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

[oldbrit2009]

Kinsey first estimated it at about 10% Conservative organizations like to put the number at 1-3%. The 2000 US Census reported 1% of households claiming to be gay couples. Most experts put the number close to 10%. On average, in carefully worded surveys, the average American thinks that 20% of people are gay in the US, which is a very interesting result.

All of this has been collated by Gallup: gallup.com/poll/6961/what-percentage-population-gay.aspx

All that we really know is that it is probably a lot higher than 1% and a lot lower than 20%. With the support of people like the President, and the increasing acceptance of gay marriage, we are likely to get a better handle on the actual numbers. In 1992 38% of Americans believed that homosexuality should be considered and acceptable alternative lifestyle. In 2002, that number was 51%. If you extrapolate that trend forward, then the number is likely to be more like two thirds of Americans today accept homosexuality as an acceptable life style.

According to the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, 78% of Americans are Christian, with 23% of them being Catholic. If one compares the number of adults who accept homosexuality as a valid lifestyle to the percentage of Christians, and the percentage of Catholics, it is fair to say that most American Christians and many American Catholics accept homosexuality as a valid alternative lifestyle.

These facts will make it easier to get more accurate estimates of the number of homosexuals in the US>

Ekk1,
Perhaps you are not aware that the Kinsey report has been thoroughly discredited.

 

[J_Peterson]

No. Why do using the terms monogamy and loving transform bad acts into good acts?

You just as easily say promiscuity is loving and consenting and much else.

This is a good point. I guess because monogamy is more chaste than promiscuity. It’s not so much that you are choosing one person to be with, you are rejecting everybody else. This brings it further away from selfishness (the root of all sin in my opinion) and toward something that is shared. We need to move away from the idea that homosexuals act stictly out of lust, they can and do fall in love just like straight people.

Huge difference. One is an actual mother and father.

So only a female and a male can raise a child? What about single fathers or single mothers?

 

[ekk1]

Ekk1,
Perhaps you are not aware that the Kinsey report has been thoroughly discredited.

All I said was that he was the first to try to quantify the phenomenon. There have been other studies since. The largely accepted number is around 10%. Religious groups with an agenda try to make a case for 1-3%. Gay groups with an agenda would put it higher.

The most interesting number to me is that the average American thinks that about 20% of the population is homosexual. That is according to a Gallup poll. I wonder where that thinking comes from.

 

[mcrow]

All I said was that he was the first to try to quantify the phenomenon. There have been other studies since. The largely accepted number is around 10%. Religious groups with an agenda try to make a case for 1-3%. Gay groups with an agenda would put it higher.

The most interesting number to me is that the average American thinks that about 20% of the population is homosexual. That is according to a Gallup poll. I wonder where that thinking comes from.

It’s prettty hard to tell how many “gays” there are because a good number of them identify as “gay” at one point and not at another point. I know more than one person that claimed to be gay so that they could be part of the hippster crowd they hang out with but then when the group broke up they mysteriously were not gay anymore.

There is a number of people who switch how they identify over the course of their lives so it’s pretty hard to put an accurate number out there.

 

[TarkanAttila]

Let’s break it down:

"If straight Christians are so offended by Gay people

First of all, there is no such thing as a “gay” person. “Gay” is a politico-social identity that attempts to normalise same-sex attractions. Not all homosexuals are “gay”.

Second, who said we’re offended? Homosexuality is a disorder, yes, but we aren’t offended by it, any more than we would be by any other mental, psychological, or physical disorder. Mentally healthy Christians might be a bit taken aback by homosexuality, but we’re not offended. We want to help them.

why don’t they just stop having them?"

You cannot have homosexual children (never mind gay children). Although, like any psychological disorder, you as a parent can unconsciously cause same-sex attraction disorder. It happens. It is not done on purpose. It is something of an accident - usually.

But it’s not normal. It is problematic. It does need treatment, as much as unconscious anger, alcoholism, commitment problems, and other psychological disorders ought to be treated. The same goes with gender identity problems.

 

[oldbrit2009]

If you are allowed to make these distinctions with regards to taking a human life, why can’t there be distinctions within sexuality. Can you see the difference between a promiscous homosexual and one that is in a loving, monogomous, long term relationship? How about married homosexual couples that adopt children? How is that any different than an infertile heterosexual couple that adopts?

J Peterson, you raise some interesting points in that post.

and one that is in a loving, monogomous, long term relationship?"

Research is showing that gay relationships are among the most unstable of all relationships.

“How about married homosexual couples that adopt children? How is that any different than an infertile heterosexual couple that adopts”

The difference between a same sex couple and an infertile hetrosexual couple is that the gay couple offer, in day to day living, a partnership in parenting that lacks the complementarity of male and female. They also offer to the child a very particular model of adult sexuality which will be deeply formative and again research is beginning to show that a highter proportion of children brought up by gay parents go on to be gay themselves, which is hardly suprising if you really think about it.
You obviously think there are parallels between a gay couple and an infertile couple where adoption is concerned. You are missing an important principle.

It is a matter of principle that distinctions are made between opposite sex and same sex couples. Whether heterosexual couples are infertile is irrelevant. Childless or infertile couples always have the potential to procreate. Homosexual couplings always do not.
As long as they are male and female, reproduction between them is always possible in principle. Reproduction between gay couples is always impossible. Many gay apologists do not seem to understand the distinction.

I agree that a small percentage of people may be born with an attraction to their own sex, but for a male or female to have a mating instinct for someone of their own sex must surely be a defect in that person and could not possible be the way God intended it.
Many people are born with defects, spin bifida, cleft pallet and Down’s syndrome for example, but no one argues that those defects should just be accepted because they were born with them. That is how I see homosexuality and people have to face up to and deal with it in the same way any defect in human beings is dealt with.

 

[livingwordunity]

Your thoughts?

“Gay” is a political term, and I’ve never seen a baby born with a protest sign in their hand.

 

[Gaber]

“Gay” is a political term, and I’ve never seen a baby born with a protest sign in their hand.

Makes sense, I suppose you weren’t born waving a “human” placard. Maybe you realized later that that was a name you could call yourself for getting along in the world. And you are right. Women and slaves weren’t born carrying protest signs either. But darn, we ought make those gays declare on enterance who they are, eh?

Would y’all please explain how a “political term” has anything to do with someone’s nding to identify with a group? Hey. Democrat and Republican are “poitical terms” to get agendas across, so is “Catholic” or Christian." So are dempoctacy, sopcialism, and totalitarianism and my religious label in the heading. What’s the point here with this “political term” stuff?

 

[edwest2]

Im not offended by “gay people”

However I’m offended by people who label others only by their sexual activities(which in the case of homosexual acts are disordered activities).

The People with homosexual tendencies are themselves more than the sum of their acts and have an inherent human dignity just from being(not from acting). As such I respect them on that basis while disapproving of certain acts they may or may not commit.

I respect gay people, but like a gay man recently said on TV: “I’m gay because I like penises.” I don’t know why he felt the need to say that publicly. It is normal for sexual activity to remain private.

Peace,
Ed

 

[TarkanAttila]

Makes sense, I suppose you weren’t born waving a “human” placard. Maybe you realized later that that was a name you could call yourself for getting along in the world. And you are right. Women and slaves weren’t born carrying protest signs either. But darn, we ought make those gays declare on enterance who they are, eh?

Would y’all please explain how a “political term” has anything to do with someone’s nding to identify with a group? Hey. Democrat and Republican are “poitical terms” to get agendas across, so is “Catholic” or Christian." So are dempoctacy, sopcialism, and totalitarianism and my religious label in the heading. What’s the point here with this “political term” stuff?

As Dr. Joseph Nicolosi put it during his broadcast not long ago on CAL, “gay” and “homosexual” are two terms which are often confused for being the same thing. The two are very different things. It is perfectly possible to be a homosexual and not to be gay.

A “homosexual” is someone who has an attraction, generally, to people of the same sex.

A “gay” is someone who believes this attraction is normal and ought to be normalised, to put it mildly.

 

[oldbrit2009]

All I said was that he was the first to try to quantify the phenomenon. There have been other studies since. The largely accepted number is around 10%. Religious groups with an agenda try to make a case for 1-3%. Gay groups with an agenda would put it higher.

The most interesting number to me is that the average American thinks that about 20% of the population is homosexual. That is according to a Gallup poll. I wonder where that thinking comes from.

I think that figure of 20% is way over the top; in the UK 3-5% is thought to be nearer the mark.
If people in the US think it’s 20%, it could just show how good propaganda can be. Goebbels would have been proud of the gay lobby.

 

[thistle]

Parents have children and some of them, about 3.5%, are gay. How is that political?

Nobody is born gay. There is no gay gene. People become gay through upbringing, environment and choice.

 

[fix]

And you, are confusing the “gravity of sin” (CCC1858) with one sin being “worse than another”.

You make a distinction without a difference. Within the species of sexual sins some are worse than others. Homosexual acts are worse than heterosexual fornication as one example. That is from Aquinas. If you do not like it take it up with him.

In the scenario I painted, the abortion and capital punishment are the the same sin (murder).

No, the Church does not teach CP is murder. The state has the authority from God to impose death on guilty people. Whether that should be done at this time is a prudential matter. In no way are the two acts equivalent.

The CCC, in talking the gravity of sin, specifically cites the grave difference between different sins (using theft as opposed to murder as an example). And, in my second scenario, the unchasteness of homosexual sex and hetrosexual adultery is the same sin.

You have only your opinion. I am using the universal doctor of the Church.

I subscribe to the teachings of the Church, but I also strive to keep them in the proper context.

Pax

Good, then show us some proof of your assertions.

 

[fix]

This is a good point. I guess because monogamy is more chaste than promiscuity. It’s not so much that you are choosing one person to be with, you are rejecting everybody else. This brings it further away from selfishness (the root of all sin in my opinion) and toward something that is shared. We need to move away from the idea that homosexuals act stictly out of lust, they can and do fall in love just like straight people.

How are you defining love? Can two brothers have sex with each other and call that love?

I am sorry but throwing on the term monogamous does not change things.

So only a female and a male can raise a child? What about single fathers or single mothers?

Single parents act as a mother or father. They do not have two men playing mother and father. It is disturbing anyone would think it is just to expose children to such things. That is why the Church says such things are a form of moral violence.

 

[fix]

Makes sense, I suppose you weren’t born waving a “human” placard. Maybe you realized later that that was a name you could call yourself for getting along in the world. And you are right. Women and slaves weren’t born carrying protest signs either. But darn, we ought make those gays declare on enterance who they are, eh?

Children are not “gay”. That is imposing your agenda on them.

Would y’all please explain how a “political term” has anything to do with someone’s nding to identify with a group? Hey. Democrat and Republican are “poitical terms” to get agendas across, so is “Catholic” or Christian." So are dempoctacy, sopcialism, and totalitarianism and my religious label in the heading. What’s the point here with this “political term” stuff?

Are you born a democrat? The point is this entire excercise starts from a false premise.

 

[mary_bobo]

Nobody is born gay. There is no gay gene. People become gay through upbringing, environment and choice.

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.

 

[ekk1]

Let’s break it down:

First of all, there is no such thing as a “gay” person. “Gay” is a politico-social identity that attempts to normalise same-sex attractions. Not all homosexuals are “gay”.

Second, who said we’re offended? Homosexuality is a disorder, yes, but we aren’t offended by it, any more than we would be by any other mental, psychological, or physical disorder. Mentally healthy Christians might be a bit taken aback by homosexuality, but we’re not offended. We want to help them.

You cannot have homosexual children (never mind gay children). Although, like any psychological disorder, you as a parent can unconsciously cause same-sex attraction disorder. It happens. It is not done on purpose. It is something of an accident - usually.

But it’s not normal. It is problematic. It does need treatment, as much as unconscious anger, alcoholism, commitment problems, and other psychological disorders ought to be treated. The same goes with gender identity problems.

I believe that you are mistaken Homosexuality has not been classified as a mental disorder for 39 years. Hooker demonstrated in well designed studies that there was no measurable pathology associated with homosexuality 55 years ago.

Such untrue statements cause harm. so, please be more cautious when it comes to spreading falsehood.

 

[ekk1]

Homosexuality cannot be diagnosed in the womb. Homosexuality usually doesn’t present itself until adolescence. That said, even if I did know I was pregnant with a homosexual person, I still would not murder him or her. I would, however, raise him or her to be chaste.

i believe that most experts in the topic would tell us that sexual orientation is established before the age of 5. many say by the age of 2 or 3. it is not known at this time what part nature plays, and what part nurture. it is well established that there is some hereditary correlates. it is possible but considered unlikely that sexual orientation may be determined in the womb at some future time.

 

[fix]

I believe that you are mistaken Homosexuality has not been classified as a mental disorder for 39 years. Hooker demonstrated in well designed studies that there was no measurable pathology associated with homosexuality 55 years ago.

Such untrue statements cause harm. so, please be more cautious when it comes to spreading falsehood.

Among other issues, this all has to do with how health and pathology are defined. The problem is psychology and psychiatry have politcal influences and are not free from bias.

 

[ekk1]

Children are not “gay”. That is imposing your agenda on them.

Are you born a democrat? The point is this entire excercise starts from a false premise.

the premise is not false. it is meant as humor. recognizing someone’s sexual identity is not imposing an agenda on them. refusing to do so as you suggest is imposing an agenda on them. ask any gay person when they realized that they were gay. typical answers range from age 4 to age 10. before puberty or adolescence.

i think the op’s point is that straight parents produce gay offspring. gay parents also raise straight kids. it doesn’t matter how much they attempt to do otherwise. hence the absurdly ironic question is posed.