J
johnnyc176
Guest
No the op is not really right. Having a tendency toward same sex attraction is not a sin.
- Status
P
Pythons
Guest
It’s very possible ( and probable ) that some people are born with same sex attraction…
…When puberty hits the individual discovers it.
This is no different than an individual who at puberty realizes a sexual attraction to horses, dogs or sheep…
…Or someone at puberty that is sexual attracted to “children”.
…Something in these cases “went wrong”.
The point here is that as Catholic Christians we condemn the sin and not the sinner…
…All these people who were born with these leanings are called to “resist them”.
…The same as heterosexuals are to resist pre-martial sex.
Most heterosexuals fail to resist THAT sin…
…Just as many if not MOST homosexuals fail to resist their urges / sin.
My sin isn’t less of a sin in God’s eyes than what a queer man or woman does I’m thinking.
This is the rub - we always justify our sin isn’t as bad as the other persons…
…And this isn’t true.
That said any Church who conducts gay marriage ISN’T A CHURCH…
…It’s simply a shake-N-bake thing that looks like a Church but isn’t.
The fact is that same sex attractions ISN’T the norm - it’s ABNORMAL…
…Also in the theory of natural selection it’s SELF - DEFEATING.
…As same sex attraction couples CAN’T procreate - they must prey off the offspring of heterosexuals.
That said the argument can be made that SOME gay couples make better parents than a man and woman…
…What a mess we are all in.
…When puberty hits the individual discovers it.
This is no different than an individual who at puberty realizes a sexual attraction to horses, dogs or sheep…
…Or someone at puberty that is sexual attracted to “children”.
…Something in these cases “went wrong”.
The point here is that as Catholic Christians we condemn the sin and not the sinner…
…All these people who were born with these leanings are called to “resist them”.
…The same as heterosexuals are to resist pre-martial sex.
Most heterosexuals fail to resist THAT sin…
…Just as many if not MOST homosexuals fail to resist their urges / sin.
My sin isn’t less of a sin in God’s eyes than what a queer man or woman does I’m thinking.
This is the rub - we always justify our sin isn’t as bad as the other persons…
…And this isn’t true.
That said any Church who conducts gay marriage ISN’T A CHURCH…
…It’s simply a shake-N-bake thing that looks like a Church but isn’t.
The fact is that same sex attractions ISN’T the norm - it’s ABNORMAL…
…Also in the theory of natural selection it’s SELF - DEFEATING.
…As same sex attraction couples CAN’T procreate - they must prey off the offspring of heterosexuals.
That said the argument can be made that SOME gay couples make better parents than a man and woman…
…What a mess we are all in.
S
SuS33
Guest
Yes it’s the effect of the Original sin. Being gay is not a sin, especially to those who are born with it or acquired it through time because of certain things in their early lives. And what doctors and professionals should do now is work together to try to help those people and cure them instead of lying to them and tell them to embrace it. Cuz any sexual relations out side of Holy matrimony ( between a man and a woman) is not only wrong but unnatural.
Peace
C
CB_Catholic
Guest
People treat scientific theories as if one can take them or leave them, they really don’t mean anything, and anything can take their place. As if there isn’t a ton of research, testing, etc. behind them. You are right, most people make such statements as you are referring to from the poster without much thought.
A perfect example is the atomic theory. We call this a theory, but in fact it is a part of our everyday life. That there are protons, electrons, neutrons that form atoms, (I am no physicist), have effects in everyday life, and yet has anyone ever seen one? Yet this “theory” has produced the most awesome and terrifying things we have ever seen.
H
hadulzo
Guest
Being gay is not a sin. Gay behavior imitating the marriage act is a sin because it is adultry.
S
SHoJjhmou
Guest
The question from the OP doesn’t make much sense. Simply being homosexual is not a sin.
In fact, it’s a cross from God. An opportunity for grace. A gift, if you will.
But we must not fall from the temptation from the devil.
If you are experiencing bankruptcy from no fault of your own, that’s a cross from God. If you kill yourself because of its hardship, then you fall into sin.
N
Neofight
Guest
You’re point is well taken, but still is not quite right in regards to the science.
The Atomic Theory is not that atoms are made up of protons, electrons, and neutrons.
Atomic Theory is the scientific theory that all mass is made up of atoms.
The theory is sound in that all mass that we have encountered thus far is comprised of atoms…however, it cannot be categorically claimed that ALL mass is made up of atoms because with the immense size of the universe, we are unable to sample ALL mass that likely exists.
K
KendraDZ1902
Guest
Sometimes genetics comes into play with addiction and other illnesses that don’t manifest until later. There isn’t an “addiction gene.” There isn’t an “ADHD gene” yet people who have ADHD typically have other family members with it. There may not be a specific gene for homosexuality, but I wouldn’t cross out genetics just yet, and if we are all born into sin I think it would make sense that we could be born with wanting to sin a particular way. I’ve always had a mouth on me (I told my mom when I was TWO that I wasn’t going to wear a particular dress for Easter if she bought it) so, I could ha e definitely been born that way. Lol
J
JerryZ
Guest
A “theory” is an idea that satisfies observable or measurable cause and effect.
A hypothesis is a preliminary explanation for the effect of a cause; or as the dictionary tells us: “A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.”
It is worth noting that “Theory” IS a Synonym for “Hypothesis”
The “scientific method” process is like this:
A phenomena is observed.
A theory/hypothesis of why/how/when the phenomena occurs/occurred/will occur is proposed.
Measurement/Observations are taken and the theory is thus refined/confirmed/discarded, which in the latter case a new theory will need to be postulated. One that takes in account the new observations.
The problem with the process is that many lay people and even some “scientists” take the position that a theory = law
When we can predict the outcome of a theory with 100% certainty then we can talk of a Law. A law of nature.
Many theories out there have been severely challenged by observations that occurred hundreds of years after the theory was proposed. The scientific method is a self correcting way of conducting scientific enquiry on the material world that surround us.
Unfortunately some people have converted IT into a sort of new religion.
A hypothesis is a preliminary explanation for the effect of a cause; or as the dictionary tells us: “A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.”
It is worth noting that “Theory” IS a Synonym for “Hypothesis”
The “scientific method” process is like this:
A phenomena is observed.
A theory/hypothesis of why/how/when the phenomena occurs/occurred/will occur is proposed.
Measurement/Observations are taken and the theory is thus refined/confirmed/discarded, which in the latter case a new theory will need to be postulated. One that takes in account the new observations.
The problem with the process is that many lay people and even some “scientists” take the position that a theory = law
When we can predict the outcome of a theory with 100% certainty then we can talk of a Law. A law of nature.
Many theories out there have been severely challenged by observations that occurred hundreds of years after the theory was proposed. The scientific method is a self correcting way of conducting scientific enquiry on the material world that surround us.
Unfortunately some people have converted IT into a sort of new religion.
F
Faxero
Guest
I heard that homosexuality is a result of a hormonal imbalance within the brain (receiving too many of the wrong hormones). Some kind of deficiency in the brain’s development, with the result being a male with a female brain.
If this is true, then it would be possible to be born homosexual. This would also prove that homosexuality is deviant from the natural order of things, that it is a disordered state.
If this is true, then it would be possible to be born homosexual. This would also prove that homosexuality is deviant from the natural order of things, that it is a disordered state.
C
CB_Catholic
Guest
Well, none of the male homosexuals I know would agree they have a female brain! What you describe sounds more like a transgendered person, not a homosexual.I heard that homosexuality is a result of a hormonal imbalance within the brain (receiving too many of the wrong hormones). Some kind of deficiency in the brain’s development, with the result being a male with a female brain.
If this is true, then it would be possible to be born homosexual. This would also prove that homosexuality is deviant from the natural order of things, that it is a disordered state.
J
jediliz
Guest
that would imply that the Catholic church would agree there is a “Gay gene” which is ridiculous.
We are born with the stain of original sin - I doubt anyone is “born gay”.
S
St_Redemption
Guest
True, it’s the acting on the attraction which counts. Although lustful thoughts can be sinful, a heterosexual is just as likely to commit sin here as a homosexual.
T
Thomas_White
Guest
Perhaps sexual orientation is not an either/or dichotomy but falls along a continum, from 100% heterosexually inclined to 100% homosexually inclined. That many studies consistently report that there are a significant number of individuals who self-report as bi-sexual would seem to support this hypothesis.
If this is correct, at what point would orientation be determinative of behavior? This again would not properly be an either/or question, particularly so for a given individual. There would be only probabilities, with the suggestion that free will remains a factor.
If this is correct, at what point would orientation be determinative of behavior? This again would not properly be an either/or question, particularly so for a given individual. There would be only probabilities, with the suggestion that free will remains a factor.
T
Thorolfr
Guest
Unfortunately, your theory doesn’t work since “identical twins” are not always identical:
scientificamerican.com/article/identical-twins-genes-are-not-identical/
Scientists are discovering more and more differences between “identical twins”.
livescience.com/24694-identical-twins-not-identical.html
M
Memaw
Guest
Having a tendency towards stealing is not a sin either. Everyone is attracted to some kind of sin sometime in their life. The more we dwell on it the more we desire it. That goes for materialism, power, fame, jealousy, hatred, etc., etc., etc. God Bless, Memaw
T
twopekinguys
Guest
Sorry, but, the psychology community removed “homosexuality” from their list of mental health disorders years ago. (1973 or 4)
They are currently using DSM-5 ( Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
psychology.ucdavis.edu/faculty_sites/rainbow/html/facts_mental_health.html
They are currently using DSM-5 ( Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
psychology.ucdavis.edu/faculty_sites/rainbow/html/facts_mental_health.html
I
InNomineDomini
Guest
Non sequitur?
Being born in the absence of sanctifying grace, and therefore possessing a disordered nature, does not imply that one is hard-wired from the beginning to perform certain sins.
There may be *other *reasons for that last point, but I couldn’t see it being original sin.
D
DelsonJacobs
Guest
The argument of the Apostle Paul in Romans chapters 1-3 appears to have much bearing on this debate.
In chapter 1, Paul brings up how sinful humankind alienated from God can fall into sins like unnatural sexual unions, stating:
God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity…Although they know the just decree of God that all who practice such things deserve death, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.—Romans 1.24-28, 32.
That phrase in the last verse, “that all who practice such things deserve death” is interesting. It applies not only to those engaged in homosexual activity but notice the full context:
They are filled with every form of wickedness, evil, greed, and malice; full of envy, murder, rivalry, treachery, and spite. They are gossips and scandalmongers and they hate God. They are insolent, haughty, boastful, ingenious in their wickedness, and rebellious toward their parents. They are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know the just decree of God that all who practice such things deserve death, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them—Romans 1.29-32.
Notice the list. Have we ever envied another? Been rivals of another? Have we ever participated in the flow of gossip, starting it or listening to it or repeating it? Have we ever boasted about ourselves? Ever been rebellious or disobedient to our parents? Have we ever lacked faith?
If we have, then we are no different than those who engage in homosexual acts, for “the just decree of God [is] that all who practice such things deserve death.”
So tell me? What does it matter if a person is born with a homosexual inclination or not? Are you who are born without one any better off? Have you never read the Scripture that says: “By the standard by which you judge another you condemn yourself, since you, the judge, do the very same things.” And what things are those? Merely the “shameful things” of Romans 1.24-28? No, but all things mentioned from verse 24 to verse 32!
“Do you suppose, then, you who judge those who engage in such things and yet do them yourself, that you will escape the judgment of God? Or do you hold his priceless kindness, forbearance, and patience in low esteem, unaware that the kindness of God would lead you to repentance?” (Romans 2.1-4) If in God’s forbearance, patience, and mercy he has not judged the homosexual by bringing them all to their death, who are you guilty of the sins from the same list to be engaging in debate over this? Do you not believe that the mercy of God in Christ will save the envious, the gossips, the haughty, boastful, and faithless rebellious children that you are? If God will save you, deserving of death, what does it matter if God saves someone else equally deserving of death? Or do you believe that he will not or cannot?
Who cares if a person is born as a homosexual or not? Have you so little faith in the mercy of God in Christ? If God chooses to give to you, someone who has labored much and never turned away from him, and also chooses to save another who has not labored as you and has turned away, is that not a reason for rejoicing and boasting about God?—Read Luke 15.11-32 and compare it with Matthew 20.1-16.
In chapter 1, Paul brings up how sinful humankind alienated from God can fall into sins like unnatural sexual unions, stating:
God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity…Although they know the just decree of God that all who practice such things deserve death, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.—Romans 1.24-28, 32.
That phrase in the last verse, “that all who practice such things deserve death” is interesting. It applies not only to those engaged in homosexual activity but notice the full context:
They are filled with every form of wickedness, evil, greed, and malice; full of envy, murder, rivalry, treachery, and spite. They are gossips and scandalmongers and they hate God. They are insolent, haughty, boastful, ingenious in their wickedness, and rebellious toward their parents. They are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know the just decree of God that all who practice such things deserve death, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them—Romans 1.29-32.
Notice the list. Have we ever envied another? Been rivals of another? Have we ever participated in the flow of gossip, starting it or listening to it or repeating it? Have we ever boasted about ourselves? Ever been rebellious or disobedient to our parents? Have we ever lacked faith?
If we have, then we are no different than those who engage in homosexual acts, for “the just decree of God [is] that all who practice such things deserve death.”
So tell me? What does it matter if a person is born with a homosexual inclination or not? Are you who are born without one any better off? Have you never read the Scripture that says: “By the standard by which you judge another you condemn yourself, since you, the judge, do the very same things.” And what things are those? Merely the “shameful things” of Romans 1.24-28? No, but all things mentioned from verse 24 to verse 32!
“Do you suppose, then, you who judge those who engage in such things and yet do them yourself, that you will escape the judgment of God? Or do you hold his priceless kindness, forbearance, and patience in low esteem, unaware that the kindness of God would lead you to repentance?” (Romans 2.1-4) If in God’s forbearance, patience, and mercy he has not judged the homosexual by bringing them all to their death, who are you guilty of the sins from the same list to be engaging in debate over this? Do you not believe that the mercy of God in Christ will save the envious, the gossips, the haughty, boastful, and faithless rebellious children that you are? If God will save you, deserving of death, what does it matter if God saves someone else equally deserving of death? Or do you believe that he will not or cannot?
Who cares if a person is born as a homosexual or not? Have you so little faith in the mercy of God in Christ? If God chooses to give to you, someone who has labored much and never turned away from him, and also chooses to save another who has not labored as you and has turned away, is that not a reason for rejoicing and boasting about God?—Read Luke 15.11-32 and compare it with Matthew 20.1-16.
T
Thomas1981
Guest
Strangely, I find myself in agreement with the most radical elements of the LGBTQ community (those that define themselves as “queer”) on the level of the ontology of sexuality. Our sexuality (absent regulation) is a complex nexus of power and pleasure that can be spin off into all kinds of directions. The MAJOR difference is the response to these tendencies in human sexuality. The queer theorists want to remove all regulation and “liberate” everyone from strictures that prevent them from engaging in whatever kind of sex they want (with mutual consent as the only governing factor). My response is to say that the true purpose of human sexuality is God-given and God-governed. Without God we will logically fall into an “anything goes” sort of sexuality, with social approval/disapproval as the only weak reed to hang our hats on. If this is the only life we have, then it is a tragedy for anyone to deny themselves whatever pleasures they can extract out of it. If there is an afterlife (which I believe) then we should order or sexual practices towards God’s sublime purpose. This applies to those that find their attractions in the opposite or same sex. Those with exclusive same sex attraction face a more difficult struggle in this life, since marriage is not an available vocation for them, and we live in a society where sex (along with money) are equated with happiness, and the idea of celibacy is met with shock, guffaws, and incredulity.
- Status