Institutionalizing Sexually Disordered Relationships as Good?

[chris62]

If only the courts would give people who think the act of homosexuality a mortal sin some protection from vilification.

 

[DJ_Pius_X]

Struggling Catholic Bisexual here.

I would suggest that a loving same-sex relationship is no less damaging than a loving opposite-sex relationship; and that good parenting from people of the same sex is as nurturing as good parenting from people of different sexes.

I realize this is not what the Church teaches, but the reality seems to be that there are good and bad relationships and parenting styles regardless of the sexuality of the people involved.

 

[Corpus_Cristi]

Most of what the OPer is saying is technically right. It’s a far stretch to determine the psychological state and/or motives of not only someone one does not know, but an entire group of people, however. Josh (I think that’s your name), do you have any psycho-analytical training? Do you have extensive experience talking to those who participate in sexually disordered relationships, particularly those of the homosexual variety? You seem rather sure of everything you’re saying. I’d just like to hear you back up your more subjective claims. Please don’t read “subjective” as “untrue”, but as “debatable”.

There’s also an issue that I’ve spoken of at length in another thread. Josh, you gave credit to the original and so-far, most threatening affront to God’s plan for the marriage in one mere sentence out of the multiple paragraphs you spent railing against SSM. You do realize that while SSM has been legal in a whopping 5 states in less than 10 years so far, the problem we have with marriage and sex within and outside of it has existed for decades? So many of the things that we are sure will do society in have not even been widely put into place (SSM, gay adoption, etc.), yet considerable damage has been done already by people who don’t live a homosexual lifestyle. All I want to know is where the balance is, where the compassion, the prayers, heck, the indifference or passing comments that many so easily give to artificial contraception, divorce, sex outside of marriage, etc. are for homosexuals (or whichever term you care to use for whatever reason).

Btw, concerning word usage, I tend to view foibles over exactly what type of language we use to discuss things like this to be very Orwellian and therefor rather unnecessary. We’re all smart enough to use context to decide what someone means when they say “homosexual” or something of the like.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Struggling Catholic Bisexual here.

I would suggest that a loving same-sex relationship is no less damaging than a loving opposite-sex relationship; and that good parenting from people of the same sex is as nurturing as good parenting from people of different sexes.

I realize this is not what the Church teaches, but the reality seems to be that there are good and bad relationships and parenting styles regardless of the sexuality of the people involved.

Okay

Sex of course is out of the question for all unmarried couples. Men and women parent differently because of how the brain is hardwired.

 

[joshrp]

Most of what the OPer is saying is technically right. It’s a far stretch to determine the psychological state and/or motives of not only someone one does not know, but an entire group of people, however. Josh (I think that’s your name), do you have any psycho-analytical training? Do you have extensive experience talking to those who participate in sexually disordered relationships, particularly those of the homosexual variety? You seem rather sure of everything you’re saying. I’d just like to hear you back up your more subjective claims. Please don’t read “subjective” as “untrue”, but as “debatable”.

There’s also an issue that I’ve spoken of at length in another thread. Josh, you gave credit to the original and so-far, most threatening affront to God’s plan for the marriage in one mere sentence out of the multiple paragraphs you spent railing against SSM. You do realize that while SSM has been legal in a whopping 5 states in less than 10 years so far, the problem we have with marriage and sex within and outside of it has existed for decades? So many of the things that we are sure will do society in have not even been widely put into place (SSM, gay adoption, etc.), yet considerable damage has been done already by people who don’t live a homosexual lifestyle. All I want to know is where the balance is, where the compassion, the prayers, heck, the indifference or passing comments that many so easily give to artificial contraception, divorce, sex outside of marriage, etc. are for homosexuals (or whichever term you care to use for whatever reason).

Btw, concerning word usage, I tend to view foibles over exactly what type of language we use to discuss things like this to be very Orwellian and therefor rather unnecessary. We’re all smart enough to use context to decide what someone means when they say “homosexual” or something of the like.

I did not post this because I was sure of everything I was saying. Sometimes I have to say something, however ungracefully, to people who might know better than I do, in order to learn the truth. I am not a psychologist or anything like that.

Sexual disorder is destroying people today. It’s of every kind, not just homosexuality. Society has a view of sexuality that is literally psychotic. I don’t know what to do about it. St. Paul was very blunt about these things. He called homosexuality a result of idolatry and rejection of God or something like that. And how many times did he rail against sexual immorality in general?

What do you all want me to do? Unless I speak up, no one can correct me. I see the psychotic spirit of the world in regard to sexuality making people deranged. It’s just the plain truth. Qualify it however you like, but I have to say something to start with. All I know is people are hurting themselves and each other throught the abuse of sexuality. Humanity is annihilating itself and committing suicide. Should I just assume that “Hey, Jesus said He will be with us until the end of the age,” and relax about it? They give out free condoms in the couseling office at my college. I was in the library the other day, and went to sit down, and I caught something out of the corner of my eye. On the wall were two before and after pictures of a woman who had breast implants put in. She was completely topless. Just totally naked from the waste up. And this was in the library of my college. What the hell am I supposed to think of this? It’s just utter psychosis that society is going through. I don’t know what else to call it. I can’t analyze individuals. I can only say that certain ideas or beliefs are psychotic. I don’t judge the people. Bad ideas can be like diseases, and the ideas that people hold today are psychotic for the most part. I try not to say that a person themselves are psychotic. I am mostly a judge of ideas, and people can change the ideas they accept or act on. There are so many ideas about sex that are completely psychotic, and it is the ideas themselves that are destroying people’s relationships, nothing about the motives or intentions of the people specifically.

 

[babylonsfalling]

Hi,

In my view, the purpose of all government is to promote the general welfare for us and for posterity as it says in the Preamble to the United States Constitution. My whole argument against homosexual “marriage” is that it is innately destructive to the persons involved in it, and to anyone they associate with, such as children they adopt. We should not institutionalize laws that destroy the well being of people. Homosexual behavior destroys the human beings engaged in it. It destroys their souls, it destroys their minds, it destroys their bodies even. Homosexuality destroys personal relationships because it warps ones view of the reciprocal relationship between man and woman, and reduces the persons involved in a relationship to mere objects of sexual pleasure and personal gratification. Homosexual marriage and adoption “rights” are destructive to society. It is not that homosexuals are destroying society. We already destroyed the institution of marriage long before homosexuality became and epidemic of epic proportions. Homosexuality is merely the culmination of a barrage of victories in the cause for the institutionalization of psychosexual diseases. We have become psychotic sex freaks pretty much. It didn’t begin with homosexuality, but this is where it ends. We have reached the end of the line. We have become totally psychotic sex maniacs as a society, and we have a choice either to keep our pants on until we really understand what it means for a man to leave his parents and cleave to his wife and the two shall become one flesh, or we can all turn into a heap of liquid flesh culminating in the transmission of the STD called psychosexual insanity.

Society is psychotic, and we are insittutionalizing psychosis, especially in what we defend as sexual behavior. We have a psychotic fear of human life and reproduction. It’s just a total psyhosis that society is engaged in perpetuating.

It is not just sex that we are psychotic in, but that is the culmination of our collective psychosis. God created man male and female in His own image. The first mention of man in the Bible is this. We need to stop railing against immorality, because it is not immorality that is the problem. It is total psychotic insanity. I started reading Frank Sheed’s book “Theology and Sanity” and over the course of the day I thought about this stuff.

Joshua

Because of the disease levels alone, no govt should do anything to encourage or condone, or even take a neutral stance on homosexual behavior. They should actively discourage it instead.

Even from a totally secular perspective, an intellectually honest person would have to acknowledge this.

 

[Dale_M]

Because of the disease levels alone, no govt should do anything to encourage or condone, or even take a neutral stance on homosexual behavior. They should actively discourage it instead.

Even from a totally secular perspective, an intellectually honest person would have to acknowledge this.

I disagree with your reasoning. Yes, is true that among male homosexuals the rate of STDs is significantly higher than in the general population. But this disease rate is not intrinsic to to male homosexuality, but rather to promiscuity. I think a better case could be made for a government campaign to increase fidelity.

Besides, lesbians have a significantly lower rate of STDs than the general population. According to the reasoning you presented, the government should promote and encourage female homosexuality.

 

[babylonsfalling]

I disagree with your reasoning. Yes, is true that among male homosexuals the rate of STDs is significantly higher than in the general population. But this disease rate is not intrinsic to to male homosexuality, but rather to promiscuity. I think a better case could be made for a government campaign to increase fidelity.

Besides, lesbians have a significantly lower rate of STDs than the general population. According to the reasoning you presented, the government should promote and encourage female homosexuality.

Homosexuals are notoriously promiscuous…and they already know that fidelity would reduce the odds of disease…they continue to be promiscuous anyway. Hugely disproportionate rates of disease go hand in hand with homosexual behavior, that’s why the govt should discourage it rather than be passive or promotional.

Gay author Gabriel Rotello notes the perspective of many gays that "Gay liberation was founded . . . on a ‘sexual brotherhood of promiscuity,’ and any abandonment of that promiscuity would amount to a ‘communal betrayal of gargantuan proportions.’"4 Rotello’s perception of gay promiscuity, which he criticizes, is consistent with survey results. A far-ranging study of homosexual men published in 1978 revealed that 75 percent of self-identified, white, gay men admitted to having sex with more than 100 different males in their lifetime: 15 percent claimed 100-249 sex partners; 17 percent claimed 250- 499; 15 percent claimed 500-999; and 28 percent claimed more than 1,000 lifetime male sex partners.5By 1984, after the AIDS epidemic had taken hold, homosexual men were reportedly curtailing promiscuity, but not by much. Instead of more than 6 partners per month in 1982, the average non-monogamous respondent in San Francisco reported having about 4 partners per month in 1984.6

In more recent years, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control has reported an upswing in promiscuity, at least among young homosexual men in San Francisco. From 1994 to 1997, the percentage of homosexual men reporting multiple partners and unprotected anal sex rose from 23.6 percent to 33.3 percent, with the largest increase among men under 25.7 Despite its continuing incurability, AIDS no longer seems to deter individuals from engaging in promiscuous gay sex.8

The data relating to gay promiscuity were obtained from self-identified gay men. Some advocates argue that the average would be lower if closeted homosexuals were included in the statistics.9 That is likely true, according to data obtained in a 2000 survey in Australia that tracked whether men who had sex with men were associated with the gay community. Men who were associated with the gay community were nearly four times as likely to have had more than 50 sex partners in the six months preceding the survey as men who were not associated with the gay community.10 This may imply that it is riskier to be “out” than “closeted.” Adopting a gay identity may create more pressure to be promiscuous and to be so with a cohort of other more promiscuous partners.

Excessive sexual promiscuity results in serious medical consequences — indeed, it is a recipe for transmitting disease and generating an epidemic.11 The HIV/AIDS epidemic has remained a predominantly gay issue in the U.S. primarily because of the greater degree of promiscuity among gays.12 A study based upon statistics from 1986 through 1990 estimated that 20-year-old gay men had a 50 percent chance of becoming HIV positive by age 55.13 As of June 2001, nearly 64 percent of men with AIDS were men who have had sex with men.14 Syphilis is also more common among gay men. The San Francisco Public Health Department recently reported that syphilis among the city’s gay and bisexual men was at epidemic levels. According to the San Francisco Chronicle:

"Experts believe syphilis is on the rise among gay and bisexual men because they are engaging in unprotected sex with multiple partners, many of whom they met in anonymous situations such as sex clubs, adult bookstores, meetings through the Internet and in bathhouses. The new data will show that in the 93 cases involving gay and bisexual men this year, the group reported having 1,225 sexual partners."15
A study done in Baltimore and reported in the Archives of Internal Medicine found that gay men contracted syphilis at three to four times the rate of heterosexuals.16 Promiscuity is the factor most responsible for the extreme rates of these and other Sexually Transmitted Diseases cited below, many of which result in a shortened life span for men who have sex with men.

Regarding lesbians…
Promiscuity among lesbians is less extreme, but it is still higher than among heterosexual women. Overall, women tend to have fewer sex partners than men. But there is a surprising finding about lesbian promiscuity in the literature. Australian investigators reported that lesbian women were 4.5 times more likely to have had more than 50 lifetime male partners than heterosexual women (9 percent of lesbians versus 2 percent of heterosexual women); and 93 percent of women who identified themselves as lesbian reported a history of sex with men.17 Other studies similarly show that 75-90 percent of women who have sex with women have also had sex with men.18

 

[Dale_M]

Homosexuals are notoriously promiscuous…and they already know that fidelity would reduce the odds of disease…they continue to be promiscuous anyway.

Some homosexuals are promiscuous, others are not. Let’s not over-generalize. And as a comparison, people often eat fatty foods and ignore good nutrition, despite knowing the risks to health. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to deter such behavior.

But my main point is that a hgher STD rate is not intrinsic to male homosexual behavior. The problem is not the homosexuality, but the promiscuity. And that is what should be the focus of government action.

Promiscuity among lesbians is less extreme, but it is still higher than among heterosexual women.

Promiscuity should be discouraged. But what you cited doesn’t take away from my point that disease rate is not a justification for government opposition to homosexuality. In general, men are more promiscuous than women, and anyone who has sex with a man has a higher risk of contracting an STD. That doesn’t mean that government should oppose men having sex.

 

[babylonsfalling]

Some homosexuals are promiscuous, others are not. Let’s not over-generalize.<—I wasn’t. And as a comparison, people often eat fatty foods and ignore good nutrition, despite knowing the risks to health.<—Those health risks are minimal compared to the death rate among active homosexuals, and I’m sure you know that’s not a sensible comparison. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to deter such behavior.

But my main point is that a hgher STD rate is not intrinsic to male homosexual behavior.<—My point is that hugely higher STD rates go hand in hand with homosexual behavior. The problem is not the homosexuality, but the promiscuity. <—If you’d read the data I posted, you’d know that homosexuality goes hand in hand with promiscuity, and with both the promiscuity and the fact that homosexual activity is just plain unhealthy from any perspective, comes the hugely disproportionate disease rates.

Promiscuity should be discouraged. <—Any type of homosexual activity should always be discouraged. It’s results in much higher disease rates and much earlier death. *** But what you cited doesn’t take away from my point that disease rate is not a justification for government opposition to homosexuality. <—Of course it is, the disease rates are hand in hand with the activity and they are huge by any comparison to hetero activity. The govt has every business in the world to discourage diseased behavior In general, men are more promiscuous than women, and anyone who has sex with a man has a higher risk of contracting an STD. That doesn’t mean that government should oppose men having sex.<—If they having hetero sex the govt should not oppose it…if they’re having homosexual sex, of course it should be opposed, because of the disease rates alone. Hetero sex is not discouraged for obvious reasons which I don’t think you need explained to you. Promiscuous hetero should be discouraged, but having said that, promiscuous hetero is still much less dangerous than promiscuous homosexual sex.

---

Discouraging promiscuity sounds great but it ignores the fact that homosexuals already know they would be healthier with greater fidelity. The fact is that despite that knowledge, they go on with what they know is incredibly dangerous behavior. They are making an “already informed” decision to go against they own health and longevity, in preference of, (or slavery to) their temptations. On the surface, it appears that they just don’t care about their health or the health of their partners. That’s kind of hard to believe though so one must assume that they have problems controlling their desires. Either way though, they already know fidelity would help and that knowledge is obviously being rejected for one reason or the other.

When honest comparisons are done, homosexual behavior always shows itself to be much more dangerous at hugely disproportionate levels. It goes against the way the human sexuality is supposed to work by it’s design or evolution, whichever term you prefer. It’s goes against the design of the body which naturally leads to ill results. That’s why it should always be discouraged by the govt or any other institution for the matter.

 

[Leegal]

As Catholics, it is correct to judge homosexual acts as objectively wrong, but it is not correct to judge the people themselves and to assume that they commit subjective sins. I think it is particularly unkind to consider them to be psychotic, as suggested.

I agree with what Dakota says: Have you ever considered that they might not realize it is wrong, that they might think they are expressing love?

Homosexuals deserve love, prayers, and if you like pity, from Catholics. They do not deserve derision and judgement. Let God judge them when it’s their turn; let us love them until then, and where possible present the gospel of Christ as best we can, which may include expressing disaproval of their lifestyle if done lovingly.

Let’s always remember what Jesus taught us in Matthew 7: 1-5 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye."

Agree. We have no idea how God will judge any of us – let alone someone who we view as sinning.

I do not believe that homosexuality is a conscious choice. No one wakes up one day and says “I will be homosexual” because most people prefer to be mainstream and accepted. So, certainly they would not have chosen to have whatever it is that creates a lifestyle that has made them outcasts or subject to punishment, as has been the case for centuries.

But something is ocurring and we don’t know what it is. Maybe it’s medical, hormonal, biological, some gene gone wrong just as many medical and psychological conditions are a mystery. Why do some get M.S. or cancer? Why are some people clinically depressed or have other mental conditions? Something happens in the brain or in the body that triggers a condition or event. God knows and HE will be the ultimate Judge. We are responsible for our own behavior; God will take care of the rest.

 

[Nate13]

I do not believe that homosexuality is a conscious choice. No one wakes up one day and says “I will be homosexual” because most people prefer to be mainstream and accepted.

Apparently you haven’t met any teenagers. This is a wildly inaccurate statement. Regardless of whether homosexuality is a choice or not, there is no reason to assume people would not choose to be homosexual.

If your reasoning range true then no one would support communism in the United States because it is not mainstream and accepted. People choose to do things and support things all the time that are unpopular.

People who argue that homosexuality is a good thing contradict themselves. On the one hand they say no one would choose to be homosexual because its unpopular and unrewarding and then on the other hand you argue that a homosexual relationship can be just as rewarding as a heterosexual relationship and just as loving. Which is it?

 

[Leegal]

Apparently you haven’t met any teenagers. This is a wildly inaccurate statement. Regardless of whether homosexuality is a choice or not, there is no reason to assume people would not choose to be homosexual.

If your reasoning range true then no one would support communism in the United States because it is not mainstream and accepted. People choose to do things and support things all the time that are unpopular.

People who argue that homosexuality is a good thing contradict themselves. On the one hand they say no one would choose to be homosexual because its unpopular and unrewarding and then on the other hand you argue that a homosexual relationship can be just as rewarding as a heterosexual relationship and just as loving. Which is it?

Are you referring to my post? I made no such argument as to the homosexual relationship – and there is nothing in my post about “rewarding” or “loving” so I do not understand where you read a contradiction. You cannot infer something that I did not post.

However, I do not believe it is in our power to judge or understand homosexuality.

My response was that I do not believe this to be a “choice” that is made for those who define themselves as homosexual. Most report as “I’ve always known” or report “knowing” at a much younger age than a teenager.

Maybe what you refer to as “teenagers” has more to do with sexual experimentation in our “anything goes” society, not a defined homosexuality. I’m not speaking of that adolescent experimentation, and know that that kind of sexual experimentation to be a dangerous thing that can lead to all kinds of other troubles for the long term.

I’m speaking of a lifestyle that defies our human understanding – a person who is attracted to his/her same sex. I believe that there are other causes for homosexuality. And only God knows the reasons why some people are attracted to their own sex and He will Judge them on that basis. We simply do not have enough information, being fallible ourselves, to judge others. Only God knows how or why some people are attracted to their own sex.

I believe that historically homosexuals have not had an easy time of it with family, job and acceptance in society, so I don’t believe it’s a choice in that sense. People would choose the easier course of action – to be attracted to the opposite sex – and avoid all the prejudices if it were a choice.

It’s interesting to note that in studies of identical twins, that they usually are both heterosexual or both homosexual. This tells me that something biological may be at work here – but I am neither a physician nor am I one to judge. I know that we do not know what the cause of it is – but sexuality or sexual identity is usually “fixed” at a very early age, or at birth. I was not speaking of sexual experimentation but of those who actually define themselves as immutably homosexual – and I leave that to God to decide.

 

[Leegal]

By way of further explanation, the topic here is Institutionalizing these relationships.

I think the OP refers to the recent changes in some states to authorize civil marriage of homosexuals.

I wanted to point out here that though we in the U.S. may live in a democracy (representative democracy), religion is NOT a democracy.

The resulting changes in states’ laws regarding marriage have nothing to do with religion. We are under no obligation to allow such a marriage, as a Catholic. The government imposes NO concurrent obligation on any religion or religious. A priest or Rabbi cannot be forced to perform a marriage that would defy religious law – and I agree. The govenrment cannot interfere in religion.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Apparently you haven’t met any teenagers. This is a wildly inaccurate statement. Regardless of whether homosexuality is a choice or not, there is no reason to assume people would not choose to be homosexual.

If your reasoning range true then no one would support communism in the United States because it is not mainstream and accepted. People choose to do things and support things all the time that are unpopular.

People who argue that homosexuality is a good thing contradict themselves. On the one hand they say no one would choose to be homosexual because its unpopular and unrewarding and then on the other hand you argue that a homosexual relationship can be just as rewarding as a heterosexual relationship and just as loving. Which is it?

Some people who are attracted to people of the same sex don’t want to be so, some really really hate the fact that they fell in love with someone of the same sex.

By way of further explanation, the topic here is Institutionalizing these relationships.

I think the OP refers to the recent changes in some states to authorize civil marriage of homosexuals.

I wanted to point out here that though we in the U.S. may live in a democracy (representative democracy), religion is NOT a democracy.

The resulting changes in states’ laws regarding marriage have nothing to do with religion. We are under no obligation to allow such a marriage, as a Catholic. The government imposes NO concurrent obligation on any religion or religious. A priest or Rabbi cannot be forced to perform a marriage that would defy religious law – and I agree. The govenrment cannot interfere in religion.

If Gay Marriage happens then nearly all the Catholic adoption agencies will fold

 

[ASimon]

People who argue that homosexuality is a good thing contradict themselves. On the one hand they say no one would choose to be homosexual because its unpopular and unrewarding and then on the other hand you argue that a homosexual relationship can be just as rewarding as a heterosexual relationship and just as loving. Which is it?

There’s no contradiction. Nobody would choose to be gay because of the hatred and bigotry that gay people routinely endure. When they’re not the target of discrimination and prejudice, told what rights they’re not allowed to have, or told that “their love” is somehow illegitimate, being gay becomes about as unrewarding as being straight.

 

[Nate13]

There’s no contradiction. Nobody would choose to be gay because of the hatred and bigotry that gay people routinely endure. When they’re not the target of discrimination and prejudice, told what rights they’re not allowed to have, or told that “their love” is somehow illegitimate, being gay becomes about as unrewarding as being straight.

Haha so why do people choose to be communist in the United States? Communist are probably beat up on more than homosexuals. I’m sorry but I find this argument lacking especially when close to half the country supports gay marriage of some sort. Women who choose to get abortions are also looked down upon, and there is upwards of 60% of the country that disagrees strongly with that. I wish your theory was right because then maybe no one would get abortions haha.

I do not believe that homosexuality is a conscious choice. No one wakes up one day and says “I will be homosexual” because most people prefer to be mainstream and accepted.

I was referring to your post at first and then went further with it. Also please note I was very clear that I was not declaring one way or the other on whether it was a choice or not as seen here:

Regardless of whether homosexuality is a choice or not, there is no reason to assume people would not choose to be homosexual.

I don’t believe there is any contention that at least some of those who claim to be homosexual do so by choice, or because of some events within their childhood that led them there. I won’t try to claim this accounts for all cases, because as you said we don’t know for sure. I think its very possible that genetics can make a person more susceptible to end up being attracted to their same sex, but I do not believe there is a “gay” gene.

Anyways I find the argument that no one would choose something that would cause them to be discriminated against empty. If anything it might make it more appealing to some people. The homosexual community is tightly knitted together from facing persecution in the past, and if you don’t see how that kind of community might attract people you need to study people more. Loneliness is way worse than discrimination, because at least you have someone standing next to you while your being discriminated against.

 

[ASimon]

Haha so why do people choose to be communist in the United States? Communist are probably beat up on more than homosexuals.

That’s absurd. How many communists do you know? I don’t think I know any. The CPUSA boasts an estimated membership of a whopping 2,000 people. If the oft-quoted figure of 10% is even remotely in the ballpark, that would put the American homosexual population in the neighborhood of 3 million people.

I’m sorry but I find this argument lacking especially when close to half the country supports gay marriage of some sort.

And almost all of the other half thinks it has a divine warrant to do whatever it can to oppose it, whether it’s committing millions of dollars to legal efforts for that end, or even committing violence.

Women who choose to get abortions are also looked down upon, and there is upwards of 60% of the country that disagrees strongly with that. I wish your theory was right because then maybe no one would get abortions haha.

Comparing apples with elephants, so not worth a real response.

 

[Leegal]

I was referring to your post at first and then went further with it. Also please note I was very clear that I was not declaring one way or the other on whether it was a choice or not as seen here:

Anyways I find the argument that no one would choose something that would cause them to be discriminated against empty. If anything it might make it more appealing to some people. The homosexual community is tightly knitted together from facing persecution in the past, and if you don’t see how that kind of community might attract people you need to study people more. Loneliness is way worse than discrimination, because at least you have someone standing next to you while your being discriminated against.

I do believe that it’s not a choice, but something else at work – maybe genetics, some hormonal thing in vitro – science does not know why some people are attracted only to their own sex… Lonliness does not drive people to homosexuality. It’s clear to me, to the contrary, that gays will say that they have always known or known at a very young age (4 or so) that they felt differently but could not yet define it.

If they have knitted together, and I agree, it was because being homosexual made them suffer the discrimination by society and their own families. It’s been a defense mechanism. And if the person is sexually oriented towards his own sex, there is no choice. Sexual orientation cannot be changed by science or therapy. We cannot be made to be homosexual if we are straight oriented – likewise we cannot force a homosexual to become straight. Sexual orientation is immutable and is formed somewhere long before a child or baby is even aware. I cannot say where or when – but very early. I will though state that some have been made homosexual due to early childhood abuse – something else that they did not choose. There’s both a nature and nuture argument here as to why it occurs.

God knows and He will Judge them on the basis of his all-knowing. The sin would be if I tried, experimented or became homosexual because of some circumstance in my life. We are made in God’s image and we are all God’s children. If I go against what God made me, that is my sin. As for those who believe themselves to be homosexual, and have for a long time, God will be the Judge of what is in their hearts and minds.

 

[Leegal]

Some people who are attracted to people of the same sex don’t want to be so, some really really hate the fact that they fell in love with someone of the same sex.

If Gay Marriage happens then nearly all the Catholic adoption agencies will fold

I wish you had expanded on the adoption issue. Adoption here in this country is a mess which is why so many seek children in other countries while babies and children remain unadopted.

How would the Catholic adoption agencies fold? I’m curious.

I would think that they would screen out homosexual couples, as would be their right to do so. Do Catholic adoption agencies allow single people to adopt? Is sexual orientation a question in the process for singles, if they allow singles to adopt. I’m totally unfamiliar with the adoption process here