Irrefutable Proof against being born gay?

[larkin31]

Have we not evolved in our understanding of sexuality since Paul? I tried to make this point earlier (badly) - that the Church has, at times had to review its way of thinking - I could get out the Catholic History book to point out a few challenges that it had to deal with - papal authenticity, political affairs, periods of reform (some to the extreme), corruption etc. - in all it has progressed. Vatican II covered a lot of ground. I believe that the Church’s understanding of sexuality is under review. Copernicus/Galileo underwent a period of condemnation for suggesting that the earth was not the center of the universe.
Those that suggest that homosexuals are born with this nature also get a swift kick.

I understand that the moral implications for having a same sex tendency are separate from the debate and very difficult to bring up without inflaming a certain wrath of scriptural condemnations (not only in the Catholic Church). For those who practice self discipline and remain chaste, that is a great gift in the eyes of faith. For those who are living in a committed and loving relationship and who are sexually intimate - is that not as equal a gift? Even with all that I have read and understand, I remain uncomfortable with the thought that we, as a Church, have decided to condemn a portion of the population for wanting to live and love in the same way we would applaud heterosexuals; that is living in a loving and committed or what they might consider a sacred union as a couple.

Please receive these comments as one person trying to think these things through. For those trying to hit me in the back of the head with a 2x4, because I am slow to understand - be patient. I ask a lot of questions.

(Thank you Larkin for your sincere investigation of this topic).

I hope that we have evolved in our sexual sensibilities since Paul. He was a neurotic. Honestly, I find it unfortunate that his writings (or those in his name) make up half the NT. Some of his writings are beautiful; others are just repressed.

And you’re welcome. Asking questions is good! I sure don’t have all the answers!

 

[Aboveallbereal]

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.

It is up to them to prove it don’t you think?

The belief that homosexual tendency is innate and therefore natural and beyond choice is a necessary dogma in humanist liberal sexual credo. Thus whether or not it is proven to be so ( it isn’t ) the alleged fact that the proclivity is normal and innate will be peddled by the dominant culture for which the assumptions of humanist sexual liberalism are a given and the teaching of the Church an anachronistic curiousity at best and a barbarism at worst. Thus the attempt to close down argument is both predictable and inevitable.

The fact is we don’t know what causes homosexuality.

 

[larkin31]

The belief that homosexual tendency is innate and therefore natural and beyond choice is a necessary dogma in humanist liberal sexual credo. Thus whether or not it is proven to be so ( it isn’t ) the alleged fact that the proclivity is normal and innate will be peddled by the dominant culture for which the assumptions of humanist sexual liberalism are a given and the teaching of the Church an anachronistic curiousity at best and a barbarism at worst. Thus the attempt to close down argument is both predictable and inevitable.

The fact is we don’t know what causes homosexuality.

Nice screed.

No one here has claimed any of the first paragraph, and everyone has agreed with the last line.

 

[jaf46]

yes, there is.

there is nothing that prevents someone who says they are gay from having any kind of intercourse whatsoever. like every human being.

.

You know, I just decided that since I cannot say anything nice in regard to this misinformed opinion; I will only say one thing. We are bound by the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Read it.

 

[Kevin54]

That’s right! Exactly, because if it were beneficial biologically we would evolve toward homosexuality, that would help our species survive. It’s only 10% because it in actually prevents us from carrying on as a species. A smaller percentage I’m sure were born that way. If 90 percent of us were gay, we would die out I believe. They didn’t reproduce with someone of the same sex, I know that. If they got artificially inseminated then I personally don’t think that’s natural either. Not sure personally about the Church teaching on it. If they adopted kids, then I’m thankful those kids have a permanent home rather than being bounced around in foster homes, and think we shouldn’t even be discussing gay adoption or fertility in this thread if that’s what you mean they did to be gay and have multiple children. Otherwise, I don’t know how it could happen unless they used to be straight.

Everyone is limiting God–for a surely if the population was 90% Gay and Lesbian, He would still provide for reproduction of his highest creature and one made in His Image and Likeness. What that method would be is anyone’s guess. Asexual or going through a period of “heat” like various forms of mammals do. But let’s not limit the power of God and his creations.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

The fact is we don’t know what causes homosexuality.

If homosexuality is a disease, can gays phone in to work sick?
“Hello. Can’t work today, I’m feeling gay.”

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

QUOTE=Caroline17;6304397]You say that’s convenient, but that’s part of why Jesus came. I mean baby boys didn’t have to get circumsised after Jesus came either, you might want to group that in with the women on their period argument. I would be happy to sleep in a separate building or room or something, if we’re going to be bringing up such a gross topic. Maybe that helped husband and wives get along. I feel gross, bloated, and am usually too grouchy to be around my man then anyway. I think it’s very possible that I’m uneducated in this area of the OT since we don’t practice these laws anymore, but maybe women were considered unclean at that time because of the fact that a period is a healthy natural thing, but still yes not the cleanest, and was it a “violation of purity?” or was this indeed a more ceremonial or common sense law because it was more difficult to be sanitary about a period in ancient days, just like laws around food were in place for common sense reasons because it was difficult to be as clean as necessary with food storage and preparation. Again these are laws rooted in commen sense for the time right? They don’t apply now for commen sense reasons, not moral reasons, and so we’re not too caught up in thinking formalities will get us into heaven. I admit I could be very wrong, or partially wrong, feel free to correct me.

Taking this to a logical progression and applying it to homosexuality reads very queer! Allow me to indulge myself in witticism: St Paul stood against homosexuals (forgive the pun) and against homosexual activity because homosexuals were unclean, they didn’t wash. Now they wash, homosexual activity is to be considered clean One strange interpretation of *Dei Verbum *- “Homosexuality is O.K. as long as you wash thoroughly” Share a shower and save water Nice to think V2 was so environmentally conscious:thumbsup:

I also think sexuality can be tricky because it’s so easy to once you try one thing, and sexual temptation is so strong, it’s like well, I’ve already done that so I could try this. I think it’s better to just try to be virtuous and strong. If not it’s so easy to slip deeper and deeper with this type of sin.

I’ve already tried hetero- maybe I should change:shrug:

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

If Gentiles should convert to Judaism to become Christians was a big topic in the early church. Christianity was originally a sect of Judaism. Jesus followed the law as well.

Hang on,
Not all Gentiles are homosexual,
Not all Jews are homosexual, neophyte heterosexual who are trying new ways of behaviour and
Not all Christians are heterosexual who have converted from homosexual ways.

What does this imply about Jesus?

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

I don’t know how it could happen unless they used to be straight.

Sexuality is not equivalent to (the act of) sex As Tina Turner said, “What’s love got to do with it?”

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

For those who practice self discipline and remain chaste, that is a great gift in the eyes of faith. For those who are living in a committed and loving relationship and who are sexually intimate - is that not as equal a gift? Even with all that I have read and understand, I remain uncomfortable with the thought that we, as a Church, have decided to condemn a portion of the population for wanting to live and love in the same way we would applaud heterosexuals; that is living in a loving and committed or what they might consider a sacred union as a couple.

Please receive these comments as one person trying to think these things through. For those trying to hit me in the back of the head with a 2x4, because I am slow to understand - be patient. I ask a lot of questions.

(Thank you Larkin for your sincere investigation of this topic).

The Catholic Church does not teach relativistic theology. Nor relativistic morality nor ethics. Modernism tried it, and proved it to be not very popular with the Authorities.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

You know, I just decided that since I cannot say anything nice in regard to this misinformed opinion; I will only say one thing. We are bound by the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Read it.

Catholics are bound by contractual ageement to abide by the Catholic Catechism.
I ask you, does the Catholic Church in all seriousness attempt to understand homosexuality. Or has she already decided?

 

[larkin31]

Catholics are bound by contractual ageement to abide by the Catholic Catechism.
I ask you, does the Catholic Church in all seriousness attempt to understand homosexuality. Or has she already decided?

Do they refer to research? Do they ask gays?

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Do they refer to research? Do they ask gays?

A lot of people don’t think, preferring to re-arrangement prejudice. If they were to wake up in the morning and find that everyone was the same race, creed and colour, by noon they would find some other causes for prejudice.

The Catholic Church, who believe a man dressed as woman can turn bread into flesh, to be eaten, “Flesh-eaters,” asks, “What is in it it for me if we accept an alternative position?” Looking at the facts and figures quite a lot really

 

[peary]

I’m not an expert on this, but I don’t think there is.

I do know that there was a suspicion that came along with the Human Genome Project that XQ-28 found on the X-Chromosome could be indicative of homosexuality in males, but no such correlation in females. However, in recent studies its been proven much more likely for a male to be a homosexual if he has had older brothers. Something about another Y-Chromosome having inhabited the same womb. I’ll have to re-check my genetics book and get back to you on this.

Your comments are interesting. What I want to add is that there seems to be tendency of a homosexual male to have older brothers, and if those older brothers had also experimented with the younger brother in some sexual way, or permitted it. This theory came about through many counseling sessions with homosexual males.

 

[larkin31]

Your comments are interesting. What I want to add is that there seems to be tendency of a homosexual male to have older brothers, and if those older brothers had also experimented with the younger brother in some sexual way, or permitted it. This theory came about through many counseling sessions with homosexual males.

I have never heard this suggestion before. Can you please refer us to this research or suggestion?

Are are you stating that this is your conclusion, and not one that you have read?

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Your comments are interesting. What I want to add is that there seems to be tendency of a homosexual male to have older brothers, and if those older brothers had also experimented with the younger brother in some sexual way, or permitted it. This theory came about through many counseling sessions with homosexual males.

The comments are interesting, and very open to abuse:

• False Memory Syndrome being one that comes very quickly to mind!
• Homosexuality is again diagnosed as a behavioural disorder.
• Following your reason for the possible cause of homosexuality, heterosexuality may be caused by an elder’s sexual interference with a younger sibling of the opposite sex FMS again.
• The only people I predict would be benefitting would be mental health practitioners, the pharmacy industry and lawyers. Christ is again sold for 30 pieces of silver.

The Catholic Church is quite capable of accepting and tolerating homosexuality without sanctioning the homosexual act, which at the present until such time as homosexuality is understood must be given an open finding.

 

[JohnMPhilomena]

=KEVIN WILCOX
The comments are interesting, and very open to abuse:

False Memory Syndrome being one that comes very quickly to mind!

Homosexuality is again diagnosed as a behavioural disorder.

Following your reason for the possible cause of homosexuality, heterosexuality may be caused by an elder’s sexual interference with a younger sibling of the opposite sex FMS again.

The only people I predict would be benefitting would be mental health practitioners, the pharmacy industry and lawyers. Christ is again sold for 30 pieces of silver.

The Catholic Church is quite capable of accepting and tolerating homosexuality without sanctioning the homosexual act, which at the present until such time as homosexuality is understood must be given an open finding.

Yes, the Catholic Church is quite capable of accepting and tolerating homosexuality without sanctioning the homosexual act, but what about the poor SSA people who believe that they are that born that way? Many are turning away from the church and being lost.

The light of truth is not selling Christ for 30 pieces of silver, regardless of who receives money as a result.

Studies have shown that family interactions (and many of them are not sexual) can be linked to homosexuality. An older brother who was cruel, a father who was passive and distant, lack of athletic skills can be all be factors. There is no single cause. I can tell you that this happens in very “normal” families without any incest or abuse.

But the homosexual rights groups (inspired by satan) have done a great job saying that they were born this way and therefore should live this way.

I personally know people who were able to explore the causes of their own SSA and once they addressed these, the SSA largely disappeared and they are able to live normal heterosexual lives. I’m not saying it’s easy, but let the truth give hope to these lost souls.

A good web site I found:
www.ssahope.com

John Marie Philomena

 

[larkin31]

Yes, the Catholic Church is quite capable of accepting and tolerating homosexuality without sanctioning the homosexual act, but what about the poor SSA people who believe that they are that born that way? Many are turning away from the church and being lost.

The light of truth is not selling Christ for 30 pieces of silver, regardless of who receives money as a result.

Studies have shown that family interactions (and many of them are not sexual) can be linked to homosexuality. An older brother who was cruel, a father who was passive and distant, lack of athletic skills can be all be factors.

When/where have these “links” been made? With these types of things happening in many many households without producing gay children, I would like to know who has been making these possible “links”.

 

[larkin31]

But the homosexual rights groups (inspired by satan)…

Really? You know where Satan is at work and where he/it isn’t? Is the struggle against beatings and harassment and cultural bigotry and religious intolerance and teen suicide (sexual identity and social rejection) the work of Satan? Do you really think that? Do you even really understand what the central concerns of gays really are in terms of wanting to live free of cultural abuse and disdain?

 

[JohnMPhilomena]

Really? You know where Satan is at work and where he/it isn’t? Is the struggle against beatings and harassment and cultural bigotry and religious intolerance and teen suicide (sexual identity and social rejection) the work of Satan? Do you really think that? Do you even really understand what the central concerns of gays really are in terms of wanting to live free of cultural abuse and disdain?

Yes - I think it is evil to pull people away from the church and into sin. I didn’t mention any of those other things.

I don’t believe that intolerance, beatings, harassment, or bigotry belong in the church at all.

Peace,
John Marie Philomena