Irrefutable Proof against being born gay?

[larkin31]

Who cares about how anyone “describes the onset of their awareness?” I have no problem including my own heterosexual orientation in the same spectrum of birth + environment in which I place homosexual orientation. Perfectly logical.

Just be careful of accepting at face value these “onset” anecdotes. A whole bunch of them pretend they can “remember” orientations dating back to time periods before long-term memory could even have been operative. A lot of them also confuse gender-role experimentation and attraction-experimentation with time periods that occur in normal juvenile development (such as ages 3-10) for both orientations. (They call that “knowing” or “being sure” simply because that experimentation included role-playing with same-sex attraction, including what was very temporary.) And still others describe adolescence or pre-adolescence as their “onset of awarness.” Part of the fluidity of sexuality pertains to the fact that it occurs over a wide period of time, from pre-birth, to post-birth influences.

(Nice-try, though.)

I agree with the spectrum of responses to onset questions that you outline here. And I accept all of the answers for what they are worth: the best way to get at the subject’s own answers. I accept the answers of those who say “adolescence” as much as I accept the answers of those who say “second grade”. (I still remember my grade school crushes very well–mostly 5th and 6th grade for me).

By the way, I had a very emotionally distant/absent father and never once felt a crush or romantic or physical attraction to a male.

You seem to want to dismiss the suggestions for early onset of sexual orientation. I am a teacher (25 years now) and for the last 20 have worked at a school that goes down to kindergarten (I teach in the high school). My wife teaches second grade. The “orientation” of second grade students is sometimes quite clear, but, yes, typically comes clearer later.

 

[Palaeologos]

Is there irrefutable proof against the born gay theory?

Why would it matter?

Surely it isn’t “being gay” (i.e. orientation) that’s the problem. The problem is the behavior. And the problem with confusing the two is that there are already too many people who think (through a peculiar logical leap) that possessing the orientation gives them a moral right to engage in the behavior–because, after all, God wants them to be happy, and if their happiness requires an unusual sexual practice then let them be happy though the heavens fall!

I think we need to be more concerned about what we do than what we are. “The homosexual” is an abstraction. “Homosexuality” and “heterosexuality” are descriptions of behavioral tendencies, not ontological categories. We are all capable of either behavior, depending on the situation (I think, btw, that this is a consequence of the Fall); but if we’re Christians, then we live under obedience to God, who has commanded that we restrict our sexuality to a spouse of the opposite sex.

So whether a person finds himself primarily attracted to members of the same sex is pretty much irrelevant in terms of moral theology. The Gospel doesn’t grant us any kind of right to indulge our impulses.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Evolution and Creation do not mix, Elizabeth (nice name). Anyway, you must have enjoyed the poem…

“Progressive evolution” - the hypothesis that life has an innate tendency to move in a unilinear fashion due to internal or external driving force. Change due to continuous creation.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Why would it matter?

Surely it isn’t “being gay” (i.e. orientation) that’s the problem. The problem is the behavior.

 

[larkin31]

Why would it matter?

Surely it isn’t “being gay” (i.e. orientation) that’s the problem. The problem is the behavior…

Which behavior? Can you be specific? Were Boston Marriages immoral? (they did not always include sexual components).

According to the CDC, 40% of hetero couples engage (at least once) in anal sex. Is this the behavior that you mean is immoral?

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Which behavior? Can you be specific? Were Boston Marriages immoral? (they did not always include sexual components).

According to the CDC, 40% of hetero couples engage (at least once) in anal sex. Is this the behavior that you mean is immoral?

Would it be alright to be gay if one didn’t indulge in anal intercourse? Is there a list somewhere, maybe a check list one could go through to make homosexuality acceptable

Anal intercourse is one of those heterosexual aberrations about homosexual sex - not all homosexuals are that fond of it either.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Which behavior? Can you be specific? Were Boston Marriages immoral? (they did not always include sexual components).

According to the CDC, 40% of hetero couples engage (at least once) in anal sex. Is this the behavior that you mean is immoral?

Limiting anal intercourse to the homosexual demographic suggests 40% of couples are “front marriages.”
Anal intercourse is one of those heterosexual aberrations about homosexual sex - not all homosexuals indulge. Oral sex is more infectious, again, not everyone participates.

(And for those wondering,) due to ‘spillage’ anal intercourse as a contraceptive is not always successful.

 

[Palaeologos]

Palaeologos;6378092:

Heterosexual and homosexual identity was not something Scripture went into (a theme I touched on in an earlier posting) Interesting because of its absence?

Not particularly. The concept of homosexuality as an orientation rather than a practice dates back only as far as the 19th century. Personal perspective will, of course, play a part in determining whether you see that as an advance in psychological taxonomy or a wrong turn.

 

[Palaeologos]

Which behavior? Can you be specific? Were Boston Marriages immoral? (they did not always include sexual components).

According to the CDC, 40% of hetero couples engage (at least once) in anal sex. Is this the behavior that you mean is immoral?

The behavior that is immoral is sex outside of Holy Matrimony. Doesn’t matter whether it’s two men, two women, or a man and a woman (or any multiple-person permutation thereof). Doesn’t matter whether it’s anal sex, oral sex, interfemoral sex, or any other genital or quasi-genital contact. You wanna do that stuff, you need to be married.

And Christian marriage is one man plus one woman. If the State wishes to allow unions of other natures, that’s within the State’s purview, and good luck to 'em. But the only way two men can partake of the Sacrament of Marriage is if they each marry a woman.

 

[larkin31]

The behavior that is immoral is sex outside of Holy Matrimony. Doesn’t matter whether it’s two men, two women, or a man and a woman (or any multiple-person permutation thereof). Doesn’t matter whether it’s anal sex, oral sex, interfemoral sex, or any other genital or quasi-genital contact. You wanna do that stuff, you need to be married.

And Christian marriage is one man plus one woman. If the State wishes to allow unions of other natures, that’s within the State’s purview, and good luck to 'em. But the only way two men can partake of the Sacrament of Marriage is if they each marry a woman.

I asked also about “Boston Marriages”: two women who love each other intimately, who lived together, who shared everything but sexual contact.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

KEVIN WILCOX;6378352:

Not particularly. The concept of homosexuality as an orientation

rather than a practice dates back only as far as the 19th century. Personal perspective will, of course, play a part in determining whether you see that as an advance in psychological taxonomy or a wrong turn.

1973 - The American Psychiatric Association removes homosexuality from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder (DSM-2)

“How many sexes are there?”
“How many do you want?”

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

And Christian marriage is one man plus one woman. If the State wishes to allow unions of other natures, that’s within the State’s purview, and good luck to 'em. But the only way two men can partake of the Sacrament of Marriage is if they each marry a woman.

Why would a couple of same-sex want to get married? One can claim more government benefits being single. The government has now become so politically correct ‘moraly acceptable practice’ is penalized. People are getting divorced to claim financial reward.
People are committing crime to get a roof over a head and food on the table in our boarding house penal institutes.

 

[Elizabeth502]

You seem to want to dismiss the suggestions for early onset of sexual orientation. I am a teacher (25 years now) and for the last 20 have worked at a school that goes down to kindergarten (I teach in the high school). My wife teaches second grade. The “orientation” of second grade students is sometimes quite clear, but, yes, typically comes clearer later.

Again, experimentation often continues into early adolescence, so I don’t take terribly seriously an “orientation” of a second-grader. And since I myself am a teacher who is well qualified in two States, has taught (and still teaches) all grades in my position, and who has especially studied child psychosocial development, I have some legitimate perspective on this.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Do you believe God has intervened in every little step in the evolutionary scale, every little change in the mutation and adaptation of the most primitive organism, deciding which ones and how many would evolve to a higher form? Like an enormous jigsaw puzzle where he fitted tiny piece by tiny piece? Some scientists believe that evolution has now stopped so he must have completed it. Or do you accept that he provided the basic blocks of life and allowed things to develop by themselves, in which case evolution is still ongoing?

I find it immaterial to this discussion what God’s particular role in evolution is. It would only be pertinent if it had been proven that sexual orientation is wholly biological and lacking in any environmental component whatsoever. Since human sexuality is far more multi-dimensional than the sexuality of the lower animals, it is not believable either that “God makes people gay” or that God is uninvolved in human evolution and human sexuality entirely.

My view of God as it relates to science is one of trust and awe. And I respect scientific principles far too much to be able to stomach the “junk science” that says that people are “born gay.” Sexuality is part of human behavior, and human behavior is complex.

 

[The_Scotist]

so what about there being a genetic attraction to people of the same sex? Don’t we all suffer from some cross in our lives that can be traced to our genes? a predisposition to anger, or gluttony?

That not all the twins became actively gay also proves that people can choose not live the homosexual lifestyle.

It might be difficult for them, but, homosexual attraction does not justify homosexual acts.
we all have our different crosses and tests in life, perhaps attraction to people of the same sex might be another of those tests.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Do you have have any evidential claim to homosexuals manipulating scientific research to justify their position for ‘(political) convenience’?

I never said they “manipulated scientific research.” They have, however, often overgeneralized about its supposed findings, made over-broad statements, indulged in various manipulations of the language about it, etc. This is well documented in the history of the public debate about it for a good 30+ years. The same nonsense continues in populist rhetoric about it in print, broadcast, and online media, etc., such as Comments sections in popular periodicals (NY Times, LA Times, National Catholic Reporter, and secular discussion forums centered around politics and social behavior).

From your posts I sense a certain hostility toward homosexuality:shrug:

No, I have a certain hostility toward the degradation of true science and the substitution of inflammatory rhetoric (any opposition to gay indoctrination = “hate,” etc.) for data and logic. I also oppose the tactics of divisive name-calling to those opposing the redefinition of social institutions and/or the control of social institutions (education, marriage, what have you) by a single group which is intent on propaganda wars. IOW, activist homosexuals who reinvent language and distort science strictly for political ends. Their tactics are even more intolerant than the intolerance they claim and the intolerance they decry. The point is, that the unscientific premise that they were all “born gay” is part and parcel of this campaign.

 

[larkin31]

Again, experimentation often continues into early adolescence, so I don’t take terribly seriously an “orientation” of a second-grader. And since I myself am a teacher who is well qualified in two States, has taught (and still teaches) all grades in my position, and who has especially studied child psychosocial development, I have some legitimate perspective on this.

Excellent! I certainly never denied you any “legitimacy.”

But are you denying that orientation can and sometimes does accurately manifest itself in grade school?

And you keep barking about changing the rhetoric of gay studies, but I do not see anyone here doing this. Why don’t you work with us here in a less combative mode? I am actually trying to be moderate and allow for some truth to be expressed from these studies in fair and reasonable language. Thus my question to you above. Do you accept the claim that personal narratives about feelings and early behavior have some bearing on later orientation or do you reject that claim? I really can’t tell from your responses if you in any way accept this possibility.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I’m only combative when challenged. I’m not necessarily replying to you personally or to your posts, but to the barrage of irrationality from some other posters. If you find me “combative,” understand that there is always a perfect storm in the timing of this issue. Just check out the threads which have once again emerged simulatenously with multiple titles, on the same subject. This is exactly what happened with Prop 8: Activist Gays and their misguided supporters unloaded artillery from all sides in a Surround-the-Enemy and keep them occupied with (pretensions of) debate.

Someone also just accused me of “hostility,” merely because I dared to state my viewpoint, based on reading and on life experience. Those are fighting words, but you want me to be meek. Sorry. I have a right to defend myself forcefully either when I’m mischaracterized, or when the facts are misrepresented.

Then you fan the flames by using a degrading word (“barking”) attributed to animals. What’s wrong with you that you think no one should react? It’s really an offensive assumption.

So when you start addressing me in a civilized and respectful tone, sir, I’ll answer your questions seriously.

You joined this forum less than 2 months ago. You have no perspective even on CAF to judge whether charged & repetitive rhetoric has already been engaged in for the last 2 years minimum, just on this forum – never mind how such CAF-located rhetoric mirrors and parrots what exists in the secular media. I have a context for my comments, but again, I’m not interested in engaging anyone who shows such little respect in his language, who has not read through previous “gay” threads in the last two years on CAF, who seems unaware of political wars in highly charged States over this issue, and who speaks as if he’s part of a “gang” on this thread. (“us”) Who’s “us”? (No, btw, I do not see other opposers of mine on this thread as wanting a moderate discussion; I see them with the same fuzzy thinking and radical assumptions which I’ve already referenced several times.)

 

[larkin31]

My apologies, Elizabeth. You are right about the word “barking”

Back on the topic

Do you deny the possibility that some personal testimonials might accurately reflect early onset (let’s say elementary school years) of sexual orientation?

 

[Palaeologos]

I asked also about “Boston Marriages”: two women who love each other intimately, who lived together, who shared everything but sexual contact.

How is that marriage, outside of the waggish nickname?