Is Homosexuality Genetic?

[eichenb2]

Is a child molestation genetic? If so, should societies suspend any punitive action action against child molestors, since it is genetic? How about alcoholism or rape, etc.? The bottom line is that sinfulness is genetic, but does not take away its sinfulness. Homosexual access is disordered; whether genetic or not.

 

[goofyjim]

Not being ashamed to buy sex from underage boys (or girls), or not be ashamed to sell one’s body for money?

Is that the type of diversity we really want?

To promote prostitution with children?

I really don’t think that’s what the gay pride movement as a whole wants, but if you want to stay with your distorted thinking, feel free.

 

[LeroyCRHP]

I don’t see the problem with NARTH. As matter of fact I like their approach.

narth.com/index.html

Looks like they want to do research and base therapy and options from that research. It is also interesting to see what they have found as significant contributors to SSA.

 

[pathia]

I don’t see the problem with NARTH. As matter of fact I like their approach.

narth.com/index.html

Looks like they want to do research and base therapy and options from that research. It is also interesting to see what they have found as significant contributors to SSA.

Therapists who followed NARTH principles led to several of my childhood friends killing themselves. They led to me trying to kill myself multiple times. I have scars on my body from them, mental and physical.

To put it simply, they destroyed my childhood, my teenage years and a few years of my adulthood. I still struggle every day with the fallout of the treatments on my psyche. I cannot enter church anymore, it triggurs panic attacks, I am on multiple anti-psychotics because I have flashbacks and fits if anything reminds me of what was done to me.

Here are some links that describe what happened to me in my youth.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4698103&postcount=57

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4698198&postcount=62

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4555950&postcount=185

 

[NoMoreGames]

Is a child molestation genetic? If so, should societies suspend any punitive action action against child molestors, since it is genetic? How about alcoholism or rape, etc.? The bottom line is that sinfulness is genetic, but does not take away its sinfulness. Homosexual access is disordered; whether genetic or not.

Those things are TOTALLY different than homosexuality. With rape, child abuse and typically alcoholism, people are hurt and lives are changed forever, usually in a negative way. With a gay relationship (i mean a faithful, monogamous, non-“gay scene” relationship) who is hurt?

I would like to translate this:

Gay pride is all about not being ashamed of who you are and embracing deviancy.

for you maybe, but you’re not part of it so how can you say?

If the Bible is wrong about homosexuality how can I possibly know it is right about the resurrection ,love your neighbor or care for the poor or or anything else that says?

Can you tell me what insights have been granted to you to show Scripture is wrong in this area that have eluded all those who have read it for the last 2400 years? Does it surprise you in any way that the areas you think Scripture is wrong in just happen to interfere with the way you want to live your life

Technically, you can’t, hence the faith part of faith. But who’s to say it has eluded people for 2400 years? Both of us are seeing what we want to see, not just me. Just because that’s the only portion I mentioned doesn’t mean it’s the only part I don’t think made it through time intact. Wives be subordinate to your husbands. That doesn’t effect me at all, yet I think for healthy relationships a couple need to work together. But that like was obviously written for its time, as were many others.

Early books were just as much books of law as they were sacred texts, don’t forget. My youth minister in middle school had a bible that had other possible translations next to easily confused words. I never though to look at that particular passage at that age, but I would like to read through the entire thing.

I think the main message of the Bible is this: God made man, man fell, Jesus saved them and showed them how to love God and love each other. If you live a life of love, true love (and I know that everyone can tell true love when they encounter it) God will love you back.

 

[yngve]

You can question it, but it is the inspired word of God. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God”. Genesis 1.

Well, this says much about how much you read it. It’s John 1
Interesting how some people know the outdated laws in Leviticus and don’t know elementary Bible. This Passage is read at least 3 times a year in the Catholic church and the theology of John in seen as the theology of Love. Of course, anyone could choose the theology of hate.

 

[estesbob]

Those things are TOTALLY different than homosexuality. With rape, child abuse and typically alcoholism, people are hurt and lives are changed forever, usually in a negative way. With a gay relationship (i mean a faithful, monogamous, non-“gay scene” relationship) who is hurt?

Those engageing in the sin

for you maybe, but you’re not part of it so how can you say?

So unless i paticpate in a sin I cant tell if it is a sin or not?

Technically, you can’t, hence the faith part of faith. But who’s to say it has eluded people for 2400 years? Both of us are seeing what we want to see, not just me. Just because that’s the only portion I mentioned doesn’t mean it’s the only part I don’t think made it through time intact. Wives be subordinate to your husbands. That doesn’t effect me at all, yet I think for healthy relationships a couple need to work together. But that like was obviously written for its time, as were many others.

I am not seeing what i want to see-i am seeing he sum total of 2,400 years of teachings, traditions and writings of the greatest minds of the times. You are looking for a way to validate your opinion on homosexual behavior which means you have to reject preety mucheveryone and everything who went before you.

Early books were just as much books of law as they were sacred texts, don’t forget. My youth minister in middle school had a bible that had other possible translations next to easily confused words. I never though to look at that particular passage at that age, but I would like to read through the entire thing.

All translations agree on the sinfullness of homosexual behavior-that is up unitl 40 or so years ago. And of course we dont have to depend only on Scripture e to determine the truth-we have the Church

think the main message of the Bible is this: God made man, man fell, Jesus saved them and showed them how to love God and love each other. If you live a life of love, true love (and I know that everyone can tell true love when they encounter it) God will love you back.

Then there is no need for a Church? No need or religion? Nothing is sinful as long so we say it springs from “love”? How often do people confuse “lust” with “love”?

 

[estesbob]

Well, this says much about how much you read it. It’s John 1
Interesting how some people know the outdated laws in Leviticus and don’t know elementary Bible. This Passage is read at least 3 times a year in the Catholic church and the theology of John in seen as the theology of Love. Of course, anyone could choose the theology of hate.

Or the theology of denial

 

[yngve]

Or the theology of denial

Of couse, maybe you still consider that if a young man is disobediant to their parents, he should be killed, don’t you? Well, why don’t you? It’s the law given by Moses.

The Bible is full of moral issues that changed over time. We don’t consider killing our disobediant children moral nowadays. Moreover, we consider it imoral.

If this issue isn’t realtive (killing a child, and I hope you don’t consider it relative), then we must admit that the jews that killed their childern were imoral, so that law was imoral.

So, if a Bible law might be wrong, absurde and imoral, aren’t there chances that some of church’s laws might be wrong and subject to change?

Why shouldn’t we apply this to homosexuality, both from the Biblical and from the Church’s perspective?

 

[Elizabeth502]

I completely agree wtih post 707 and have been saying so on other threads. The biggest modern moral pathology is the falsehood of behavioral determinism: the notion that My Genes Made Me Do It.

Most people could make that statement about most anything, including everything nonsexual: a native inclination toward anger, toward laziness…more. Who is born without faults and without disordered desires (which includes disordered degrees of good desires? Have you met such a person, in any walk of life? Because I have not.

The only “born-inclination” behaviors we are not responsible for are those stemming from true mental illness, such as compulsions a person is not in control of, etc. Homosexuality is hardly a mental illness

 

[RobbyS]

Of couse, maybe you still consider that if a young man is disobediant to their parents, he should be killed, don’t you? Well, why don’t you? It’s the law given by Moses.

The Bible is full of moral issues that changed over time. We don’t consider killing our disobediant children moral nowadays. Moreover, we consider it imoral.

If this issue isn’t realtive (killing a child, and I hope you don’t consider it relative), then we must admit that the jews that killed their childern were imoral, so that law was imoral.

So, if a Bible law might be wrong, absurde and imoral, aren’t there chances that some of church’s laws might be wrong and subject to change?

Why shouldn’t we apply this to homosexuality, both from the Biblical and from the Church’s perspective?

You are comparing apples and oranges, that is, different societies. The “constitution” of Israel under the Law made the head ofthe household like a political official. His children were his subjects, and if they transgressed the law, they were subject to punishment.Somewhat the same in ancient Rome. In medieval Europe, the head of a noble family had similar authority. In America, the parent has very limited authority: he can hardly spank his kid, much less execute him.
(except in the case of abortion).

 

[estesbob]

Of couse, maybe you still consider that if a young man is disobediant to their parents, he should be killed, don’t you? Well, why don’t you? It’s the law given by Moses.

Only the punishment changed-with the coming of Jesus the emphasis shifted from physical consequecnes to spiritual consequences.

The Bible is full of moral issues that changed over time. We don’t consider killing our disobediant children moral nowadays. Moreover, we consider it imoral.

Again you are confusing consequences with actions. We are still called to honor our Father and Mother. just becuase the temporal consequences of disobeying have changed does not mean the spiritual ones have.

If this issue isn’t realtive (killing a child, and I hope you don’t consider it relative), then we must admit that the jews that killed their childern were imoral, so that law was imoral.

Even if we disagree with the temporal punishment for a sin that does not make it any less of a sin.

So, if a Bible law might be wrong, absurde and imoral, aren’t there chances that some of church’s laws might be wrong and subject to change?

But it is not absurd, immoral and wrong.

Why shouldn’t we apply this to homosexuality, both from the Biblical and from the Church’s perspective?

Since I have shown your premise i worng in the first place there is nothing to apply.

 

[NoMoreGames]

You are comparing apples and oranges, that is, different societies. The “constitution” of Israel under the Law made the head ofthe household like a political official. His children were his subjects, and if they transgressed the law, they were subject to punishment.Somewhat the same in ancient Rome. In medieval Europe, the head of a noble family had similar authority. In America, the parent has very limited authority: he can hardly spank his kid, much less execute him.
(except in the case of abortion).

so if comparing things said in the Bible to things said in the Bible is apples to oranges, then how is homosexuality to child abuse not?

 

[Pellman]

719 posts on the “Is homosexuality genetic” thread. I won’t go there.

But let’s just suppose it is genetic. Or rather, to be more general, let us suppose that it has an identifiable biological cause, not necessarily “genetic”. For the sake of discussion, it could be genetic or due some condition in the womb. Or even some chemical cause in childhood.

But let us suppose this cause is identified. what then? Eventually … and it may take quite a while… but eventually, it will be cured.

Sure, the first generation of adults when the discovery is made will say, “I’m not changing who I am!” But what about when it can be detected in the womb and modified? What (heterosexual) parents won’t fix their children to give them a normal life?

Once this door opens, it will snowball. The affirmative attitude about homosexuality will disappear. Since they will (once again) be viewed as potential heterosexuals gone wrong, instead of just another flavor of humanity, then there will no longer be any “gay pride” – any more than there is crippled-pride or humpback pride. Such people are seen as unfortunate and afflicted, to be loved or pitied, but not affirmed. No matter how well one can live with it, nobody thinks being deformed is a wonderful thing. (Well, except saints who embrace their crosses )

I am neither gloating about this nor bemoaning it. It is just what I expect to happen. No doubt it will engender much cruelty. Even before a cure is found, once the cause is identified and a test for it is developed, given our modern attitudes about abortion, the gay population will suffer a sizable dent through selective abortions. There are many places in the world today where they abort babies for being normal healthy *girls. *You don’t think they will hestitate against homosexuals, do you?

So if you are pro-gay, I would think twice about incorporating the biological-cause as moral argument. I would try to delay the identification of a biological cause as long as possible.

 

[Scottgun]

Good point and illustrates what I bring up on occasion: We get basically two hamfisted justifications for homosex–1). It’s inborn 2). It exists in the animal kingdom. So they are saying in essence that we are either slaves to our genetic programming or we are slaves to our animal instincts. Both of course are a degraded view of humanity but it is very telling that people are willing to accept such a warped view of humanity in order to justify behavior.

 

[PaulinVA]

Therapists who followed NARTH principles led to several of my childhood friends killing themselves. They led to me trying to kill myself multiple times. I have scars on my body from them, mental and physical.

Pathia, lotsa love going out to you.

:console:

 

[pathia]

Pathia, lotsa love going out to you.

:console:

I thank you, I’m in a gloomy mood as of late. I lost two friends to suicide in the past month, both were still stuck in the mode of trying to ‘cure’ themselves. So I’m pretty sure it had something to do with their deaths too.

As far as I am concerned, NARTH peddles insanity at its best, death at its worst.

 

[yngve]

Only the punishment changed-with the coming of Jesus the emphasis shifted from physical consequecnes to spiritual consequences.

Sure, so the children killed in the past don’t count. It must be rather cruel as you say and this isn’t the God of love I know. So in your opinion, God ordered parents to kill their disobedient children and with the comming of Jesus told them that that wasn’t necessary?

Again you are confusing consequences with actions. We are still called to honor our Father and Mother. just becuase the temporal consequences of disobeying have changed does not mean the spiritual ones have.

No, you didn’t understand what I was talking about. I wasn’t discussing whether the children sinned or not. I’ve already assumed that they sinned. What I was talking about was the morailty of that punsihment. It is imoral to disobey your parents as it is imoral to kill them if they are disobediant. I personally think that the second one is more serious.

Even if we disagree with the temporal punishment for a sin that does not make it any less of a sin.

Again, you are confusing the issue of whether the childeren sinned and the morality of the punsihment

But it is not absurd, immoral and wrong.

I am surprized that a member of a church that militates against abortion and against death punishment says that it is not aburd, immoral and wrong to kill your children if they disobey you.

Since I have shown your premise i worng in the first place there is nothing to apply.

A little modesty wouldn’t hurt anyone. I don’t pretend to say absolute truths because I am human. I hope you think in the same manner.

Since I responded to all your claims, my question is for now still valid: Couldn’t this apply to homosexuality as well?

 

[yngve]

You are comparing apples and oranges, that is, different societies. The “constitution” of Israel under the Law made the head ofthe household like a political official. His children were his subjects, and if they transgressed the law, they were subject to punishment.Somewhat the same in ancient Rome. In medieval Europe, the head of a noble family had similar authority. In America, the parent has very limited authority: he can hardly spank his kid, much less execute him.
(except in the case of abortion).

So you are saying that it is relative whether it is imoral to kill your disobediat child and the morality is determined by the historical point you are refering to? I thought you were militating against moral relativism.

 

[estesbob]

Sure, so the children killed in the past don’t count. It must be rather cruel as you say and this isn’t the God of love I know. So in your opinion, God ordered parents to kill their disobedient children and with the comming of Jesus told them that that wasn’t necessary?

Times change-the point AGAIN is that was sin then is still sin now.

No, I you didn’t understand what I was talking about. I wasn’t discussing whether the children sinned or not. I’ve already assumed that they sinned. What I was talking about was the morailty of that punsihment. It is imoral to disobey your parents as it is imoral to kill them if they are disobediant. I personally think that the second one is more serious.

So you agree that what was considered a sin hasnt changed, just the punshment. Well we are getting somewhere.

Again, you are confusing the issue of whether the childeren sinned and the morality of the punsihment

No-I am stateing that your premise that things that were considered sins in the old testament are no longer considered sins now. You have yet to prove that.

I

am surprized that a member of a church that militates against abortion and against death punishment says that it is not aburd, immoral and wrong to kill your children if they disobey you.

So is the idea now that you derail the thread as i scramble to defend myself against this ridicolous assertion? sorry, i wont play along.

A little modesty wouldn’t hurt anyone. I don’t pretend to say absolute truths because I am human. I hope you think in the same manner.

We are not talking about modesty-we are talking about you making assertions based on premises that are not true.

Since I responded to all your claims, my question is for now still valid: Couldn’t this apply to homosexuality as well?

You premise is false-we can draw no conclusions from a false premise