Irrefutable Proof against being born gay?

[fix]

I also question the frequent acquisition on CAF of new usernames by those hoping to provoke & prolong debate, interminably, over an issue they cannot win but hope to sabotage.

I think you are on to something. The main reason I answer the unending questions is that some lurker may decide to actually read what She teaches rather than accept the propaganda.

 

[fix]

As with Copernicus (scientific revelation)…the Church might have to take another look at their conclusions they have drawn concerning those who are born homosexual and desire to live out their nature in the loving and nurturing relationships that heterosexuals have - without condemnation.

Just to be fair:

Copernicus had delayed the publication of his book for years because he feared, not the censure of the Church, but the mockery of academics. It was the hide-bound Aristotelians in the schools who offered the fiercest resistance to the new science…

I ask, again, what scientific “discovery” would ever prove that same sex inclination is ordered correctly? It is not within the realm of science to make such assertions.

I suppose I need to read more and appreciate some of the references that have been cited. I have a hard time with putting a period on the sentence. If one is born gay (which for the moment it cannot be proven) and desires to be loved, held and express their loved in a caring and committed relationship - we, as Catholics would condemn this? Tough.

If one is born with an inclination toward anger does that mean the angry person is justified in acting angry? Will science “prove” being born with an inclination to be angry is normal?

 

[fix]

Unfortunately I fail to fully comprehend your remark and therefore what implication I give it is invalidated.

The debate about homosexuality reminds me of the debate about women’s equal rights with men. Throughout history the Church has taught they are: an instrument put on earth to tempt man; a plaything of the devil; being created without a soul; deformed male; 19th century they were still considered to be without a brain, unable to rationalize without the aid of the male, and in society didn’t get the vote until the 1950’s.

The Church remains the bastion of the male, and struggles with the concept of sexuality. A bastion of the male supported by the female.

Sorry, but none of that is true.

 

[o_mlly]

…Pope Benedict XV1 has warmly embraced Oscar Wilde as a true son of the Church. A case of hate the sin, love the sinner?

Oscar came to the truth on his deathbed.

“I tell you that in the same way, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance” Luke 15:7.

 

[fix]

I do not ever state or imply that last part. It is meaningless to me, and as such has nothing to do with morality. Please explain what you mean by it, and do not ascribe that thinking (whatever it means) to me.

What explanation do you seek for what is obvious? Plenty of inclinations exist within people. Not every single one is ordered correctly as in ordered toward the good.

As for our human nature do you think we are simply animals that are bound to act on every single inclination without regard to reason?

“The truth”? As in “only truth”? What does “the truth” mean? You tend to write in imprecise generalities here.

I am not trying to be flip, but that you claim to need more explanation for what is self evident seems a bit strange. Ask any innocent child and they can explain that man and woman are different in several ways. That is not an accident of genetics.

 

[larkin31]

What explanation do you seek for what is obvious? Plenty of inclinations exist within people. Not every single one is ordered correctly as in ordered toward the good.

Which “good” do you mean? Why do you keep mincing your words?

As for our human nature do you think we are simply animals that are bound to act on every single inclination without regard to reason?

Why do you jump to this extreme? Are you an extremist about sexuality?

I am not trying to be flip, but that you claim to need more explanation for what is self evident seems a bit strange. Ask any innocent child and they can explain that man and woman are different in several ways. That is not an accident of genetics.

I want explanation because you don’t provide it, or do so only in incomplete terms. I want to make some replies to you, but you won’t lay the cards of your morality on the table. When you do, I will respond. You, for now, just keep saying things like, “male and female are not accidents” and “even a child knows the truth” and “the truth is obvious”, etc.

 

[fix]

Which “good” do you mean? Why do you keep mincing your words?

Why do you jump to this extreme? Are you an extremist about sexuality?

I want explanation because you don’t provide it, or do so only in incomplete terms. I want to make some replies to you, but you won’t lay the cards of your morality on the table. When you do, I will respond. You, for now, just keep saying things like, “male and female are not accidents” and “even a child knows the truth” and “the truth is obvious”, etc.

I have spoken clearly. Can you tell me why a genetic basis for any particular inclination matters in terms right and wrong?

 

[larkin31]

Fix,

I already addressed your question here:

Biological need/inclination is a mitigating factor in most systems of judgment and justice. It is not irrelevant nor exculpatory.

If we argue that consensual heterosexual sex among adults is moral in part because we are biologically inclined that way, then the same reasoning in part must be allowed for homosexuality. Morality does not come from simply the numbers of those inclined a certain way. It matters not in morality that a minority of humans are gay.

 

[larkin31]

I have spoken clearly. Can you tell me why a genetic basis for any particular inclination matters in terms right and wrong?

I’d like to know what, specifically, you base “right and wrong” on in terms of sexual behavior.

 

[fix]

Fix,

I already addressed your question here:

Yes, and I said that it is incorrect to attribute that argument to Catholic teaching. So, you are starting from a false premise.

 

[fix]

I’d like to know what, specifically, you base “right and wrong” on in terms of sexual behavior.

There is an unchanging, eternal, absolute truth.

Now, how are you understanding right and wrong?

 

[Bastoune]

I’d like to know what, specifically, you base “right and wrong” on in terms of sexual behavior.

Well, if you think a person who is genetically predisposed to a certain behaviour gets off the hook, well what about a pedophile who through no fault of his own is attracted to children?

Now, to abuse a child is one thing just as rape is a forcing of one person on another. But the attraction is another story.

Is pedophilia justifiable due to genetics?

What about someone with a violent temper? Can he lash out and it’s ok, so long as he isn’t hurting anyone?

 

[larkin31]

There is an unchanging, eternal, absolute truth.

But WHAT IS IT in this case???

This is what I mean by your indirection and vagueness. If you just don’t want to answer–or can’t–then just say so. I will stop asking you.

 

[larkin31]

Well, if you think a person who is genetically predisposed to a certain behaviour gets off the hook, well what about a pedophile who through no fault of his own is attracted to children?

I NEVER claimed this and would never. I stated (above) EXACTLY what I mean.

Is pedophilia justifiable due to genetics?

No. Who claims that it is?

 

[larkin31]

Yes, and I said that it is incorrect to attribute that argument to Catholic teaching. So, you are starting from a false premise.

Which part? I made two statements, and separated them with spacing. Can you be more specific, please?

 

[MikiBee]

Well, if you think a person who is genetically predisposed to a certain behaviour gets off the hook, well what about a pedophile who through no fault of his own is attracted to children?

Now, to abuse a child is one thing just as rape is a forcing of one person on another. But the attraction is another story.

Is pedophilia justifiable due to genetics?

What about someone with a violent temper? Can he lash out and it’s ok, so long as he isn’t hurting anyone?

In defense of Larkin, there is a world of difference between two loving individuals of the same sex involved in a consenting, mutual relationship and someone who preys on the innocent in a one-sided quest to fulfill their individual desires.

 

[larkin31]

In defense of Larkin, there is a world of difference between two loving individuals of the same sex involved in a consenting, mutual relationship and someone who preys on the innocent in a one-sided quest to fulfill their individual desires.

Thanks, Miki.

I am used to these responses that push my qualified remarks to extremes that I don’t support nor argue in defense of.

I am still waiting for my questions to be answered, too…

 

[Penser]

Your sexuality is irrelevant. Your supposition is speculative. Or is it rhetorical? Gen 1:2-4

Agreed, my sexuality is not relevant here. My supposition is certainly speculative…not rhetorical…since I am still working on what I am trying to speculate. And I am clueless on the scripture reference.

I guess my point was that there seems to be a period, point final on the Church’s position on the inherent disordered sexual orientations of those who are gay. This conclusion is based on sacred scripture and tradition and probably a lot more than I am familiar with.
I sense from many comments here that it makes no difference if it were proven that persons are born with certain sexual natures. My point about Copernicus/ Galileo, is that were condemned for their discovery that the earth was not the center of the universe. I still believe we have a ways to go before we understand the what it means to be/feel/live as a gay person - science may have something to tell us. I am trying to keep an open mind on this and appreciate the intelligent remarks being made - even if I am not quite in agreement.

 

[fix]

But WHAT IS IT in this case???

As I said God has willed complementarity. Same sex inclination is objectively disordered, as many other inclinations are disordered.

This is what I mean by your indirection and vagueness. If you just don’t want to answer–or can’t–then just say so. I will stop asking you.

It seems vague to you, I assume, because you view moral truth as relative.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

From Fr. Charles Irvin’s homily for the 1st Lent [C] 2010. The readings for next Sunday, Deuteronomy 26:4-10; Romans 10:8-13; Luke 4:1-13, may be illuminating on this topic.

Oscar Wilde was a much-celebrated Anglo-Irish literary figure, very witty… and very worldly. He once wrote: “I can resist everything but temptation.” He lived in total self-indulgence, ridiculed Victorian moral norms and died in Paris of meningitis in the year 1900. His view of life aptly ushered in the 20th century, particularly the cultural rebellions of the 1960’s and 1970’s.

There are many today who live as Oscar Wilde lived. They regard temptations as irrelevant, things representing what they regard as hypocritical middle class moral norms, norms that constrict us and deny us our freedom. We are to live, many claim, with only one self-indulgent moral norm: “‘f it feels good, do it. Anything is all right so long as it doesn’t hurt anybody.’

We could spend hours talking about questions dealing with the nature of evil. What is evil? What is the essence of evil? Why is there evil, anyway? My summary view is that evil is the corruption of what is good. …
catholicweb.com/media_index.cfm?fuseaction=view_partner&id=40

• Oscar Wilde did not live in total self-indulgence, to placate Victorian moral expectation he had, although a facade, a marriage.
• Some believe Oscar Wilde died of meningitis, other that he died as result of sexual disease he acquired during his promiscuous lifestyle
• To a certain extent the norms of society constrict and deny all its members freedom of individual expression
• “If it feels good, do it.” The standards of society vary - from egalitarian to hedonistic.

I am not here to debate the accuracy of Fr Charles Irvn’s comment.

“Evil is the corruption of what is good”? St Augustine said it was its negation.