I can't get over the gay thing

[Prodigal_Son]

All I need is a truly objective scientific means of determining whether a person is innately homosexual. When that happens I won’t have to be a homophobe any longer.

Unless I’m mistake, kozlosap never said homosexuality was innate. Kozlosap said homosexuality was NOT CHOSEN.

My interest in baseball was not innate. But it was not chosen either – I grew up eating, sleeping, and breathing baseball because of the family I was born into. Likewise, my near-sightedness was not innate, nor was it chosen. You’re peddling in false dichotomies, if you think traits must either be innate or chosen.

So let me ask you: When I first looked lustfully at a picture of a man (ironically a baseball player) when I was 10 years old, was my *attraction *to that man a result of my choice? I don’t deny that *lusting *was my choice. But was the attraction my choice?

 

[clintonm]

This seems disturbing to me, because it does not just end at the “gay thing”.

telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/11119062/Incest-a-fundamental-right-German-committee-says.html

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Unless I’m mistake, kozlosap never said homosexuality was innate. Kozlosap said homosexuality was NOT CHOSEN.

My interest in baseball was not innate. But it was not chosen either – I grew up eating, sleeping, and breathing baseball because of the family I was born into. Likewise, my near-sightedness was not innate, nor was it chosen. You’re peddling in false dichotomies, if you think traits must either be innate or chosen.

So let me ask you: When I first looked lustfully at a picture of a man (ironically a baseball player) when I was 10 years old, was my *attraction *to that man a result of my choice? I don’t deny that *lusting *was my choice. But was the attraction my choice?

Hmmmm…??

The way I look at it is…if it is NOT CHOSEN it must be innate. If one is not born that way it is CHOSEN.

Your near-sightedness was a physical condition that developed or was caused. It certainly wasn’t chosen but the important factor here is that it was treatable. Most, if not all, physical and mental conditions, chosen or not, can be treated. Even a bad choice, like a tattoo can be removed.

I wish I could provide an intelligent answer to your question…but I simply cannot relate to your baseball player attraction. My first lustful experience occurred at 13 and involved my uncle’s “Wolf Deck”. I remember my father’s comment after Mom finished her scolding …He said: “Well, at least he wasn’t looking at naked guys”.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Hmmmm…??

The way I look at it is…if it is NOT CHOSEN it must be innate. If one is not born that way it is CHOSEN.

Your near-sightedness was a physical condition that developed or was caused. It certainly wasn’t chosen but the important factor here is that it was treatable. Most, if not all, physical and mental conditions, chosen or not, can be treated. Even a bad choice, like a tattoo can be removed.

Many modern psychologists believe that homosexual attraction is a physical condition that “developed or was caused”. There’s nothing faintly homophobic about that view! What they *don’t *believe is that all gay people chose to be gay.

And that’s the view that makes people upset at you. So please consider carefully what rationale you have for *that *view.

As for your claim that unchosen conditions which develop are treatable, that’s VERY often untrue. Alzheimer’s isn’t treatable. Fetal alcohol syndrome isn’t treatable. Moreover, fixed tendencies toward sin – like extreme irritability – are both unchosen and untreatable. They can be managed, but they cannot be removed – certainly not in any systematic and reliable way.

I wish I could provide an intelligent answer to your question…but I simply cannot relate to your baseball player attraction. My first lustful experience occurred at 13 and involved my uncle’s “Wolf Deck”. I remember my father’s comment after Mom finished her scolding …He said: “Well, at least he wasn’t looking at naked guys”.

Please TRY to relate to my question. My experience looking at an underwear-clad man was pretty much identical to your experience looking at a naked girl. You didn’t stop and think, “Gee, you know, today I’m gonna desire to look at naked girls” – and I didn’t think that about naked guys either. There was no choice in my desire, only in my actions.

You can still oppose gay sex, even if you accept that SSA isn’t chosen. And I’m not sure what evidence you could possibly have that SSA is chosen.

 

[WilT]

The Church is one of the few voices of sanity left in the world. The rest of it is given over to an incoherent and self-refuting philosophy. It’s three main lies are:

1. Moral truths are relative
2. The ends justifies the means
3. Pleasure is the greatest good and suffering is the greatest evil.

Some people call this secularism, but it isn’t. It’s neo-paganism. And there’s nothing neutral about it.

 

[WilT]

You are not alone in your perceptions. You might consider looking at the teaching of some other churches. Many of them are more accepting of diversity, and more committed to social justice than the Catholic Church. Consider, for a moment, how the Catholic Church has handled its own child molestation problems. Consider the Catholic Church’s position on condom use with respect to HIV and other STD transmission. Ask yourself whether the Catholic Church has a healthy, or even a sane, approach to sexual issues.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

I think the age of understanding is different for everyone. At seventeen years, I know that some people will not even be close to understanding how they feel romantically. But I know my best friend, I know that he knows what he’s doing and understands himself. It’s just different for everyone, I think.

Thanks to the many other replies, your help is greatly appreciated.

Indeed, the age of understanding may vary from person to person. And learning and experience through the developmental years and beyond tend to improve one’s faculties in reasoning and understanding.

Your friend is only seventeen and your disclosure in a previous post indicates you are a young woman yourself, fourteen or fifteen years of age (please correct if wrong).

There is much learning and experiences to cover by you and your gay friend.

Although individuals get habituated in repetitive gratification of their desires, in their particular environment, change is possible and does happen. Same sex attraction is not static for all, certainly not including those with deep seated tendencies.

People do get habituated in repetitive gratification of their desires, and/or in a particular environment that does not cultivate temperance. This is not mean one can not aspire to change, or change is not to be.
,

 

[Weejee]

[SIGN]Hey Hope Philomena, You Still There?[/SIGN]

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Many modern psychologists believe that homosexual attraction is a physical condition that “developed or was caused”. There’s nothing faintly homophobic about that view! What they *don’t *believe is that all gay people chose to be gay.

The American Psychiatric Association’s Board of Trustees removed homosexuality from its official diagnostic manual. Therefore it is not a mental condition…developed or caused.

That leaves two options. Homosexuality is either innate or chosen. If it is innate it is natural and there is nothing we can or should do about it other than accept it.

The problem here is that homosexuality cannot be proven to be innate. One cannot take a blood test or DNA test to prove that he or she is, in fact, homosexual.

Since the APA says that homosexuality is not a mental condition and we cannot prove that homosexuals are “born that way” that means homosexuality is acquired or chosen.

As for your claim that unchosen conditions which develop are treatable, that’s VERY often untrue. Alzheimer’s isn’t treatable. Fetal alcohol syndrome isn’t treatable. Moreover, fixed tendencies toward sin – like extreme irritability – are both unchosen and untreatable. They can be managed, but they cannot be removed – certainly not in any systematic and reliable way.

Actually my claim is VERY often very true. You listed two medical conditions that are not treatable. The bandwidth of this forum prevents me from listing unpreventable medical conditions that are treatable and very successfully cured.

Please TRY to relate to my question. My experience looking at an underwear-clad man was pretty much identical to your experience looking at a naked girl. You didn’t stop and think, “Gee, you know, today I’m gonna desire to look at naked girls” – and I didn’t think that about naked guys either. There was no choice in my desire, only in my actions.

OK, I’ll try.

Firstly our experiences were not identical. My desire was to mate with a woman after looking at the naked ladies. I had no desire to look at pictures. That was curiosity. I think you will agree that a man’s desire to mate with a woman is a normal, natural phenomena.

If your experience, looking at an underwear-clad man, produced a desire to mate with an underwear-clad man…I would have to say that is not a normal, natural phenomena.

If your desire was just to look at pictures, I would think that is harmless.

Again there was no equivalency in our experiences. One was normal, one was abnormal.

You can still oppose gay sex, even if you accept that SSA isn’t chosen. And I’m not sure what evidence you could possibly have that SSA is chosen.

There are many homosexuals who freely admit that their lifestyle is a voluntary preference.
I have met some of these people and was a close friend of one who died of AIDS.

On the question of choice, it must be noted that all sex but rape is voluntary and thus every sexual act involves a conscious choice. A person’s inclination toward a form of sexual conduct may not, for any number of reasons, be consciously chosen, but the mere existence of desire does not justify the act. To accept otherwise would be to validate adultery and pedophilia. Society has the right to require people to suppress harmful desires, even if it is difficult for them to do so.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

The American Psychiatric Association’s Board of Trustees removed homosexuality from its official diagnostic manual. Therefore it is not a mental condition…developed or caused.

The APA does NOT say that homosexuality is innate. The APA says that it is not a disorder. As a matter of fact, much of the recent psychological research points to possibilities that homosexuality is at least sometimes not innate – but no respectable psychological researcher I’m familiar with says that homosexuality attraction is chosen (and certainly not that it is *always *chosen).

That leaves two options. Homosexuality is either innate or chosen. If it is innate it is natural and there is nothing we can or should do about it other than accept it.

Accept that one has it, sure. But not accept the activities. Some people are born predisposed to alcoholism – this does not mean they should accept that they are bound to be alcoholics!

The problem here is that homosexuality cannot be proven to be innate. One cannot take a blood test or DNA test to prove that he or she is, in fact, homosexual.

Since the APA says that homosexuality is not a mental condition and we cannot prove that homosexuals are “born that way” that means homosexuality is acquired or chosen.

Logical fallacy. You cannot derive “homosexuality is not innate” from “homosexuality has not been proven to be innate”, no more than ancients could derive “the earth is not round” from “the earth has not been proven to be round.”

Actually my claim is VERY often very true.

I never denied that it is very often true. I simply claimed that it is very often untrue. Those two statements are consistent.

Firstly our experiences were not identical. My desire was to mate with a woman after looking at the naked ladies. I had no desire to look at pictures. That was curiosity. I think you will agree that a man’s desire to mate with a woman is a normal, natural phenomena.

If your experience, looking at an underwear-clad man, produced a desire to mate with an underwear-clad man…I would have to say that is not a normal, natural phenomena.

If your desire was just to look at pictures, I would think that is harmless.

Again there was no equivalency in our experiences. One was normal, one was abnormal.

See, this is where I feel really puzzled. I was trying to prove our experiences were the same in one single respect. I wasn’t claiming my experience was healthy. I don’t believe my experience was healthy. But in one single respect, our experiences were the same: neither of us consciously chose to feel the attraction we felt.

So do you claim that I consciously chose to feel that attraction? Or was it unconscious? And if it was unconscious, how could you call it a “choice”?

There are many homosexuals who freely admit that their lifestyle is a voluntary preference.
I have met some of these people and was a close friend of one who died of AIDS.

I never denied that living an actively gay life is voluntary. But being gay – or at least having same-sex sexual attraction – is not voluntary. You keep confusing the attraction with the actions.

On the question of choice, it must be noted that all sex but rape is voluntary and thus every sexual act involves a conscious choice. A person’s inclination toward a form of sexual conduct may not, for any number of reasons, be consciously chosen

, but the mere existence of desire does not justify the act. To accept otherwise would be to validate adultery and pedophilia. Society has the right to require people to suppress harmful desires, even if it is difficult for them to do so.

I agree with all of this. Indeed, the bolded portion is precisely what you seem to have repeatedly been denying.

So I’m quite confused. If you really believe this last paragraph, then you agree with me and kozlosap about the most salient points in this conversation. But then why argue with us?

I hope I don’t come off as argumentative here. I value your comments in many threads, and I want us to be on the same page. But sometimes the way you talk about homosexuality just doesn’t resonate with those of us who experience it.

 

[WilT]

The American Psychiatric Association’s Board of Trustees removed homosexuality from its official diagnostic manual. Therefore it is not a mental condition…developed or caused.

That leaves two options. Homosexuality is either innate or chosen. If it is innate it is natural and there is nothing we can or should do about it other than accept it.

The problem here is that homosexuality cannot be proven to be innate. One cannot take a blood test or DNA test to prove that he or she is, in fact, homosexual.

Since the APA says that homosexuality is not a mental condition and we cannot prove that homosexuals are “born that way” that means homosexuality is acquired or chosen…

Sorry Zoltan C. that doesn’t wash with me. You can try to intellectualize it as much as you want and it still won’t wash!

 

[mommy_k]

My quote button is missing today-and this is in reply to the op.

I sincerely think that God frowns upon sexual impurity. All sexual impurity. By logic, if you excuse one type of sexual impurity, you must excuse all types of sexual impurity. This is impossible to do without going against God.

I prefer not to have my mind cluttered with this. When I meet a couple, I do not imagine what they do on their private lives in this regard. If I did, it would be harmful, and I prefer to keep my mind out of things like this. What makes it difficult with gay couples is that it automatically suggests something that I don’t need to imagine or think about-without even a word spoken.

So perhaps OP, you need to think of this in broader terms.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I prefer not to have my mind cluttered with this. When I meet a couple, I do not imagine what they do on their private lives in this regard. If I did, it would be harmful, and I prefer to keep my mind out of things like this. What makes it difficult with gay couples is that it automatically suggests something that I don’t need to imagine or think about-without even a word spoken.

This makes it sound like you want other people to stop sinning so that you won’t have to be bothered with thinking about it. I’m guessing that’s not what you meant, but that’s what I’m getting from it.

 

[pepipop]

It certainly is no more wrong that a couple using artificial contraception.
Besides that, incest will be the next taboo, after polygamy to fall. There are many young men and women who are children of sperm and eggs donors. In a university town were young medical and professional students donate their sperm, young men and women are bound to meet and fall in love with their sister or brother.

Yes, it is now being looked into as ‘an unacceptable intrusion into the right to sexual self-determination’.

telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/11119062/Incest-a-fundamental-right-German-committee-says.html

Laws banning incest between brothers and sisters in Germany could be scrapped after a government ethics committee said the they were an unacceptable intrusion into the right to sexual self-determination.
“Criminal law is not the appropriate means to preserve a social taboo,” the German Ethics Council said in a statement. “The fundamental right of adult siblings to sexual self-determination is to be weighed more heavily than the abstract idea of protection of the family.”

 

[mommy_k]

This makes it sound like you want other people to stop sinning so that you won’t have to be bothered with thinking about it. I’m guessing that’s not what you meant, but that’s what I’m getting from it.

As Catholics we are instructed to avoid impure thoughts.

Thinking of what other people do in their private lives is an impure thought in my book, straight or gay.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

As Catholics we are instructed to avoid impure thoughts.

Thinking of what other people do in their private lives is an impure thought in my book, straight or gay.

OK, but I don’t think the apostle Paul saw a public sinner, and thought, “That man is causing me to think impure thoughts.” Paul looked with compassion on the sinner, and recognized that shamelessness is a loud and plaintive cry of pain. Paul did not want sinners to repent because then he wouldn’t have to deal with these pesky impure thoughts; he wanted sinners to repent because it would give them great joy and peace.

And I think it would behoove us all to follow in Paul’s footsteps.

 

[spedteacherita]

To the OP, you don’t have to “get over” the gay thing.

Being Gay is not a sin. People do NOT choose to be Gay. We all have friends and family members who are gay and they should have the right to
be married just as any 2 straight people can. The world needs more love, and more peace now than ever. You can’t choose who you fall in love with.

I agree. Being gay is not a sin. BUT…acting on those sexual feelings is the sin. We are all sinful and have specific sins that we fight daily and even minute by minute. Thank God, He sent His son Jesus to redeem us and to help us overcome those sins.

 

[Seraphim73]

I’ve got a trivia question for everyone, especially the OP. Answer without google.

What percentage of the US population is gay?

 

[mommy_k]

OK, but I don’t think the apostle Paul saw a public sinner, and thought, “That man is causing me to think impure thoughts.” Paul looked with compassion on the sinner, and recognized that shamelessness is a loud and plaintive cry of pain. Paul did not want sinners to repent because then he wouldn’t have to deal with these pesky impure thoughts; he wanted sinners to repent because it would give them great joy and peace.

And I think it would behoove us all to follow in Paul’s footsteps.

There are many threads regarding modesty in dress for the above reason. Modesty is a virtue.

We are not be an occasion of sin for others.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

There are many threads regarding modesty in dress for the above reason. Modesty is a virtue.

We are not be an occasion of sin for others.

You remind me of the teachers I used to teach with in high school, who used to say that they didn’t care what the goth and self-destructive students did on their own time, so long of these students didn’t wear clothing that represented their drug/suicide culture to school. It just seems like there is much too much focus on one’s own personal purity, and too little focus on loving other people where they are at.