"If straight Christians are so offended by Gay people, why don't they just stop having them?"

[CopticChristian]

I do hope you are posting this as opinion because it is not fact. There does not have to be a “gay gene” for someone to be born with that propensity. It is not a scientific fact. Research has not proven either your opinion or mine.

bobo,

It appears that you have an opinion. There is no homosexual gene. You believe that you can be born with that propensity, ie to be homosexual. It is an opinion that rests on nothing. Homosexuals exist. That is fact. You either believe it is aberrant or not. That is fact.

Your opinion that someone is born homosexual suggests that you are being taught well by homosexuals.

 

[CopticChristian]

Your view is antiquated. But I respect your right to live in your own world. Just keep it to yourself.

Ekk,

Your title says open to possibilities. You oppose someone saying somthing contrary to what you believe. You are posting to advance the homosexual agenda. How do you feel and what do you think about me telling you to keep it to yourself and live in your world. Take your homosexual agenda elsewhere?

 

[CopticChristian]

I think the catholic church will continue to lose credibility if it doesn’t acknowledge that there does exist some sexual variance. Not all aberrant behaviour is caused by sin. Some people don’t identify with their own sex, some people are born with ambiguous genitalia, and some people are “gay”. Pre-christian societies acknowledged this pluralism. It doesn’t matter if there is no definite scientific basis for homosexuality because science can not explain emotional attachments, and strong emotional attachments can develop into sexual feelings. Some people develop that way early in life, some later. People develop that way for numerous reasons and there are numerous alleged causes, and it’s not right to be moralistic about something that is not fully understood. For the life of me, I can’t see how these romantic/sexual feelings are “disordered”.

Bri,

With whom will the Catholic Church lose credibility?

The OHCAC acknowledges that Homosexual behavior is aberrant.

You claim that not all aberrant behavior is caused by sin. I suggest you read Paul…Romans 6, 7, 8…this is the OHCAC position…

14For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin. 15For what I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate. 16But if I do the very thing I do not want to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that the Law is good. 17So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. 18For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. 19For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. 20But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me.

The number of people born with ambiguous genitalia are a special case and represent a small group.

I disagree with your notion of emotion and attachements. If you understood the workings of the mind as described in the Meta-Model of NLP/Neurosemantics you would see this.

No thought occurs without some emotion and no emotion occurs without some thought. Try to think of something and how you feel about it or try to think about a good feeling and what thought comes to mind.

Next recognize that you have the ability to be self-reflexive in your thinking, for instance.

Eating healhty makes me feel good. I like and enjoy knowing that eating healthy makes me feel good and that makes me happy and this goes on and on until you reach a point that you recognize that these are thoughts that are registered by “you”…

Now if you want to believe that as you say

I am a man…I have a strong emotional attachment to a man…that is a thought and an emotion that upon self reflective thinking can be acceptance or unacceptance until the “you” that formulates these thoughts and feelings chooses to say

I am not pleased by this feeling of attachment to a man as a man…because I am not pleased and find it unhealthy I choose to change it…

Thinking, reasoning, self-reflective thinking cause us to think and believe…

 

[CopticChristian]

That variations occur in nature does not mean God ordained such things

I do not see why we must put a moral spin on everything. Such aberrations may be quirks or inexplicable phenomena.

Bri,

Do you object to the moral spin on homosexuality? Do you see homosexuality as neutral?

 

[CopticChristian]

because I don’t think there is much scientific or biblical clarity, so conclusions as to whether it’s good or bad are premature. I don’t say definitively that it is good or bad, only that it occurs.

bri,

Have you not read Romans I and Leveticus. It is pretty clear. You may not have read this.

 

[CopticChristian]

The meaning of this, as I interpret it, is that all gay people have straight parents, who did not teach them to be gay. That came naturally (or unnaturally, as some might say). IOW, being gay is not a choice or a product of the environment or learning. The implication is that straight parents should accept and love their children since the latter did not choose their sexual orientation but were brought into the world as they are by their parents.

There are a few errors and biases in the premise of the remark. First, while some straight people are offended by gay people, nowadays there is much more tolerance toward them. Second, the singling out of straight Christians is offensive since it targets Christians as a group as being particularly homophobic and paints nearly all Christians as bigots. Third, the majority of Christian religions, whether Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant, are not taught to hate gay people for their same-sex attraction but disapprove only of their behavior based on the faith’s religious beliefs. And fourth, a minor point, it is not unheard of for gay people to have children, as well as straight people, of course. BTW, this does not mean their children have a greater likelihood of being gay.

I have nothing against gay people. As they say, some of my best friends…I also believe, based on research as well as gay people I know, that having SSA is not a choice. In addition, I’m in favor of gay rights, including gay marriage, and do not believe most gays have an agenda, as many others on this Forum do believe. But I’m equally opposed to stereotyping ANY group, including Christians, which usually means either Catholics or Evangelicals. Fighting biased attitudes with prejudice is never a good idea.

Meltz,

So you believe that the Homosexual did not learn from parent or environment but rather was born homosexual. Is this your premise?

 

[bri89]

bri,

Have you not read Romans I and Leveticus. It is pretty clear. You may not have read this.

Regarding those scriptural references, I’ve heard them interpreted by theologians defending homosexual love as well scholars upholding the traditional view that it is sinful. Scripture can not speak for itself.

 

[CopticChristian]

Regarding those scriptural references, I’ve heard them interpreted by theologians defending homosexual love as well scholars upholding the traditional view that it is sinful. Scripture can not speak for itself.

Bri,

May I ask what theologians you speak of?

You say you have heard. Do you only use hearing as a source of information? Do you read and investigate?

You accept that there exists something called a theologian that defends “homosexual love”

Scripture cannot speak for itself. Agreed. Who interprets Scritpture in your paradigm?

I ask you to look at a 4th Century theologian that agrees with me.

newadvent.org/fathers/210204.htm

Romans I. 26, 27

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one towards another.

Chrysostom says this…

All these affections then were vile, but chiefly the mad lust after males; for the soul is more the sufferer in sins, and more dishonored, than the body in diseases. But behold how here too, as in the case of the doctrines, he deprives them of excuse, by saying of the women, that they changed the natural use. For no one, he means, can say that it was by being hindered of legitimate intercourse that they came to this pass, or that it was from having no means to fulfil their desire that they were driven into this monstrous insaneness.

 

[GEddie]

Scientifically, the sexual functions of our human bodies are for procreation. Full stop.

The ova are to provide one half of the DNA in a new human being.

The sperm are to provide the other half.

The womb, etc, are to provide a place for this new being to develop.

Objectively, this is as certain as that the lungs are for breathing, or the eyes for sight.

Such factors as “pleasure” and emotional attachment are secondary goals. The error of the sexual revolution was in making these goals primary.

If these functions are used counter to their purpose, that is disordered behavior. Arguments from “ambiguous genitalia” fall flat because such is known and recognized as a disorder of the external body.

ICXC NIKA

 

[CopticChristian]

Scientifically, the sexual functions of our human bodies are for procreation. Full stop.

The ova are to provide one half of the DNA in a new human being.

The sperm are to provide the other half.

The womb, etc, are to provide a place for this new being to develop.

Objectively, this is as certain as that the lungs are for breathing, or the eyes for sight.

**Such factors as “pleasure” and emotional attachment are secondary goals. ** The error of the sexual revolution was in making these goals primary.

If these functions are used counter to their purpose, that is disordered behavior. Arguments from “ambiguous genitalia” fall flat because such is known and recognized as a disorder of the external body.

ICXC NIKA

G,

I do not agree that pleasure and emotional attachment are goals as you say. Pleasure is associated with something that is done and is not separated from the act that has the consequence potentially of a child and the emotional attachment is a byproduct that serves a purpose. I do not see them as goals.

 

[GEddie]

G,

I do not agree that pleasure and emotional attachment are goals as you say. Pleasure is associated with something that is done and is not separated from the act that has the consequence potentially of a child and the emotional attachment is a byproduct that serves a purpose. I do not see them as goals.

CC:

You are right that these are not goals per se. But in the modern context, they have become so.

The norm in our age is that people get into sexual relationships with persons whom they would never even consider having children with. Why do such relationships form? Because each person emotionally “needs someone”. Why does the sexual behavior commence? Because it leads to pleasure.

In that sense, in contraceptive times pleasure and emotional attachment are goals.

ICXC NIKA

 

[CopticChristian]

CC:

You are right that these are not goals per se. But in the modern context, they have become so.

The norm in our age is that people get into sexual relationships with persons whom they would never even consider having children with. Why do such relationships form? Because each person emotionally “needs someone”. Why does the sexual behavior commence? Because it leads to pleasure.

In that sense, in contraceptive times pleasure and emotional attachment are goals.

ICXC NIKA

Ged,

We may want to take a look at the OHCAC as it hints to an understanding of this…

Gaudium et spes…The Church in the Modern World…the context does not define the Church

Marriage…Marriage in the modern world…the context does not define either marriage, sex, emotion, or anything else unless you allow it to.