Homosexuality

[Debora123]

homosexuality is a choice. whoever came up with the genetics argument is probably a sympathizer or are themselves gay.

Ummm try the CATECHISM.

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

 

[followingtheway]

Why don’t you just search for the thousands of already-existing threads on this subject?

D-d-d-d-I don’t know Because those aren’t on Catholic Answers and want to see what other people on this site think.

What we as individuals believe is less important than following what God tells us

I know the Bible talks about Homosexuality in general, but now some people are saying gay people are born that way but homosexual acts are sinful, but some people say that’s it’s not a sin at all so…

which is that regardless of how it originates, homosexual acts are sinful. Period.

Okay. See, there we go. An answer That’s what this poll’s about

 

[BornAgain2010]

Ummm try the CATECHISM.

in your quote of the Cathechism, it says GENESIS not GENETICS. and it even says unexplained. therefore unexplained meaning its a 50/50. so your attempt to assert that your opinion is correct actually sorta failed.

 

[Debora123]

in your quote of the Cathechism, it says GENESIS not GENETICS. and it even says unexplained. therefore unexplained meaning its a 50/50. so your attempt to assert that your opinion is correct actually sorta failed.

No, unexplained meaning no one knows why or how this happened, whether it be genetics, environmental, or psychological.

But we DO know that it was not a choice. That’s why homosexuality is refereed to as a condition, not a choice. And as it is not a choice, it cannot be a sin in itself.

No one wakes up one day and thinks “hmmm I think I’m gonna go ahead and be attracted to the same sex now.”

 

[buffalo]

Could not vote - no distinction between the condition and the act.

There is no gay gene and efforts to p(name removed by moderator)oint specific behavior genes have failed.

 

[James1215]

Bufallo, did having straight sex cause you to become attracted to the opposite sex, or did unchosen heterosexuality cause your attraction?

Can any of us claim the moral high ground because we were made straight?

 

[James1215]

lol I meant ‘Buffalo’, excuse the mis-spell

 

[buffalo]

Bufallo, did having straight sex cause you to become attracted to the opposite sex, or did unchosen heterosexuality cause your attraction?

Can any of us claim the moral high ground because we were made straight?

I am a male attracted to females by design.

 

[JohnMPhilomena]

The Poll is flawed.

Homosexuals don’t “choose” to have same-sex attractions, but that doesn’t mean they were born that way either. Many that I know, fought these feelings and tried to pray them away. When they couldn’t, they turned away from the church, thinking God hates them.

But that doesn’t mean they were born that way either. So, we can have the nature vs. nurture debate, but they didn’t choose to have same-sex attractions (SSA). Now, that said, some do choose to live a gay life-style and that is not consistent with church teaching.

So to all those who have SSA and are trying to live in accordance with church teaching, I applaud you. This is a huge cross to bear.

To those who have given up on the church. I pray for you. You were created in God’s image. I pray that you will accept God’s love and come back to Him. There you will find true Love. Not just sex in search of a same-sex relationship.

To those in the church who look down on homosexuals as some kind of pariah - judge not lest ye be judged.

www.ssahope.com

 

[James1215]

Buffalo,

You say ‘I am a male attracted to females by design.’ I agree that you are, but my view of design is perhaps more inclusive.

I think our purpose regarding love is as follows:

Divine intention of romantic love >> is enabled by sexuality (God-given component of human nature) >> and fulfilled in committed relationships cemented by sex >> which is defined as marriage.

I do not think that the purpose of having children overrides that of loving, and do not see the potential to have children as necessary for sex to express love, so believe that marriage is not a priori closed to gay people.

Also, I think we can work backwards from observed gay couples to show they might best be included in marriage:

Can gay sex/gay couples express genuine love? >> Is this a manifestation of a sexuality not of the person’s creation? >> Could God have intended it for the purpose of committed romantic love?

Perhaps homosexuality is not a cross to bear but a capacity to love.

 

[James1215]

How else do we explain gay love, if it is both different (homosexual) and truly love? Satan works in mysterious ways? Or God’s design is right in front of us?

 

[mathematoons]

Who cares if it’s genetic? The homosexual orientation is not a sin, acting on it is.

No one would choose to bear that cross, so saying that the orientation is a choice is silly–but that doesn’t mean genes are the only other option.

 

[buffalo]

Perhaps homosexuality is not a cross to bear but a capacity to love.

I would respond that the SSA can indeed experience a great capacity to love, but when directed to suffering for God.

The redemptive power of suffering is astounding.

Perhaps this will help:

The Four Loves

 

[Debora123]

I would respond that the SSA can indeed experience a great capacity to love, but when directed to suffering for God.

The redemptive power of suffering is astounding.

Perhaps this will help:

The Four Loves

Saying that a homosexual couple can’t love each other is silly.

Of course they can experience love for each other and care deeply about each other. Just because they are sinners (like the rest of us, mind you) and just because there is sin in their relationship doesn’t mean they don’t love and care about each other.

Think of it as a heterosexual couple who engage in premarital sex. Of course, there is sin in their relationship, but that doesn’t mean that they don’t have the capacity to love and care for each other deeply.

 

[smichhertz]

Saying that a homosexual couple can’t love each other is silly.

Of course they can experience love for each other and care deeply about each other. Just because they are sinners (like the rest of us, mind you) and just because there is sin in their relationship doesn’t mean they don’t love and care about each other.

Think of it as a heterosexual couple who engage in premarital sex. Of course, there is sin in their relationship, but that doesn’t mean that they don’t have the capacity to love and care for each other deeply.

Excellent point! A lot of people make the mistake of assuming that just because things like premarital sex, homosexual sex, etc are immoral that those people cannot love each other.

In fact, although those individual acts certainly are not acts of love, it is still possible for them to love each other.

 

[GraceDK]

My poll on Homosexuality

Your poll is flawed.

Most serious psychology knows that there might be a genetic disposition, but
homosexuality is mainly due to gender identity deficit which happens before the third year of life. That is, its neither genetic nor simply free choice.
No one would freely choose having ssa as far as I know, but most of the people with ssa suffer from not having identified adequately with their own gender and differentiated from the other.

Dr. Joseph Nicolosi is one person who wrote a scientific book about this, another is Janelle Hallman.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

debora

**Think of it as a heterosexual couple who engage in premarital sex. Of course, there is sin in their relationship, but that doesn’t mean that they don’t have the capacity to love and care for each other deeply. **

Don’t think I will agree to an immoral equivalency between pre-marital sex and sodomy.

 

[Debora123]

Excellent point! A lot of people make the mistake of assuming that just because things like premarital sex, homosexual sex, etc are immoral that those people cannot love each other.

In fact, although those individual acts certainly are not acts of love, it is still possible for them to love each other.

Exactly.

 

[Debora123]

Don’t think I will agree to an immoral equivalency between pre-marital sex and sodomy.

They are both mortal sin if done with full knowledge and consent of the will. One is not worse than the other.

(a side note: sodomy is not a sin between a married couple, as long as the man finishes in the “right place”… sodomy in itself is not a sin)

 

[John21652]

Buffalo,

You say ‘I am a male attracted to females by design.’ I agree that you are, but my view of design is perhaps more inclusive.

Your view of ‘design’ means there is no such thing as something not by design, If the scientific community adopted your view of ‘design’ there would be no room for abnormal results, or, as they say, results outside the norm.

Considering how homosexuals make up between 1%-3% of all populations surveyed, there is overwhelming evidence that homosexuality is not normal, no matter how you try to paint it James and no matter how many threads you ihabit with your pro-homosexual posts.

I think our purpose regarding love is as follows:

Divine intention of romantic love >> is enabled by sexuality (God-given component of human nature) >> and fulfilled in committed relationships cemented by sex >> which is defined as marriage.

Your definition would probably just about cover any moment down through history. the only thing is jamezs, it applies to heterosexual relationships and they are the norm. you, of course, will seek to stretch the credulity of everyone here by twisting what has been written about what has been considered to be the norm down through history, to suit your own agenda. we have seen you attempt to do that on other threads and always, james, your arguments become more and more convoluted and thus, empty.

As a classic example, you begin by telling us what you personally think and attempt to equate it with the devine. You need to drop the subjectivity and begin with some objective ideas before your arguments can even begin to be treated seriously. subjectivism is not the root of good philosophical, or theological reasoning. In fact, it is the basis of moral relativity.

I do not think that the purpose of having children overrides that of loving, and do not see the potential to have children as necessary for sex to express love, so believe that marriage is not a priori closed to gay people.

You’ve dug yourself a big hole right here already. You predicate what you write with “I do not think”, then attempt to tell us that what you think is somehow not a priori against gay marriage. If you wish to introduce an a priori argument, you need to use objective premises. A priori by definition refers to something other than experience, and something that is usually self evident, so you void its introduction by referring to your own subjective opinion. You are actually attempting an a fortiori argument, but the connections you give are too tenuous to make the attempt valid.

Also, I think we can work backwards from observed gay couples to show they might best be included in marriage:

In other words, because something exists you seek to justify it. However, in the process you are forgetting, perhaps conveniently, that a whole lot of scientific information suggests that your argument is doomed. Considering the high rates of promiscuity amongst homosexuals and the extroardinary rates of disease amongst them, perhaps you shouldn’t argue down this route.

Can gay sex/gay couples express genuine love? >> Is this a manifestation of a sexuality not of the person’s creation? >> Could God have intended it for the purpose of committed romantic love?

You have pushed this argument before. the Bible states homosexuality is an ‘abomination’ and even St. Paul said those who practice it will be denied heaven. He said that, James, because it is a sin and sin cuts the sinner off from God.

Perhaps homosexuality is not a cross to bear but a capacity to love.

Perhaps the practice of homosexuality is merely a symptom of hedonism, purely and simply. The figures on promiscuity would support that argument. As for the consequences of that behaviour, read this CDC pamphlet and then ask yourself why you support the introduction of something that puts society at such great risk. If you are interested, go look up the high rates of intestinal worms amongst gay men. if you can stomaach the reading, ask yourself why you advocate a weakening of a moral code which will undermine the society you live in. And why are you telling us homosexuality is a cross to be borne? Is it because they know themselves that it is not normal? consideringv the levels of tolerance they are shown, it can’t be anything else.