of a heterosexual relationship, you would never get published. You would, however, get savagely attacked, fired from your university, blackballed, etc.

 

[1ke]

Let’s be straight ( ) the church doesn’t have the smallest clue in dealing with this issue. It has always failed. As a result, gay people see the Church as a place where they can go and be blamed.

Let’s be straight. The Church makes no claim on genetics, biology, nature, or nurture. The Church maintains that its genesis is largely unknown.

The Church proclaims the truth regarding faith and morals. And, the sexual faculties are for procreation and are exclusively the domain of live-giving, love-giving intercourse between a man and a woman in marriage.

Any other use of the sexual faculties is gravely wrong, for anyone and everyone. Male or female. Heterosexual or same-sex attracted.

I am doing a PhD in molecular biology and have a B.Sc. in Chemistry and M.Sc. in Clinical Psychology and I am a practicing Roman-catholic. So, I usually don’t say much on issues I am not qualified in, but the gay issue is one of my primary interests.

I don’t see Bishop as one of your credentials.

NO STUDY concluded or can ever conclude that it is a choice. So, I ask you respectfully to stop propagating all these lies to your children or in your Sunday schools. You will answer in front of God for this. Plus, why would anyone chose to face this kind of discrimination and to suffer like this.

Same sex attraction may or may not be a choice, and the Church doesn’t make a statement on that one way or the other.

Behaviors and actions are always a choice and the Church can only teach the Truth. That Truth is that acting on same-sex attraction is always gravely wrong. Any sex act that is not between husband and wife and lacking both the unitive and procreative elements of the act is always gravely wrong.

One solution would be indeed celibacy. But what if the homosexual person doesn’t have the vocation for celibacy. What do we ask from him?

Chastity. It is what all unmarried persons are called to.

Remember that your word count to someone,

And because that is true, we can never lead any person to sin by giving them false compassion and telling them the sin they strive to commit is no sin at all. The Truth must always be shared, but certainly in a loving manner. I suggest you get in touch with the people at www.couragerc.net who can talk with your about authentic ministry to those with same-sex attraction.

The Gospel is for everyone, and it can be dilluted by no one.

 

[1ke]

But morality issues are not dogma and are a matter of change.

I knew I did not see “Bishop” in your credentials. This is incorrect. The Magesterium teaches infallibly in faith and morals.

 

[Newbie2]

I have seen studies done of religious people. Not on Catholic, because probably no one wants to incriminate a particular denomination. There are other denominations that require studies upon them because they are more full of hate.

“More full of hate”. LOL. And your parents were full of hate too because they didn’t let you do things that you wanted to do (after all, we know that children are genetically predisposed to do things that children typically do that are dangerous to themselves)?

I can use scientific terminology, though English isn’t my native language. I don’t know if it would be helpful everywhere. Yes, be gay means being homosexual oriented and practicing homosexuality. My point is that is cruel to deny a homosexual orientated person a the right to practice homosexuality as it is for heterosexuals.

It’s VERY important when discussing issues of homosexuality that everyone be on the same page when using the term “gay” or “homosexual”. Some mean having a same sex attraction, some mean actively participating in homosexual behavior. Thank your for clarifying what you mean by “gay”.
So it follows that not condoning an alcoholic’s practice of their alcoholism is cruel too??? Same thing; tendency towards alcoholism hasn’t been “proven” to be genetic, but is highly probable. And it’s the same for the Church; not condoning behavior which is destructive for the participant.

very ironic. It was more like a figure of speech. Generally, Sunday school is the place where religious education takes place. I didn’t say I didn’t sit in Sunday school, I just said I didn’t considered it relevant for the matter in discussion.

Um, you seemed pretty sure about what “we” teach in Sunday school for not ever being there: “So, I ask you respectfully to stop propagating all these lies to your children or in your Sunday schools.” Pretty gutsy accusation, methinks, without any evidence.

It wasn’t a scientific debate, but scientific claims were brought into discussion

Fair enough.

No, I assume that the combined effect of the expression products of a number of genes are responsible for the behaviour, as for any complex behaviour.

So genes control behavior? Sounds like you reduce homosexuals to mere slaves to their genes and the expression (hormonal, etc.) thereof. The Church, on the other hand, acknowledges their human-ness.

I’ve just said that a number of genes needs to be isolated. Too bad you don’t see Catholics as ‘mainstream’. Remember the Galileo Galilei event? Remember when the Church though that the earth was in the centre of the Universe? Or when she believed and made others believe that the earth was created in 7 days?

Why? St. Paul never saw us as mainstream. Christ never saw us as mainstream. Christianity is countercultural.

Yes, I assert that homosexuality cannot be avoided. As neither heterosexuality cannot be avoided. Moreover, it cannot be repair. Did you wonder why? because there’s nothing to repair.

So Homosexually oriented persons are slaves to their desires and passions? Please tell me you’re kidding. I’ll agree that with many, no, they cannot be “repaired” and will be homosexually oriented for the rest of their lives. But to say that they cannot control their behavior is to call them less than human.

Really? Are you saying that the Church doesn’t care if a person is created homosexual by God, its only purpose is to stop their homosexual behaviour?

Not entirely. The main goal of the Church is to bring people to Christ, for their eternal salvation. The reasons WHY a person sins are insignificant compared to the fact that a person sins in the first place. Focusing on the “whys” is looking for excuses.

What do you have to say about the strong evidence of homosexuality in the animal world?

Good question. And here I can claim a bit of expertise, being a Doctor of Veterinary Medicine. (But I only boast for the glory of God, as per St. Paul’s instruction ).

This is a common fall-back pro-homosexuality argument when nothing else seems to be working.

First, “homosexuality” in the animal world is a rare occurance. Animals are hard-wired behaviorally to reproduce. Such apparent “homosexual” behavior is oriented (no pun intended) toward giving the fittest male the best chance at reproducing with the best female, albeit through deception and distraction. Other occurance of “homosexual” behavior is reflexive and not purposeful. Under the right circumstances, you can get a “homosexual” animal to pretty much breed anything, like a knothole in a fence.

BTW, in species that mate for life, there are no regular occurances of male-male and female-female bonding that occurs, which is probably the closest thing to “homosexuality” that would theoretically occur in the animal kingdom.

Second, and more importantly, animals and humans are humans. To even remotely suggest that because “homosexuality” is prevalent in the animal kingdom (and I reject that notion), homosexuality is natural and should be accepted in the human kingdom does a couple things:

1. Reduces homosexual humans to sub-human status.
2. Rejects the clear Scriptural basis of the distinct separation of the status of humans and animals.
3. Completely rejects the notion of free will, and suggests that humans are driven by instinct rather than by intellect and rationality.

 

[selylidne]

Someone hasn’t spent enough time with those teachings, clearly.

‘Morality issues’ (aka ‘teachings on faith or morals’ as opposed to ‘disciplines’) are PRECISELY the subject matter which DOES constitute dogmatic and unchangeable teaching!

In fact a Papal pronouncement cannot be infallible (dogmatic and thus unchanging) UNLESS it is on an issue of faith or morals (aka 'morality issues).

Calm down, LilyM. Morals are indeed undoubtably a subject on which the pope may issue an infallible verdict. However, no pope has ever done so. That means moral theology is for now entirely within the realm of the debatable for Catholics. It should also be emphasized, of course, that rejecting Church teaching even on non-infallible teaching IS a sin unless a heavy burden is met of cautious, complete, charitable, prolonged study of the issue.

It is my opinion that the individual who started this thread has not seriously studied Church teaching (in adequate depth and breadth or with adequate charity), and thus, even with wonderful knowledge of the science, rejects the Church’s teaching imprudently.

 

[selylidne]

Hi Everyone.
…
I’ve posted this in another forum as well, but I thought i deserved it’s own thread. Please comment of what I’ve written and I’ll be glad to reply

God bless.
Yngve

Hi Yngve,
Other people have commented on many aspects of what you wrote. Mostly they were reactionary responses and not really in line with Church teaching, from what I read, but there were plenty of accurate nuggets in there, too.

I highly recommend you look at works by these two individuals:

Stephen Lovatt
homepage.ntlworld.com/pharseas.world/index.html
James Alison
jamesalison.co.uk/eng/texts.html

 

[1ke]

That means moral theology is for now entirely within the realm of the debatable for Catholics.

This is completely untrue. Morality falls within the Magesterium, not just ex cathedra proclamations. And, moral teachings are not “debatable”.

It should also be emphasized, of course, that rejecting Church teaching even on non-infallible teaching IS a sin unless a heavy burden is met of cautious, complete, charitable, prolonged study of the issue.

There is no “unless”. We may NOT act contrary to the moral teachings of the Church, period.

 

[Mary_Corley]

God bless you, dear man! God loves defenders of His word, that He came to save not the righteous, but sinners!

I am the mother of a precious young man. In talks with hiim and his gay friends they say they would never have chosen this cross. My son struggles, and has tried to return to the Church, but was apparently rebuffed in confession. (Naturally I don’ know the details of that.)

A mother’s heart cries out to the Church, and those of you in a position to preach on the subject of personal humility and charity. What a difference it might make if a gay person could go to Church, though not receiving the Eucharist, but receiving compassionate love and acceptance as a person from his fellow sinners!

I embrace them and love them all. I almost daily pray the “Hail, Holy Queen!” for all of them. She is a Mother of mercy of " poor banished children of Eve"…The prayer does not say “except for gays.”

I remain faithful to the Church’s teachings, but sometimes I abhor
sinful attitudes. We must love the people while we hate the sin…