How can I explain that homosexuality is wrong to a gay man?

[blessedtoo]

I think, that if you research the scriptures, with reference to their inerrancy, you will find that the assessment I gave is not far adrift.
That is, copies and translations do not have the kharisma of inerrancy.

This is off-topic.

 

[blessedtoo]

So here is my challenge: Google “Faulty gender differetiation” genetic. I will do likewise.

Please start another thread on this topic. It is not helpful in advancing the dialogue regarding the OP question.

 

[fix]

If, in truth, you have never had to look again at what you took as ‘Gospel’, having openly accepted science, then indeed, either your definition of open acceptance is strange, or you are remarkably fortunate.
Science does not deny the possibility of miracles, indeed, the ‘uncertainty principle’ makes possible physics that Newtonian science defined as miracles.

Again, my point is science and faith do not contradict each other. Today the problem is many in science refuse to accept Truth. They start from an erroneous position. Such a faulty understanding leads to things like same sex attraction is “normal”, abortion is therapy, sex reassignment surgery is helpful, ect.

The effect of Darwinian elimination is not to eliminate a genetic trait, but to make it progressively rarer. No-one is posulating a queer gene. There are many genes that give a propensity to SSA. Not all these genes will be expressed in all subjects with SSA, so the gene elimination will be slow, and incomplete. It may be that mutations which generate SSA propensity genes are happening throughout time. The effect of this elimination is to reduce the incidence of SSA genes. If efforts of queer bashers succeeds in forcing straight behaviour, then this moderation of the SSA gene pool will be lost, and the SSA gene pool will grow.
We have proof that genetics is involved in more obvious cases of faulty gender differentiation. SSA is just a less obvious form of faulty gender differentiation.

An answer searching for a theory? Look, I admit the etiology, genetic or not, may play a role in some cases. The point still remains any mutation, any genetic anomoly however transmitted or not, in no way can be a moral justification for intrinsically wrong behavior.

It is clear here that where there is evidence that questions faith, you reject the evidence.
So here is my challenge: Google “Faulty gender differetiation” genetic. I will do likewise.

I am very sorry but you seem to have it backward. Scientific evidence does not threaten faith. Your approach starts from an incorrect assumption. Human nature is not a mere biologic principle. Science can observe and draw conclusions about physiology, pathology, genetics, psychological behavior, and everything else. What science cannot do or describe is what is right and what is wrong.

If science concludes there is a genetic predisposition to commit murder would you then conclude that is part of nature and thus morally acceptable? Also, where does free will fit in to your understanding of human nature?

 

[vern_humphrey]

It seems that we are involved in another of those interminable “I am right and the Church is wrong” threads.

We have seen the Bible itself questionned (“How can we know it’s right?”) Attacks on the Apostles (Saint Paul is “your tentmaker”) follow the bypical pattern. And, of course, the Holy Father is a benighted troglodite who would change his mind if only he knew what others know.

Faith and morality are not easy subjects. A person struggling with his desires and conscience does indeed suffer – but there are many in that boat. And we need to look at how they succeeded in overcoming their problems and learning to follow the Church.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Again, my point is science and faith do not contradict each other. Today the problem is many in science refuse to accept Truth. They start from an erroneous position. Such a faulty understanding leads to things like same sex attraction is “normal”, abortion is therapy, sex reassignment surgery is helpful, ect.

I fully accept that SSA is abnormal.
I fully accept, that judged from a normal situation, homosexual acts are abnormal.
I also accept that the attitudes of an SSA aflicted person may be abnormal, so may see abnormal acts as normal.
I also accept that homosexual acts between homosexual persons are not the best case situation.
But I would assert that they are among the least worst, in as much as they confine intimate activities internally to the aflicted population, and they contribute to attenuating the aflicted gene pool.

An answer searching for a theory? Look, I admit the etiology, genetic or not, may play a role in some cases. The point still remains any mutation, any genetic anomoly however transmitted or not, in no way can be a moral justification for intrinsically wrong behavior.

Perhaps I came on too strong.Perhaps we might view SSA as a situation similar to an addiction. The endorphins involved in sex are very powerful, being related to heroin. This explains why heroin addiction is so hard to break.
Unfortuneately, whereas heroin addiction can be relieved, possibly even cured, the best efforts of psychologists and psychietrists, (and there have been extensive efforts, using quite extreme measures) have failed in 100% vof cases to ‘cure’ the condition.
This being the case, should not this be viewed as a hopeless addiction, where the subject is not in proper control, and should not the homosexual activity be regarded as an analogy to methadone. Again, not a perfect solution, but a less than worst solution.

I am very sorry but you seem to have it backward. Scientific evidence does not threaten faith. Your approach starts from an incorrect assumption. Human nature is not a mere biologic principle. Science can observe and draw conclusions about physiology, pathology, genetics, psychological behavior, and everything else. What science cannot do or describe is what is right and what is wrong.

No, but it can define activities which are beneficial to society, or destructive. This is not far from ‘right’ and ‘wrong’.
Science does not support, as an article of faith, the dualism which you seem to support. It does not deny it, but does not require it as a foundation.
Man is an animal, but a very remarkable animal, but an animal nontheless.
Aminals are biological machines, but very remarkable machines. . . . . .
We have at last built machines which begin to show signs of inteligence, and it is now accepted as inevitable, that when a machine of similar complexity to the human brain is built, it will show inteligence, which, unless it is built as a war machine, will show signs of what we perceive as a soul.
Perhaps this research is more dangerous than North Korea’s atom bomb.

If science concludes there is a genetic predisposition to commit murder would you then conclude that is part of nature and thus morally acceptable? Also, where does free will fit in to your understanding of human nature?

Many people seem to believe that indutrial murder is acceptable, provided that it involves destruction of members of a nation which has been defined as evil.
Thge Human brain is not a deterministic machine, it is a probabalistic machine. That does not mean the response to a stimulus is random, it means that the response will be a combination of a deterministic result, and a randomisation. The result will thus always be yes or no, but the probability of it being ‘yes’ could be deterministicly defined anywhere between 0% and 100%. Free will has an effect of the randomisation, driving the probability one way, or another.

 

[Sixtus]

Pug

Quote:Originally Posted by blessedtoo
What’s the point of all this? If she is physically a woman “living as a man” (whatever that means) who sleeps with men then she is a transvestite heterosexual. That’s not relevant to our conversation so why bring it up?

So that folk may realise that issues are not so cut and dried for ‘some of us’.

You DARE TO CALL A TRANSVESTITE. I have retracted my original posting to you as I enjoy coming here and aware the moderators will have no conception how insulted one can be by such a biggot who could call someone with a gender anomaly a transvestite is an insult beyond words. Yet if I replied with something equally offensive I would undoubtedly be banned.

A transvestite is a cross dresser. A gender anomaly has nothing to do with being a transvestite. That statement is ignorance beyond meaure.

I think maybe the poster was talking about someone who has male genitalia when born, so everyone figures the person is a boy, and the person is raised accordingly. But, if you do an ultrasound of the abdomen, there will be a uterus and ovaries, and the person is XX genetically. So the person is female according to genetics and the functioning reproductive organs, they just happen to have had a defect of body formation while in the womb. This problem may only first show itself when the person hits puberty and their hormones kick in. I haven’t read enough on this rare problem to say for sure.

If doctors detect this anomaly early enough, they sometimes do plastic surgery on the exterior of the person so that it matches what they are on the inside.

Maybe someone could give you a link on this issue. There are a variety of ways this genetic strangeness can happen.

Thank you Pug for taking the time to explain and for your kind understanding. You must be very close to God.

The point of my posting is that Homosexuality is not so clear cut. What is homosexuality? What is heterosexuality?

Folk condemn homsexuality when they do not understand the full nature of people to whom it affects.

To answer the ignoramous statement above, when there is a gender anomaly, which is the correct gender alignment male or female? Am I homesexual if I sleep with a man or am I heterosexual?

The point is that people are all to ready to condemn without knowing the facts. I would strongly suggest folk take the time to find out before they condemn.

 

[EBSSTF4]

So that folk may realise that issues are not so cut and dried for ‘some of us’.

You DARE TO CALL A TRANSVESTITE. I have retracted my original posting to you as I enjoy coming here and aware the moderators will have no conception how insulted one can be by such a biggot who could call someone with a gender anomaly a transvestite is an insult beyond words. Yet if I replied with something equally offensive I would undoubtedly be banned.

A transvestite is a cross dresser. A gender anomaly has nothing to do with being a transvestite. That statement is ignorance beyond meaure.

Thank you Pug for taking the time to explain and for your kind understanding. You must be very close to God.

The point of my posting is that Homosexuality is not so clear cut. What is homosexuality? What is heterosexuality?

Folk condemn homsexuality when they do not understand the full nature of people to whom it affects.

To answer the ignoramous statement above, when there is a gender anomaly, which is the correct gender alignment male or female? Am I homesexual if I sleep with a man or am I heterosexual?

The point is that people are all to ready to condemn without knowing the facts. I would strongly suggest folk take the time to find out before they condemn.

For that reason some people are called to a life of celibacy.

 

[Sixtus]

…and some people cannot live by the demands of celibacy. It is natural for a female to be tactile. Some are more so than others. Some like men can cope without mutual bonding while others become mentally ill as a direct result of refraining from what is very natural to them.

It is absurd for someone to make demands on someone else about ‘their calling’. If it is not within the nature of a person to live as a fragmented individual then they are at high risk of becoming dysfunctional and ill as a result of trying.

To suggest ‘celibacy’ to someone who possesses such a disability is to discriminate against disability. You can get away with it on a forum such as this. You would be at risk of prosecution in English society for expressing views which discriminate against disability or suggest they because of their disability, should not be treated with equality.

Everyone has the right to an existance whereby they are able to function, Everyone has the right to avoid dysfunction where this is avoidable. If someone is forced to take a route whereby they become dysfunctional depressed, de-motivated and finally fategued to the point they are no longer able to function [for that is what happens, trust me I know], depended on others as they are no longer able to live a normal existence [that is where all other problems come into play alcoholism etc] just to comply with the bigotted naive wishes of the religious fanaticism of a few, then I suggest there is a serious flaw with the religious ideology of ‘the few’.

There is therefore no clear boundaries around homosexuality, or for that matter heterosexuality. It may be said that ‘homosexuality is normal’ whereas to force someone who is not gender aligned into a heterosexual relationship is to force them into an ‘unnatural’ relationship that is every bit as repulsive as homosexuality is to the heterosexual.

 

[Sixtus]

I was angered by the post which suggested that disability does not have a voice and should 'go away and start another thread. I was further upset at being personally insulted by being told that an issue about homosexuality which is a matter I wished to discuss, had no place on this thread.

That however does not excuse the anger I felt or my expressing it in my posting above. Therefore, I offer my most sincere and deepest apologies, in particular to blesssingstoo.

 

[Sixtus]

I was angered by the post which suggested that disability does not have a voice and should ‘go away and start another thread’. As one who has worked hard for the past 12 years to promote the spirit of Inclusivity in all the organisations with which I have been involved, I was upset at a contribution which was clearly in breach of Inclusivity. I was further upset at being personally insulted by being told that an issue about homosexuality which is a matter I wished to discuss, had no place on this thread.

That however does not excuse the anger I felt or my expressing it in my posting above. Therefore, I offer my most sincere and deepest apologies, in particular to blesssingstoo.

 

[blessedtoo]

That however does not excuse the anger I felt or my expressing it in my posting above. Therefore, I offer my most sincere and deepest apologies, in particular to blesssingstoo.

OK, now that you’ve stopped blasting me with PM’s and have calmed down, let’s retrace our steps, shall we?

You said:

I even know of one such woman who is living her life as a man and is big in freemasonry. She thinks it is a real joke.

Her job: she is a teacher. She lives a male existence. She dresses and behaves like a man. She admits to having had a relationship with a man when she was a teenager.

Is she a homosexual or heterosexual?

And I replied:

What’s the point of all this? If she is physically a woman “living as a man” (whatever that means) who sleeps with men then she is a transvestite heterosexual. That’s not relevant to our conversation so why bring it up?

Now how on earth did you conlcude that I was calling YOU a transvestite?

The OP question was “How can I explain homosexuality is wrong to a gay friend?” You suggested a poster google “Faulty gender differetiation” genetic. I suggested you start another thread on this because the direction you were headed did not address the OP question.

Just wanted to be clear about what I wrote.

 

[fix]

I
This being the case, should not this be viewed as a hopeless addiction, where the subject is not in proper control, and should not the homosexual activity be regarded as an analogy to methadone. Again, not a perfect solution, but a less than worst solution.

Even drug addiction comes in degrees. I ask again about free will? I think it is a disservice to folks with SSA to claim that each and every such person is incapable of exercizing control via free will. It is as if you have decided no one can master their desires or inclinations? Drug addicts can be helped and so can others.

No, but it can define activities which are beneficial to society, or destructive. This is not far from ‘right’ and ‘wrong’.

This is an important point. What many in science are now defining as beneficial is illegitimate. Even those terms need to be properly defined before we can agree.

Man is an animal, but a very remarkable animal, but an animal nontheless.
Aminals are biological machines, but very remarkable machines. . . . . .

If man is merely an animal without reason and without a soul, then we have no reason to have laws or to act humanely.

We have at last built machines which begin to show signs of inteligence, and it is now accepted as inevitable, that when a machine of similar complexity to the human brain is built, it will show inteligence, which, unless it is built as a war machine, will show signs of what we perceive as a soul.

No, there is no proof of that.

Many people seem to believe that indutrial murder is acceptable, provided that it involves destruction of members of a nation which has been defined as evil.

Who believes murder is just? You mean people belive killing in self defense is just? Very different.

Thge Human brain is not a deterministic machine, it is a probabalistic machine. That does not mean the response to a stimulus is random, it means that the response will be a combination of a deterministic result, and a randomisation. The result will thus always be yes or no, but the probability of it being ‘yes’ could be deterministicly defined anywhere between 0% and 100%. Free will has an effect of the randomisation, driving the probability one way, or another.

No soul, no person. When will science prove the existence of a soul?

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

OK, now that you’ve stopped blasting me with PM’s and have calmed down, let’s retrace our steps, shall we?

You said:

And I replied:

Now how on earth did you conlcude that I was calling YOU a transvestite?

The OP question was “How can I explain homosexuality is wrong to a gay friend?” You suggested a poster google “Faulty gender differetiation” genetic. I suggested you start another thread on this because the direction you were headed did not address the OP question.

Just wanted to be clear about what I wrote.

Actually, Blessed, it was not Sixtus who posted that, it was me.
Surprisingly it came up with zero hits.
There is surprisingly little on the net related to this subject, apart from some ancient, and now discredited theories that gender differentiation can be modified by upbringing.
It is now definitely accepted by wiser council that the gender assignment occurs in-utero, with or withour errors.
The tale from Sixtus is interesting, and saddening.
Is this person male because that is the external physical appearance, or female because of the ‘XX’ chromosome pairing.
True hermaphrodites have been recorded, I believe there was one in South Africa who was doubly fertile, and could in theory have self inseminated and brought forth.
I believe she was ‘XX’, but had complete and functioning male genitalia, as well as complete and functioning female.
What gender would be assigned to this unfortunate person, and with whom could (s)he partner.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Even drug addiction comes in degrees. I ask again about free will? I think it is a disservice to folks with SSA to claim that each and every such person is incapable of exercizing control via free will. It is as if you have decided no one can master their desires or inclinations? Drug addicts can be helped and so can others.

Be fair now, I did make the point that serious attempts had been made to relieve this addiction, and failed, in spite of the dangerous and excessive methods used, including electric shock treatment, (electro convulsive ‘therapy’). Since no effective relief or cure is available, then as I said, the addiction is hopeless, and the only treatment is ‘methadone’.

This is an important point. What many in science are now defining as beneficial is illegitimate. Even those terms need to be properly defined before we can agree.

Who is the authority defining scientific definitions as illegitimate.
I do not want to get into a futile argument with creationists.

If man is merely an animal without reason and without a soul, then we have no reason to have laws or to act humanely.

If you study the behaviour of a wolf pack, you can see behaviour which is approaching humane. You will see the same in a herd of elephants. You will see cases of crippled animals surviving only because they have been nursed by other members of the pack or herd. This behaviour surely qualifies as humane.

No, there is no proof of that.

Agreed, but from the direction of the wind, and the position of the sun, the weather to come can to some degree be fortold.

Who believes murder is just? You mean people belive killing in self defense is just? Very different.

If I decide someone is evil, and blow him away, that is murder.
If GWB decides some people are evil, and carpet bombs tens of thousands to kingdom come, that is legitimate self defence?

No soul, no person. When will science prove the existence of a soul?

It is entirely possible that science will never find the soul that you are convinced exists.
Science seems to think that the soul you think real and concrete, is a process rather than a thing. Like the running program in your computer. And it cannot exist outside the computer as a running program, only as a data disk, somewhat like the DNA which holds the design of our bodies, and the initial ‘wiring’ of our brains.
As I said, science does not see body and soul as the separate entities of your duality.

 

[fix]

Be fair now, I did make the point that serious attempts had been made to relieve this addiction, and failed, in spite of the dangerous and excessive methods used, including electric shock treatment, (electro convulsive ‘therapy’). Since no effective relief or cure is available, then as I said, the addiction is hopeless, and the only treatment is ‘methadone’.

Not all addicts need methadone.

Who is the authority defining scientific definitions as illegitimate.

Not scientific words. Words like beneficial need to be defined. If some group decides being “gay” is a benefit I want to know how that decided that and what they mean by benefit.

If you study the behaviour of a wolf pack, you can see behaviour which is approaching humane. You will see the same in a herd of elephants. You will see cases of crippled animals surviving only because they have been nursed by other members of the pack or herd. This behaviour surely qualifies as humane.

Perhaps instinct. Can wolves draw or speak or inspire or worship God?

If I decide someone is evil, and blow him away, that is murder.
If GWB decides some people are evil, and carpet bombs tens of thousands to kingdom come, that is legitimate self defence?

All that depends on reason and faith. No science will answer those questions. Philosophy will help, but not math.

… separate entities of your duality.

Science will never solve or see this issue. It would be like claiming science cannot identify friendship under a microscope. Science is not qualified for such things.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Not all addicts need methadone.

You insist on trivialiizing.
This is NOT trivial.
The endorphins involved in sex are the most powerful known, and people have been known to conciously accept death rather than be denied the fix.
We are dealing with ‘addicts’ who cannot be denied their fix, and and addiction from which there is no recovery.
Many of the ‘addicts’ resort to substance abuse to dull the pain. Some indeed resort to suicide.
Methadone is a useful metamorph, but does not come close to the measure of the seriousness or the pain.

Not scientific words. Words like beneficial need to be defined. If some group decides being “gay” is a benefit I want to know how that decided that and what they mean by benefit.

No! Do you deliberately miss the point?
Being gay is of negative value to society, as it is to the sufferer. This is not an excuse for queer bashing. These people do have positive (name removed by moderator)uts to society, but at great cost to themselves.
If missguided people force these unfortunates to live a normal life, and take an ‘appropriate’ heterosexual partner, and then possibly, breed, they will procreate young bearing the defective genotype that causes their own suffering, and the stress of the artificial partnership will inevitably result in its dissolution, resulting in a single parent child, with a genotypical tendency to SSA.
If on the other hand, a homosexual alliance is tolerated, and that alliance is encouraged to be a faithful alliance, then this will result in the effective sterility of both members of that alliance. This will thus prevent the transmission of the defective genotype of both partners. This is beneficial to society, and to mankind.

Perhaps instinct. Can wolves draw or speak or inspire or worship God?

So when animals show signs of nascent humanity, it is mere instinct. In effect you devalue humanity in humans, for humans are also animals.
Of course wolves can speak. They of course have a limited vocabulary. If it were not so, how could a shepherd control his dog?
Have you never seen adoration in the eyes of a dog?
Then you have never had the honour of being the guardian of such a wonderful creature.

All that depends on reason and faith. No science will answer those questions. Philosophy will help, but not math.

Math is a branch of philosophy. Read Newton’s ‘Principia’.

Science will never solve or see this issue. It would be like claiming science cannot identify friendship under a microscope. Science is not qualified for such things.

What you say might be true of yesterday and today, where science is in a wood, examining trees. In the fullness of time, science will perceive that the wood is made of trees, and the interaction of the trees makes the forest. Science is already moving in this direction.
Never say ‘never’.

 

[vern_humphrey]

What’s the point of this debate?

This is a Catholic forum. The Church has spoken on the subject – it is not a sin to have SSA, it is a sin to perform homosexual acts.

In prolonging the debate, a lot more heat than light has been generated, and some people have been led into sin by:

• Rejecting the Magisterium
• Attacking Saint Paul (calling him “youir tentmaker.”)
• Denying the very scriptures.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

What’s the point of this debate?

This is a Catholic forum. The Church has spoken on the subject – it is not a sin to have SSA, it is a sin to perform homosexual acts.

In prolonging the debate, a lot more heat than light has been generated, and some people have been led into sin by:

• Rejecting the Magisterium
• Attacking Saint Paul (calling him “youir tentmaker.”)
• Denying the very scriptures.

Fear not Vern,
The three sins you cite are my sins, and I take full responsibility for them.
I may have led others into sin, but that sin is the sin of pride, which you failed to mention.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Fear not Vern,
The three sins you cite are my sins, and I take full responsibility for them.
I may have led others into sin, but that sin is the sin of pride, which you failed to mention.

I repeat:

What’s the point of this debate?

This is a Catholic forum. The Church has spoken on the subject – it is not a sin to have SSA, it is a sin to perform homosexual acts.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

I repeat:

What’s the point of this debate?

This is a Catholic forum. The Church has spoken on the subject – it is not a sin to have SSA, it is a sin to perform homosexual acts.

OK, I admit it is a sin.
But surely it is a least worst sin.
In the same way, the use of condoms, and other forms of birth control is a sin, but the lack of use of condoms in a scenario where AIDS is endemic is a greater sin.
Thus in that scenario, it is a least worst sin.