Irrefutable Proof against being born gay?

[PassingThru]

I don’t speak for anyone but myself, but the reason I am ‘anti’ homosexual lies at the feet of homosexual activists. They are trying to re-form our society to conform to their sexual orientation. They are in our schools, not teaching ‘tolerance’ to our children, but recruiting them to a homosexual life. They demand tolerance for themselves and are the most intolerant people in our society. They are liars, cheats and devious manipulators of public opinion. They are fundamentally dishonest people and if you want to sell them to me, I have to tell you, it’s a lost cause.

Nice, its almost like you provided my own response in your original post. I imply that the more “anit-gay” you are requires that you have to believe more and more that it is a “choice” that gays make to justify your emotions. You say you are “anti-gay” and it is the homosexual agenda that forces your hand. Then you follow it up with a rant that would make Fred Phelps proud.

Its so good, I don’t even know where to start! Nice work.

(Fred Phelps is that pastor at Westboro Church)

 

[PassingThru]

Allow me a response
There’s a slight difference in the two approaches. This is a Catholic/Christian Forum and the great majority of posters are Bible believers and accept the inspiration of God on what is written in the book and which is quoted at length for moral and theological arguments. Yet, in this instance, they went to great lengths to disassociate themselves with the clear, yet callous, commandment of the Biblical God, in the very book they hold as life’s blue-print. Everyone was invoking “love” and “charity” as the inspired solution to the problem. That’s what I objected to. I cannot comment on the origins of sexual preference and personally I embrace the code of “live and let live”. My post was not an attack on homosexuality but a test of the convictions of Bible believers. The reason why no one “jumped in” is, perhaps, because they couldn’t, really. How can one that believes the Bible is inspired by the God they worship and deeply believe Him to be a God of Love, defend what this God actually said in this occasion, or His command in Exo 22:18 “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live”, which the Church took as literally inspired and was quick to comply . One either accepts that He said what He meant and meant what He said or not. And if not, one must discard the idea of “Sacred Scripture”. There are a lot of things in the Bible that are edifying but alongside them there are many that are just plain rubbish, unworthy to be tied to divine revelation. Unfortunately for a Believer the whole thing comes as a package. Catholics are fortunate they have the Catechism and can use it instead of the Bible but other Christian denominations do not have such luxury. So, PassingThru, your sly charge of “bigotry”, in a post that was not even addressed to you, was uncalled for and shows how people jump to conclusions. And you should know that “bigotry” cuts both ways.

We both agree that we don’t know the source of sexual attraction. At least we found something we agree on.

As for the rest, here is my problem. You have contradicted yourself so many times on this issue I can’t keep straight what your point is. You have done all of the following:

-Quoted Leviticus to deliver the point that homosexuals must be killed.
-Distanced yourself from this quote by saying it was Gods opinion, not yours.
-Pointed out that many of the laws/rules of Leviticus died on the cross (or something similar)
-Said we are to follow all of Gods writings as found in the bible. (as Believers, whatever that means as a proper noun)
-Pointed out that your beliefs are not those expressed in said passages.
-Said God “said what He meant and meant what He said”. Meaning take all writings as written.
-You said your belief is “live and let live”. How nice of you. Yet this contradicts writings you just said we can not cherry pick from.

This is just what I can remember without going back. These are contradictory points piling up high. So, what is it? Actually, nevermind. I don’t care what you have to say.

As to comments at the end. Sure thing. I will own up to it, and not be sly in any way. You, sir, sound like a complete bigot to me. Absolutely, and to the core. I think your first post FULLY encompasses your thoughts. Someone asked for a little charity, and you responded with “kill the gays”. PERIOD. You said it. Man up and own it. I will. I am fully bigoted toward weak-minded knee-jerk reactionarys that respond with **** like “God said kill the gays.” I will say rude things, and directly insult them.

Will you please now step forward and take ownership of your position? Somehow I doubt it.

 

[Jermosh]

User fix already explained this in post #139.

First edition, 1992/1994, called a “sure norm for teaching the faith” by John Paul II:

They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial.

Second edition, 1997, editio typica based on Latin text:

This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial.

Thank you, I did not see it.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Thank you, I did not see it.

In his book *Memory and Identity *(2005) Pope John Paul 2 stated that homosexuality is “an ideology of evil…It is necessary to ask oneself if this is not perhaps part of a new ideology of evil, perhaps more insidious and hidden, which attempts to pit human rights against the family and against man.” (Homosexuality is a behavioural choice)

**CCC 2358 **originally stated homosexuals “do not choose their homosexual condition.”

Cardinal Ratzinger removed these 6 words. CCC now states “This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for them a trial.” (Homosexuality is a disease).

 

[Jermosh]

In his book *Memory and Identity *(2005) Pope John Paul 2 stated that homosexuality is “an ideology of evil…It is necessary to ask oneself if this is not perhaps part of a new ideology of evil, perhaps more insidious and hidden, which attempts to pit human rights against the family and against man.” (Homosexuality is a behavioural choice)

**CCC 2358 **originally stated homosexuals “do not choose their homosexual condition.”

Cardinal Ratzinger removed these 6 words. CCC now states “This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for them a trial.” (Homosexuality is a disease).

Do you have a source for this?

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Do you have a source for this?

• The Free Library, 1 November 1997
• Google this: Homosexuality and Catholicism Bibliography, Section 1, Basic data
  Every document of the Catholic Church, every Bible reference to homosexuality.
• 1989 Survey of 101 Catholic priests: 40-60% clergy gay
  

                                    82% of the homosexual priests said they would probably or definately stay in the priesthood

Sorry, it didn’t indicate where or by whom the survey was conducted.

 

[Jermosh]

• The Free Library, 1 November 1997
• Google this: Homosexuality and Catholicism Bibliography, Section 1, Basic data
  Every document of the Catholic Church, every Bible reference to homosexuality.
• 1989 Survey of 101 Catholic priests: 40-60% clergy gay

82% of the homosexual priests said they would probably or definately stay in the priesthood

Sorry, it didn’t indicate where or by whom the survey was conducted.

Thanks!

 

[avflf]

We both agree that we don’t know the source of sexual attraction. At least we found something we agree on.

As for the rest, here is my problem. You have contradicted yourself so many times on this issue I can’t keep straight what your point is. You have done all of the following:

-Quoted Leviticus to deliver the point that homosexuals must be killed.
-Distanced yourself from this quote by saying it was Gods opinion, not yours.
-Pointed out that many of the laws/rules of Leviticus died on the cross (or something similar)
-Said we are to follow all of Gods writings as found in the bible. (as Believers, whatever that means as a proper noun)
-Pointed out that your beliefs are not those expressed in said passages.
-Said God “said what He meant and meant what He said”. Meaning take all writings as written.
-You said your belief is “live and let live”. How nice of you. Yet this contradicts writings you just said we can not cherry pick from.

This is just what I can remember without going back. These are contradictory points piling up high. So, what is it? Actually, nevermind. I don’t care what you have to say.

As to comments at the end. Sure thing. I will own up to it, and not be sly in any way. You, sir, sound like a complete bigot to me. Absolutely, and to the core. I think your first post FULLY encompasses your thoughts. Someone asked for a little charity, and you responded with “kill the gays”. PERIOD. You said it. Man up and own it. I will. I am fully bigoted toward weak-minded knee-jerk reactionarys that respond with **** like “God said kill the gays.” I will say rude things, and directly insult them.

Will you please now step forward and take ownership of your position? Somehow I doubt it.

It seems you read and do not understand what you read, or you deliberately zoom in to a particular phrase and ignore all others. I would only be contradicting myself if I had switched views on how to deal with homosexuals. As I wrote, after reading the comments and opinions of posters that presumably accept the Bible as the Word of God, yet refuse to accept that Leviticus is also part of their Holy Word belief and distance themselves from one of their God’s commands I pointed out that if they really accept the Bible as the Word of the Creator of all, then they should not come along and offer all sort of unfounded ways to deal with the problem. If you really believe Scripture is inspired then stick to what is written, for bad or for worst. Don’t go around picking and choosing which commandments must be followed and which can be discarded. My take on the subject is that I don’t give a hoot one way or the other. I made that plain in my response to you.
As for your attitude toward posters who do not share you compassion and belief, most Forums caution posters not to be rude to, or engage in personal attacks and to keep their views on the message and not on the individual…

 

[avflf]

Jesus came here FOR ALL SINNERS…so to answer the question “If Jesus’ Love throws out GODs morality?” YES you could say it does. Why? because Jesus came for those who choose to do wrong, to save them. They are also GODS children, and like a parent who suffers because of a defiant child, that parent STILL loves that child, NO MATTER WHAT.

We have to embrace those people who choose to do wrong and still love them. You can take a horse to the river but you cant make it drink the water, same thing with anyone else. You can be blue in the face and tell them that homosexuality is wrong, but you cant make them change. All you can do is love them and pray for them and hope they realize that they are doing something wrong. It is not up to us to judge them and say “YOU ARE BEING DAMNED TO HELL!” because the bible said so…no way. Remember the Lords Prayer always. “Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us” You love them you teach them, they dont want to change, you still love them but now you pray for them without being self righteous and condemning.

I am not for gay marriage…but we cant stop them. People are going to do what they are going to do cause thats what GOD allows them to do. FREE WILL…I understand where the gay community is coming from though. I dont want my marriage to be “equal” to their partnerships. however, if they have been with a said partner for years and years…they have the right to be there when their partner needs them at the hospital, they should have the same right my husband has to choose to either pull the plug on me or keep me alive by machine, to choose a life or death procedure. They have invested that much time on that partner just as much as my husband and I have invested our lives with each other. I dont think it should be called a marriage…a marriage to me is between a man and a woman to bring forth children. It should be called something else.

Sorry for the late response but as you did not quote my question I passed your post over. Here’s my take on Gays; I don’t really care if one is gay or straight and I deal with each individual on his/her own merit. My post was meant to see how believers, like yourself, respond to to the homosexual issue. As a believer in the inspired word of God I would’ve expect you to defend God’s prescribed punishment. As such I’m a bit taken aback by your reasoning: “Jesus threw out his Father’s morality laws?” When he said he did not come to destroy the law but to fulfill it? But maybe you say that the “putting to death” command was a bit too harsh, or that God really never said that. When you read your Bible do you erase those passages that you do not agree with? You no doubt accept that Paul, in his Epistles, was conveying the message of Christ to the various churches. What does he say about homosexuality? Let me remind you:
Rom 1:26 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:
Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
Rom 1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
Rom 1:30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
Rom 1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
Rom 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
What “judgment” of God is Paul referring to here, seeing that all he had to go by was the Old Testament?
As for the subject of this thread one who is a Bible believer must come to the conclusion that homosexuality is a choice, thus sin, rather than an inbred genetic aberration and vigorously defend this belief, not so? For, to say otherwise, it would imply that God creates them that way and then condemns them to death.

 

[Jermosh]

Sorry for the late response but as you did not quote my question I passed your post over. Here’s my take on Gays; I don’t really care if one is gay or straight and I deal with each individual on his/her own merit. My post was meant to see how believers, like yourself, respond to to the homosexual issue. As a believer in the inspired word of God I would’ve expect you to defend God’s prescribed punishment. As such I’m a bit taken aback by your reasoning: “Jesus threw out his Father’s morality laws?” When he said he did not come to destroy the law but to fulfill it? But maybe you say that the “putting to death” command was a bit too harsh, or that God really never said that. When you read your Bible do you erase those passages that you do not agree with? You no doubt accept that Paul, in his Epistles, was conveying the message of Christ to the various churches. What does he say about homosexuality? Let me remind you:
*Rom 1:26 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: *
*Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. *
*Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; *
*Rom 1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, *
*Rom 1:30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, *
*Rom 1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: *
Rom 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
What “judgment” of God is Paul referring to here, seeing that all he had to go by was the Old Testament?
As for the subject of this thread one who is a Bible believer must come to the conclusion that homosexuality is a choice, thus sin, rather than an inbred genetic aberration and vigorously defend this belief, not so? For, to say otherwise, it would imply that God creates them that way and then condemns them to death.

I am hoping that you see more then just one sin there. Can you say with solid conscience that you are blemish free of these acts?

 

[larkin31]

How can you disprove it when there is no evidence to support it in the first place?

They looked for a gay gene, it doesn’t exist.

YOU know this? Or are you simply deciding ahead of time from your prejudice?No scientist would say this, since they have only recently been performing the studies. As other more subtle posters have indicated above, the results of these recent studies suggest a genetically linked possibility, but nothing more at this point. But to call it “being born gay” or to deny the existence of a “gay gene” is to ignore the subtle interplay of genetics and environment in fetal development and the complexity of human behavior.

No “heterosexual gene” has been found either, by the way. But it is still wrong to claim “There isn’t one.” There is still much about the functionality of genetic material in our bodies that we do not know. It would be best, in the meantime, to keep our prejudice and ignorance out of it.

 

[larkin31]

If a person was born gay, wouldn’t identical twins both be gay if one was?..

No, not necessarily at all. You and many others here clearly do not know how “genetics” and DNA operate to influence our bodies and our behavior (and these two categories are VERY different).

Again, it is better to reserve judgment based on uniformed scientific understanding. I am not trying to argue that homosexuality is moral, but rather simply to say “get informed about genetics” if part of your opposition (or support) to homosexuality is based on conclusions about what you think is genetic reasoning.

 

[Jermosh]

No, not necessarily at all. You and many others here clearly do not know how “genetics” and DNA operate to influence our bodies and our behavior (and these two categories are VERY different).

Again, it is better to reserve judgment based on uniformed scientific understanding. I am not trying to argue that homosexuality is moral, but rather simply to say “get informed about genetics” if part of your opposition (or support) to homosexuality is based on conclusions about what you think is genetic reasoning.

People tend to think of genetics in its dominant form, like hair or skin color. But yes you are correct, and there are studies on Gay twins, its pretty staggering statistics, points to both a genetic and environmental cause. There are even studies showing that homosexuality can continue the gentic strain.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation

 

[avflf]

I am hoping that you see more then just one sin there. Can you say with solid conscience that you are blemish free of these acts?

The intention of the post is not to lay blame or point fingers at people’s morality. Just a response to remj(name removed by moderator)76 in relation to Scripture. No need to jump in the moral band wagon regarding the sins of the world or personal sins. You tell me “Did God say that Homosexuals should be killed?” No apologetics, just Yes or No.
If “Yes” do you think He was off His rocker? If “No” who put it there?

 

[larkin31]

The intention of the post is not to lay blame or point fingers at people’s morality. Just a response to remj(name removed by moderator)76 in relation to Scripture. No need to jump in the moral band wagon regarding the sins of the world or personal sins. You tell me “Did God say that Homosexuals should be killed?” No apologetics, just Yes or No.
If “Yes” do you think He was off His rocker? If “No” who put it there?

The edict to kill homosexuals is entirely “off one’s rocker,” yes. It smacks of patriarchal and obsessive fear of sexual license, and demonstrates a neurotic level of anger toward the private sexual acts of others.

If there is a God, and this God wants homosexuals put to death more than those who commit the other list of sexual sins in the Bible, than that God has similar issues. If this God simply wants ALL sexual sinners punished with death, then you worship a totally neurotic God.

I tend to think that the sexual sins listed in the OT (Jesus hardly treats the matter) are the result of a male-dominated culture ordered strictly around “purity laws” that pervaded all of society, including where a menstruating woman should sleep.

I think I answered both your questions.

 

[LittleBits]

As a gay male AND member of the Catholic Church (since birth), I can tell all of u, I WAS BORN GAY. That shouldn’t rocket science or a disputed fact. Ig you aren’t gay, my sexuality and how I came to be this way is no one’s buisness. If u all r supposed to be so holy and Christian, then all u need 2 know is 2 respect me. Deal with it, there r gay ppl in the world who r good, and belong 2 the Church, and how have families, careers, and rights, and we will never b extinguished or “healed” because there is nothing to heal us of…
There r MUCH more impt issues we have to focus on besides whether or not I was born gay. Let’s worry about homelessness, murder, child abuse, elder abuse, unemployment, genocide, war,…

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Rom 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

What “judgment” of God is Paul referring to here, seeing that all he had to go by was the Old Testament?

Taken out of context it looks not too promising for the homosexual - you’ve left out, or conveniently overlooked verses 27-32

vrs 28: “And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient”

vrs 32: “Who, having known the justice of God, **did not understand that they who do such **things, are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to do them.”

(Douay-Rheims The Holy Bible)

He doesn’t say “KILL THE HOMOSEXUAL” St Paul says man in his sinful nature is worthy of death.

St Paul writes about the necessity of Grace exceeding works of man.

 

[Roy5]

I haven’t read all the postings and perhaps this point has been raised already.

Sexual contact and expression are deep instincts in the human species. Some are born gay/lesbian because of genes. Most are oriented toward the opposite sex. But there is a sizeable group that can find sexual contact with either sex attractive, especially in certain situations. This is suggested by the way in which macho homosexuals in prison will rape other men, usually young ones. Once they are out of prison they usually revert to sex with women. If sexual contact with the opposite sex is impossible, they may find sexual contact with the same sex preferably to no sex at all. One former prison expressed it to me this way: if you can’t have sugar, honey will have to do.

I suggest that this has been one of the reasons for the **sexual scandal among the clergy.**

To begin with, **becoming a priest is attractive to gays **for at least these three reasons: (1) they don't have to explain why they are not married; (2) many hope that becoming a priest will protect them from sexual temptation; (3) some are attracted by the idea of close association with other males as the priesthood is all male. I would even suggest a fourth factor, The priesthood has a feminine side, such as fancy and even frilly vestments. And there can be a 'prissy' side to the priesthood, too.

 ** But even if a priest is not gay initially, he will have sexual impulses**. He may be able to battle these successfully, or perhaps he will 'relieve himself'' in privacy. Yet, some will find themselves not be able to resist the urge and finagle themselves into a sexual relationship. This may be with another priest, or with a woman, or with an altar boy. Because gays are attracted to the priesthood, altar boys often are the target. These priests are not often pedophiles, as teenage boys seem to be particularly attractive to many gays, whether or not they are priests.

  I have come to these and other conclusions as a result of counseling gays, lesbians and others with sexual issues over the years. 

  So, (1)  **the church ought to allow the marriage of priests**, for those who want to be married, which will cut back on the number of sexual scandals; and (2)  **the church ought to take a more realistic view of gays in the priesthood **and work on the matter with compassion, but also with the goal of eliminating those candidates for the priesthood who would likely be unable to control themselves and likely to become predators..

   Nothing can be done to solve the problem completely. While the Boston Globe, in its investigation, found many fewer Protestant clergy involved in sexual scandal, Protestant clergy have been involved, though much more often in a relatively 'normal' way - e. g., a married minister having an extra-marital affair. Usually, when it is more scandalous it involves a Protestant 'clergyman' in some sect, usually less educated and often 'self-ordained'!

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

I haven’t read all the postings and perhaps this point has been raised already.

… If sexual contact with the opposite sex is impossible, they may find sexual contact with the same sex preferably to no sex at all.

One former prison expressed it to me this way: if you can’t have sugar, honey will have to do.

… The priesthood has a feminine side, such as fancy and even frilly vestments. And there can be a ‘prissy’ side to the priesthood, too.

…Because gays are attracted to the priesthood, altar boys often are the target. These priests are not often pedophiles, as teenage boys seem to be particularly attractive to many gays, whether or not they are priests.

…eliminating those candidates for the priesthood who would likely be unable to control themselves and likely to become predators…

• People engage in sex for many reasons - subjugation/dominance; emotional relief; substitution, etc. Sometimes it has little to do with sex (even in a heterosexual relationship)
• The Church is full of theatre, but this is not an exclusive interest of homosexuals, and this type-casts homosexual interest.
• Pederasty - sexual relations between an adult and a youth and
  Pedophelia - sexual relations between an adult and a child.
  These are not homosexual activities.
• Often bewildered as to how the 4th point you make would be achieved.

 

[Roy5]

KWilcox

Good points, but let me respond in this way.

(1) While the need to dominate etc can often play a role, I have never accepted the attempt to minimize the power of the sexual impulse. It is very strong at various times in most people - a God-given impulse to generate new life - and often causes men (and women, though probably less so) to lose their self-control and finagle, rationalize, and eventually yield to temptation. 

 (2) True. I think that a higher percentage of gays are attracted to the arts, including the theatre. This is not to condemn anybody, just to make mention of a reality. When you combine this with the three other factors it can lead to a special attraction to gays. I have heard statistics suggesting that as many as 50% of priests are homosexual, though most of them - fortunately - are 'non-practicing'. Do you think this figure is near-accurate? 

 (3) Yes, attraction to post-puberty boys is quite different from attraction to a child. This has been the major scandal among Catholic priests - sex with teenage boys - the reason for so much litigation etc. This probably was made more possible because of past Catholic emphasis on altar boys, all-boy schools, etc. These still exist, but less so. The Mass I attended this morning had altar girls, which, of course, can also present a tempatation, but rarely to gays. I believe it is in the current issue of *Our Sunday Visitor* that I read about the sex scandal within the Irish church, which apparently was more severe than in the USA and has caused a major backlash among Catholics there. I know from personal experience that Quebec has had a major backlash against the church. They are even trying to sell churches there that were crowded with devout Catholics a half-century ago. 

  I'm glad that I'm not in a position that has to work out a solution to all this. I suspect that it always has been a problem but was kept under wraps for generations, in part because of the huge influence of the church and its desire to keep it all secret. That condition now has changed.