Is it objectively meaningful and functionally correct to class Same Sex Attraction as a genuine form of human Sexuality?

[tqualey]

Hi, Elizabeth502,

Well said!

God bless

Secondarily it is demeaning; primarily it is inaccurate. Mythology and religion are not synonymous. Mythology, as a neutral term, is an element of culture and of most religions, but in itself it is neither central to Catholicism nor to most modern religions and philosophies. Religion, particularly one as developed and intellectually sophisticated as Catholicism is, includes morality, theology, and a spirituality which derives partly from direct mystical experience, with commonly shared elements of those experiences within its members and resembling experiences in some other religions. Thus, there is an element of empiricism within religion. Furthermore, in the case of Catholicism, a structured, consistent philosophy is also organic to the religion.

Terminology matters. Words are supposed to reflect realities.

 

[Mudgely]

Secondarily it is demeaning; primarily it is inaccurate. Mythology and religion are not synonymous. Mythology, as a neutral term, is an element of culture and of most religions, but in itself it is neither central to Catholicism nor to most modern religions and philosophies. Religion, particularly one as developed and intellectually sophisticated as Catholicism is, includes morality, theology, and a spirituality which derives partly from direct mystical experience, with commonly shared elements of those experiences within its members and resembling experiences in some other religions. Thus, there is an element of empiricism within religion. Furthermore, in the case of Catholicism, a structured, consistent philosophy is also organic to the religion.

Terminology matters. Words are supposed to reflect realities.

Yet, the story or creation in the bible is mythology. There is nothing demeaning about recognizing that. This is known as “reflecting reality”. Ditto for many of the fables in the bible. Religion and mythology are sometimes grouped in the same class of study. The deceased Joseph Campbell might be the best known scholar in the field. Understanding the mythological components of a religious system help one to understand and evaluate it better. Carl Jung had a lot to say about the commonalities of the various religions and what he called “archetypes” and the “collective unconscious”. Fairytales are in this realm of study too. They all serve a similar purpose, and have a similar origin.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Yet, the story or creation in the bible is mythology. There is nothing demeaning about recognizing that. This is known as “reflecting reality”. Ditto for many of the fables in the bible. Religion and mythology are sometimes grouped in the same class of study. The deceased Joseph Campbell might be the best known scholar in the field. Understanding the mythological components of a religious system help one to understand and evaluate it better. Carl Jung had a lot to say about the commonalities of the various religions and what he called “archetypes” and the “collective unconscious”. Fairytales are in this realm of study too. They all serve a similar purpose, and have a similar origin.

You’ve entirely missed the point of my post, which isn’t the first time.

I am not denying the important element of myth in all religions. I affirmed that. But religion goes beyond myth. It is not synonymous with it. Scripture itself is more than “myths.” It includes mythological frameworks in some cases, but the theology of scripture is hardly limited to myth, or even founded on it.

Fairy tales are no, not “in this realm.” Fairy tales carry moral import to them, but they are not developed theology, let alone developed philosophical systems.

Nice try to once again discredit all religion by limiting its definition, qualities, and reach.

 

[Mudgely]

You’ve entirely missed the point of my post, which isn’t the first time.

I am not denying the important element of myth in all religions. I affirmed that. But religion goes beyond myth. It is not synonymous with it. Scripture itself is more than “myths.” It includes mythological frameworks in some cases, but the theology of scripture is hardly limited to myth, or even founded on it.

Fairy tales are no, not “in this realm.” Fairy tales carry moral import to them, but they are not developed theology, let alone developed philosophical systems.

Nice try to once again discredit all religion by limiting its definition, qualities, and reach.

As usual, with your myopic view, you missed my point… at least I assume that since you went on to make it all over again in your own words. A closer reading, instead of just reacting might be more sensible. At no time did I try to discredit religion, but you do it very well yourself with your reactionary, prejudicial and narrow minded statements. Let’s hope that you are not representative of Catholics.

Fairy tales, mythology and religion are all in the realm that I was referring to. You might try some reading of Joseph Campbell and Jung before you discredit yourself by posing as an expert.

As for moral import, the fanciful notion that morality is supernatural in origin is even being discredited by biological science, with ongoing research into the role of chemicals in the body in creating morality. The most interesting of which has been found in oxytocin and behavioral research. The picture is not complete yet, but it is crystal clear that morality is of human origin.

So this brings us back to the role of religion, and now I will limit its scope. Religion is useful for some people in explaining morality, elucidating it, formulating it… and so on. But it misses the mark in explaining moralities origin. However, it may interest you to know that praying and meditating are two of the many ways that oxytocin levels can be increased in the body. Fairy tales and mythologies may serve a similar function, though not as formalized or as elaborate as the theocracy which you refer to.

 

[tqualey]

Hi Mudgely,

Hard to believe a two paragraph rant, berating someone for your own errors. Maybe there are lists that encourage such behavior, but CAF really is not one of them. My suggestion would be to just focus your comments on the topic and leave the personal aspects of others out of it.

The idea about dismissing objective moral behavior in humans makes perfect sense if one is not interested in following it. Other-wise, there is a wealth of evidence that almost all people have a basic sense of right and wrong from earliest ages. Things like their right to personal property - and how they negatively respond when their property is stolen. This is quite different from groups that freely share certain items (but, not everything).

Back in 1776, a group of genuine revolutionaries took quil to parchment and wrote out some amazing words - "We hold these truths to be self - evident … " And, none of the signatories to this document had any question about the objective aspects of the natural law - since they put their lives, fortunes and sacred honor on the line to defend what they had written. Here is a link: ushistory.org/declaration/document/ You will find the section I referenced in the second paragraph. Please note, these men did not find it a fanciful notion - and maybe upon a bit more reflection, you won’t either.

Here is a more contempoary reference: jim.com/rights.html but the basic idea has not changed any.

My guess is that you have gone to great lengths to continue to confuse religion and mythology in your posts. You have proved nothing positive, but you have made your own position perfectly clear. How about spending more time on the stated topic.

God bless

As usual, with your myopic view, you missed my point… at least I assume that since you went on to make it all over again in your own words. A closer reading, instead of just reacting might be more sensible. At no time did I try to discredit religion, but you do it very well yourself with your reactionary, prejudicial and narrow minded statements. Let’s hope that you are not representative of Catholics.

Fairy tales, mythology and religion are all in the realm that I was referring to. You might try some reading of Joseph Campbell and Jung before you discredit yourself by posing as an expert.

As for moral import, the fanciful notion that morality is supernatural in origin is even being discredited by biological science, with ongoing research into the role of chemicals in the body in creating morality. The most interesting of which has been found in oxytocin and behavioral research. The picture is not complete yet, but it is crystal clear that morality is of human origin.

So this brings us back to the role of religion, and now I will limit its scope. Religion is useful for some people in explaining morality, elucidating it, formulating it… and so on. But it misses the mark in explaining moralities origin. However, it may interest you to know that praying and meditating are two of the many ways that oxytocin levels can be increased in the body. Fairy tales and mythologies may serve a similar function, though not as formalized or as elaborate as the theocracy which you refer to.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Fairy tales, mythology and religion are all in the realm that I was referring to. You might try some reading of Joseph Campbell and Jung before you discredit yourself by posing as an expert.

You’re barking up the wrong tree. I’m an outstanding reader. I’ ve also read Campbell and Jung and have quite a background in belief systems. Myth is one thing. Myth runs through belief systems, and also overarches many of them, but religion (again) goes beyond that. Religion involves (depending on the religion, particularly if it is not a cult, a fad, or a very young “religion”) a developed theology. Catholicism is one of the most sophisticated belief systems imaginable; to many converts from many other religious traditions, they consider it far superior, intellectually, to their own previous religious backgorunds. Further, myth does not necessarily coincide with religion, nor depend on it. Myth, especially that in the sense in which Campbell and Jung refer to it, is sometimes more closely allied with psychology than with theology.

It also appears that you don’t understand what the word “theocracy” means. It’s certainly nothing I have ever referred to myself. A theocracy is a religion-based governmental system which operates hand-in-glove with religion, and often with religious personnel at the helm. Not only is that impossible in the U.S., it has nothing to do with any positions I have ever taken anywhere, including on CAF.

Finally, morality need not be religious in origin, nor depend on it. Religion helps to situate morality for many people – give it a context; and certainly morality grows from many religions (but not all of them). There are thoughtfully moral atheists who espouse the same universal law of absolute goods and absolute evils that Catholicism and many religions espouse.

It seems that you might be the one to catch up on Jung and Campbell, for starters, not to mention the common moral realms of religions old and new. Fairy tales share some aspects in common with myths, but depart from them in many aspects. They are only tangentially and broadly “moral.”

 

[John21652]

As usual, with your myopic view, you missed my point… at least I assume that since you went on to make it all over again in your own words. A closer reading, instead of just reacting might be more sensible. At no time did I try to discredit religion, but you do it very well yourself with your reactionary, prejudicial and narrow minded statements. Let’s hope that you are not representative of Catholics.

Fairy tales, mythology and religion are all in the realm that I was referring to. You might try some reading of Joseph Campbell and Jung before you discredit yourself by posing as an expert.

As for moral import, the fanciful notion that morality is supernatural in origin is even being discredited by biological science, with ongoing research into the role of chemicals in the body in creating morality. The most interesting of which has been found in oxytocin and behavioral research. The picture is not complete yet, but it is crystal clear that morality is of human origin.

So this brings us back to the role of religion, and now I will limit its scope. Religion is useful for some people in explaining morality, elucidating it, formulating it… and so on. But it misses the mark in explaining moralities origin. However, it may interest you to know that praying and meditating are two of the many ways that oxytocin levels can be increased in the body. Fairy tales and mythologies may serve a similar function, though not as formalized or as elaborate as the theocracy which you refer to.

Oh Mudgely, you are entertaining!
Ask me all about Oxytocin and its effects on “morality”. I’m quite the little expert Mudgely. You see, I spent many, many years handling and breeding cattle. Oxytocin is indeed a powerful ‘chemical’. (It is actually a hormone, but I don’t want to stress you too much with the technicalities). It plays a pivotal role in the milk let down process in all bovine species and also in the repoductive cycle. I used to give cows Oxytocin injections when they were on heat, to make them let down their milk. That’s because a cow, when on heat, has her system flooded with other hormones (‘chemicals’, to you). Adrenalin totally destroys Oxytocin in the bloodstream. If we followed your logic, we could simply say “boo” to a female being immoral and hey presto, she’d be moral again!! Of course, that’s just too funny to ebntertain, don’t you think? When a cow is on heat, her blood stream is also flooded with progesterone. Progesterone also suppresses Oxytocin. Consequently, when a cow is on heat, neither the farmer nor her poor calf can get much milk from her. The progesterone and also estrogen direct the cow towards oestrus and breeding. In the field, a cow on heat is not a pretty sight. She will take all comers and is thus extremely receptive to all comers for 24 hours. In that time she is so directed towards getting pregnant that she may suffer injury and hurt yet be seemingly oblivious to it. Then, as if a switch is magically switched, her hormone levels return to normal, she rebuffs all suitors and the farmer and the calf can get some milk again. You will read articles that tell you that Oxytocin produces relaxation and serenity. The thing is, relaxed environments and serenity are required for Oxytocin production. The extreme is the production of adrenalin and that stuff destroys Oxytocin.

Now human females are very similar. The hormones that control the breeding cycle are exactly the same. Oxytocin is also destroyed in the human bloodstream by adrenalin. That’s why stressed mothers can’t breast feed very well and their babies cry. However, humans are somewhat different Mudgely, in that despite having their blood streams flooded with hormones, they are moral agents. They can control their urges if they so desire and still behave like human beings. The poor cow, on the other hand, can’t make moral judgements and exercises no moral agency whatsoever. She just goes with the flow, so to speak and behave like, well, a cow on heat. Humans make moral choices Mudgely, because they are moral agents. To act like a moral agent, one must use ones intellect. That is what sets humans above animals like cows. To say morality is a result of chemical interactions is putting the cart before the horse. Good moral choices promote serenity and thus benefit the production of suitable chemical reactions. That’s why if you do good, you feel good. Elizabeth502 said you were barking up the wrong tree. I’d go further and say you peed on it.

 

[tonyrey]

Oh Mudgely, you are entertaining!
Ask me all about Oxytocin and its effects on “morality”. I’m quite the little expert Mudgely. You see, I spent many, many years handling and breeding cattle. Oxytocin is indeed a powerful ‘chemical’. (It is actually a hormone, but I don’t want to stress you too much with the technicalities). It plays a pivotal role in the milk let down process in all bovine species and also in the repoductive cycle. I used to give cows Oxytocin injections when they were on heat, to make them let down their milk. That’s because a cow, when on heat, has her system flooded with other hormones (‘chemicals’, to you). Adrenalin totally destroys Oxytocin in the bloodstream. If we followed your logic, we could simply say “boo” to a female being immoral and hey presto, she’d be moral again!! Of course, that’s just too funny to ebntertain, don’t you think? When a cow is on heat, her blood stream is also flooded with progesterone. Progesterone also suppresses Oxytocin. Consequently, when a cow is on heat, neither the farmer nor her poor calf can get much milk from her. The progesterone and also estrogen direct the cow towards oestrus and breeding. In the field, a cow on heat is not a pretty sight. She will take all comers and is thus extremely receptive to all comers for 24 hours. In that time she is so directed towards getting pregnant that she may suffer injury and hurt yet be seemingly oblivious to it. Then, as if a switch is magically switched, her hormone levels return to normal, she rebuffs all suitors and the farmer and the calf can get some milk again. You will read articles that tell you that Oxytocin produces relaxation and serenity. The thing is, relaxed environments and serenity are required for Oxytocin production. The extreme is the production of adrenalin and that stuff destroys Oxytocin.

Now human females are very similar. The hormones that control the breeding cycle are exactly the same. Oxytocin is also destroyed in the human bloodstream by adrenalin. That’s why stressed mothers can’t breast feed very well and their babies cry. However, humans are somewhat different Mudgely, in that despite having their blood streams flooded with hormones, they are moral agents. They can control their urges if they so desire and still behave like human beings. The poor cow, on the other hand, can’t make moral judgements and exercises no moral agency whatsoever. She just goes with the flow, so to speak and behave like, well, a cow on heat. Humans make moral choices Mudgely, because they are moral agents. To act like a moral agent, one must use ones intellect. That is what sets humans above animals like cows. To say morality is a result of chemical interactions is putting the cart before the horse. Good moral choices promote serenity and thus benefit the production of suitable chemical reactions. That’s why if you do good, you feel good. Elizabeth502 said you were barking up the wrong tree. I’d go further and say you peed on it.

Funny, factual, fascinating and irrefutable!

 

[Sair]

Oh Mudgely, you are entertaining!
Ask me all about Oxytocin and its effects on “morality”. I’m quite the little expert Mudgely. You see, I spent many, many years handling and breeding cattle. Oxytocin is indeed a powerful ‘chemical’. (It is actually a hormone, but I don’t want to stress you too much with the technicalities). It plays a pivotal role in the milk let down process in all bovine species and also in the repoductive cycle. I used to give cows Oxytocin injections when they were on heat, to make them let down their milk. That’s because a cow, when on heat, has her system flooded with other hormones (‘chemicals’, to you). Adrenalin totally destroys Oxytocin in the bloodstream. If we followed your logic, we could simply say “boo” to a female being immoral and hey presto, she’d be moral again!! Of course, that’s just too funny to ebntertain, don’t you think? When a cow is on heat, her blood stream is also flooded with progesterone. Progesterone also suppresses Oxytocin. Consequently, when a cow is on heat, neither the farmer nor her poor calf can get much milk from her. The progesterone and also estrogen direct the cow towards oestrus and breeding. In the field, a cow on heat is not a pretty sight. She will take all comers and is thus extremely receptive to all comers for 24 hours. In that time she is so directed towards getting pregnant that she may suffer injury and hurt yet be seemingly oblivious to it. Then, as if a switch is magically switched, her hormone levels return to normal, she rebuffs all suitors and the farmer and the calf can get some milk again. You will read articles that tell you that Oxytocin produces relaxation and serenity. The thing is, relaxed environments and serenity are required for Oxytocin production. The extreme is the production of adrenalin and that stuff destroys Oxytocin.

Now human females are very similar. The hormones that control the breeding cycle are exactly the same. Oxytocin is also destroyed in the human bloodstream by adrenalin. That’s why stressed mothers can’t breast feed very well and their babies cry. However, humans are somewhat different Mudgely, in that despite having their blood streams flooded with hormones, they are moral agents. They can control their urges if they so desire and still behave like human beings. The poor cow, on the other hand, can’t make moral judgements and exercises no moral agency whatsoever. She just goes with the flow, so to speak and behave like, well, a cow on heat. Humans make moral choices Mudgely, because they are moral agents. To act like a moral agent, one must use ones intellect. That is what sets humans above animals like cows. To say morality is a result of chemical interactions is putting the cart before the horse. Good moral choices promote serenity and thus benefit the production of suitable chemical reactions. That’s why if you do good, you feel good. Elizabeth502 said you were barking up the wrong tree. I’d go further and say you peed on it.

But which comes first, for us - the environmental stimulation or the response? This seems like the key indicator of any form of “free” will in the moral arena… On the whole, I think you are discounting the causal interactions of sociability - something for which humans are wired to a far greater extent than cattle.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, John21652

What a delightful and very interesting read!

From your experience do any bovines demonstrate homosexual behavior?

We do differ on one item, however. A while ago, Mudgely stopped being entertaining and has himself in the Land of the Tedious…

God bless

Oh Mudgely, you are entertaining!
Ask me all about Oxytocin and its effects on “morality”. I’m quite the little expert Mudgely. You see, I spent many, many years handling and breeding cattle. Oxytocin is indeed a powerful ‘chemical’. (It is actually a hormone, but I don’t want to stress you too much with the technicalities). It plays a pivotal role in the milk let down process in all bovine species and also in the repoductive cycle. I used to give cows Oxytocin injections when they were on heat, to make them let down their milk. That’s because a cow, when on heat, has her system flooded with other hormones (‘chemicals’, to you). Adrenalin totally destroys Oxytocin in the bloodstream. If we followed your logic, we could simply say “boo” to a female being immoral and hey presto, she’d be moral again!! Of course, that’s just too funny to ebntertain, don’t you think? When a cow is on heat, her blood stream is also flooded with progesterone. Progesterone also suppresses Oxytocin. Consequently, when a cow is on heat, neither the farmer nor her poor calf can get much milk from her. The progesterone and also estrogen direct the cow towards oestrus and breeding. In the field, a cow on heat is not a pretty sight. She will take all comers and is thus extremely receptive to all comers for 24 hours. In that time she is so directed towards getting pregnant that she may suffer injury and hurt yet be seemingly oblivious to it. Then, as if a switch is magically switched, her hormone levels return to normal, she rebuffs all suitors and the farmer and the calf can get some milk again. You will read articles that tell you that Oxytocin produces relaxation and serenity. The thing is, relaxed environments and serenity are required for Oxytocin production. The extreme is the production of adrenalin and that stuff destroys Oxytocin.

Now human females are very similar. The hormones that control the breeding cycle are exactly the same. Oxytocin is also destroyed in the human bloodstream by adrenalin. That’s why stressed mothers can’t breast feed very well and their babies cry. However, humans are somewhat different Mudgely, in that despite having their blood streams flooded with hormones, they are moral agents. They can control their urges if they so desire and still behave like human beings. The poor cow, on the other hand, can’t make moral judgements and exercises no moral agency whatsoever. She just goes with the flow, so to speak and behave like, well, a cow on heat. Humans make moral choices Mudgely, because they are moral agents. To act like a moral agent, one must use ones intellect. That is what sets humans above animals like cows. To say morality is a result of chemical interactions is putting the cart before the horse. Good moral choices promote serenity and thus benefit the production of suitable chemical reactions. That’s why if you do good, you feel good. Elizabeth502 said you were barking up the wrong tree. I’d go further and say you peed on it.

 

[tonyrey]

But which comes first, for us - the environmental stimulation or the response? This seems like the key indicator of any form of “free” will in the moral arena… On the whole, I think you are discounting the causal interactions of sociability - something for which humans are wired to a far greater extent than cattle.

Do you believe all your beliefs, conclusions, choices and decisions are due to the causal interactions of sociability and environmental stimulation? If not why not?

 

[John21652]

But which comes first, for us - the environmental stimulation or the response? This seems like the key indicator of any form of “free” will in the moral arena… On the whole, I think you are discounting the causal interactions of sociability - something for which humans are wired to a far greater extent than cattle.

Er, Sair, I think you maybe should examine what you post before you post it, because sometimes the responses you invoke may not be to your liking.

Notice, Sair, how I mentioned that responses to your post will come after you actually post your post. It is because they come after that they are called responses. A response always happens after an event, Sair and that’s why it is called a response! Events, or agents, which evoke a response, are called stimulants. They always come before a response which can be attributable to the causal agent.

I hope that helps a bit. Now you should be able to answer your own question!

 

[Sair]

Er, Sair, I think you maybe should examine what you post before you post it, because sometimes the responses you invoke may not be to your liking.

Notice, Sair, how I mentioned that responses to your post will come after you actually post your post. It is because they come after that they are called responses. A response always happens after an event, Sair and that’s why it is called a response! Events, or agents, which evoke a response, are called stimulants. They always come before a response which can be attributable to the causal agent.

I hope that helps a bit. Now you should be able to answer your own question!

Yet those who assume we humans are free agents often only do so because they are unaware of the causal chain that leads to our each and every action. If we are stimulants in some cases, we are so because of a series of events ultimately resulting in our stimulatory action. Stimulus and response are not necessarily clearly delineated; any given action may be construed as either or both. You seem to suppose that we are somehow ultimately “in charge” of what we do, to a greater extent than cattle may be - but the thing is, we are fully caused just as they are. Our cultural constructions of human free will and responsibility require that somewhere along the line, somewhere in our process of decision making, there is an uncaused cause - to put it in hastily-written late-night terminology, a response that comes before a stimulus. In order for contra-causal free will to be the case, we would need to somehow be the first cause of our actions, such that given our circumstances, we could have made any choice we liked rather than the one we did - one that was fully caused by the web of events preceding and surrounding it.

 

[tonyrey]

In order for contra-causal free will to be the case, we would need to somehow be the first cause of our actions, such that given our circumstances, we could have made any choice we liked rather than the one we did - one that was fully caused by the web of events preceding and surrounding it.

That is correct. It is only a problem for those who believe the power of reason amounts to no more than mechanical computation which doesn’t require initiative, autonomy or originality. Once the biological machines have appeared on the scene - whether they are welcome or not!

 

[Sair]

That is correct. It is only a problem for those who believe the power of reason amounts to no more than mechanical computation which doesn’t require initiative, autonomy or originality. Once the biological machines have appeared on the scene - whether they are welcome or not!

So in your world, the power of reason amounts to an uncaused cause? What do you suppose initiates the initiative? Or is it self-initiating? What degree of independence from circumstance is required for the kind of autonomy you think we have? And originality presupposes that we are the ultimate originators of our thoughts.

Contra-causal free will is not a problem for naturalists - it is simply something that doesn’t exist.

 

[John21652]

Yet those who assume we humans are free agents often only do so because they are unaware of the causal chain that leads to our each and every action.

I think you are forgetting something very important. We are “free agents”, but we are constrained by our being human. Anything we choose to do is done as a human being. The causal chain you refer to begins with the fact that we are born of two human parents and we learn from them and/or other humans. Take as an example a baby learning to walk. Their propensity and tendency to walk is far in advance of their knowledge of language and comprehension. Babies don’t need someone to say “hey, it’s time to learn to walk”. They do it instinctively. Thus, being human is the first cause of a lot of the things we do. Being human actually limits us to being human agents. We are constrained by that humaness.

If we are stimulants in some cases, we are so because of a series of events ultimately resulting in our stimulatory action.

All actions that result from a stimulus are called reactions, or responses. We walk and talk because we are stimulated to do so by our humaness.

Stimulus and response are not necessarily clearly delineated; any given action may be construed as either or both.

They are indeed clearly delineated, provided there is a critical analysis. That’s how the thinking person can guage whether an action is either or both.

You seem to suppose that we are somehow ultimately “in charge” of what we do, to a greater extent than cattle may be - but the thing is, we are fully caused just as they are.

Yes, we are fully caused as are cattle and dogs and monkeys. The point is, we can do a whole range of things with our humaness that animals cannot do with their animalness.

Our cultural constructions of human free will and responsibility

Free will is not a cultural construct. Cultural constructs act as constraints upon free will. Usually for very good reasons! Some ‘responsibility’ is a social construct and some of it is a requirement which springs from our humaness and our existence.

require that somewhere along the line, somewhere in our process of decision making, there is an uncaused cause - to put it in hastily-written late-night terminology, a response that comes before a stimulus.

An uncaused first cause is not and cannot be a response that comes before any stimulus. It is purely a stimulus, by definition.

In order for contra-causal free will to be the case, we would need to somehow be the first cause of our actions, such that given our circumstances, we could have made any choice we liked rather than the one we did - one that was fully caused by the web of events preceding and surrounding it.

The first of that web of events preceeding and surrounding what we do is our humaness. We are required by our humaness to act within certain parameters if we are to remain being a human being. Human beings even have the opportunity to behave in non-humn ways and it is feasible that one could live in a hole in the ground, naked and surving on raw meat if one so desired. To do that, one would have to throw off all those cultural constraints and reject the causal chain that made us live otherwise. However, most people choose to not do that and so we act as both stimulants and responses within the parameters alloted us by dint of our being caused to be human beings. Most of us give in to the notion of what others think, which is also a cultural constraint and so our use of free will is limited in that sense. However, even within the parametres set by society, we are free moral agents and can choose to conform, or not conform, to society’s boundaries and with regard to more mundane issues, we are free to accept or reject the teachings and examples given to us by others of our species.

 

[kw8]

I have observed from a specific large family the high number of homosexuals in this family. One of the cousins in this family even told me that he and his wife do not want any children due to this situation. What I have also learned on closer examination was the high level of child abuse in this family and primary caregivers suffering from borderline or bordering on some sort of anti-social personality disorder. Primary caregiver’s in this family means mostly “mothers”.
You see, if the fathers are the breadwinners, and the mothers are the unstable ones we have a real serious problem for the child. If the fathers (breadwinner) are the unstable ones, the problem for the child is less serious since he/she has the presence of stability most of the day. If the mothers are the unstable ones, the abuse problems will most likely be swept under the carpet making finding of the real origins of homosexuality more difficult.

All this has led me to discuss the issue of homosexuality with four psychologists - not the liberal ones at universities, - ones with solid family dynamic experience (and I had to be patient to get an appointment with one of these). All four believe that homosexuals are NOT born that way and that the origin of homosexuality lies in family dynamics.

To claim that homosexuality is in the genes is really senseless. If scientists tell you that divorce is in the genes, then surely homosexuality may be in the genes. Some sins seems to have a way of mysteriously “interfering” with your genes.

From Marsha Linehan’s research on borderline personality disorder:
"In fact, the common denominator in all case studies was invalidation of thoughts or feelings of the child by the primary caretaker; anything from feeling thirsty to NOT allowing anger after abuse. " I believe it will be proven one day that most homosexuality has similar origins - although those who prove it may be thrown in jail.
Years ago I have seen an older movie about a borderline (mother): In the chaotic environment she created in her household, her son became homosexual.

The effect of this abuse that Marsha is talking here about normally is most profound for children < 6years. Borderline type symptoms do get better from about forty - so by the time the child is grown up, his mother may appear quite “normal” relative to. So: they (the children) won’t really remember this abuse. (I can add a lot here about the specifics of the various emotional abuse forms and how it undermines a child’s system - also his sexual orientation system.) And the mother herself may suffer from gaslightng during these abuse attacks - meaning she can’t remember it either or will blame the child (since the child was “born in sin” and must therefore be necessarily rebelious of defiant) and thus deserves this treatment. And the fathers? - in general they see it is wrong to talk bad about the mother of their children (and noboby will believe them anyway since in our non-catholic society’s eyes they are by default bad and the mothers by default good - “not born in sin”), or they have run away long time ago.
So the combination of these factors make it easy for biased researchers to prove that homosexuals are simply born that way.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Kw8,

I think you have made an excellent point!

There are a number of mental health problems that can be identified on MRI - maybe the most dramatic is Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, but there iis nothing genetic here. The only ones that have a proven genetic make-up would be Turner’s Syndrome and Klinefelter 's Syndrome. So far no one has provided any objective test for demonstrating a genetic or physical link to homosexuality. My understanding is that this is simply learned neurotic or psychotic behavior initially established as a coping mechanism Here is an interesting link: catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0045.html

Children experiment with their own gender identity as part of a normal process of growing up. While ‘Tom-Boy’ behavior in a girl may not draw much attention, ‘Sissy’ behavior in a boy would probably have strict consequences. But, then this seemingly harmless dynamic of boys putting on Mommy’s high heels or girls wearing Daddy’s tie grabs hold of a kid and won’t let go - while the vast majority simply move on. A lot has to do with the example one has at home - and, for the life accounts of abused children who have turned to homosexual behavior it is all about the denial of love, respect and acceptance.

Again, there is an virtual ocean of ‘victim mentality’ that those promoting the homosexual agenda seem to like swimming in. Those who point out that the waters are dangerous, and that sharks and other preditors are swimming next to them are criticized for pointing out the truth, and called ‘bigots’…

Maybe I am alone in this - but, I really do not see any significant difference in the deviant behavior displayed by homosexuals and those of pedophile, sex addicts, and beastiality. For example, no one doubts that Bernard Madoff was a thief (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Madoff ) did he rob from the rich, the not-so-rich, pension funds, widows & orphans - and both ‘gays’ and ‘straights’ - Madoff was only concerned with trying to fill his disordered appetitie of greed. He really did not care how he did it or who he did it to. Those with disordered sexual behaviors are all on the same ‘slippery slope’ moving toward total deprivatity. Those interested in hedonism have no time reason out that pleasure for pleasure’s sake is simply toxic.

Welcome to CAF…

God bless

I have observed from a specific large family the high number of homosexuals in this family. One of the cousins in this family even told me that he and his wife do not want any children due to this situation. What I have also learned on closer examination was the high level of child abuse in this family and primary caregivers suffering from borderline or bordering on some sort of anti-social personality disorder. Primary caregiver’s in this family means mostly “mothers”.
You see, if the fathers are the breadwinners, and the mothers are the unstable ones we have a real serious problem for the child. If the fathers (breadwinner) are the unstable ones, the problem for the child is less serious since he/she has the presence of stability most of the day. If the mothers are the unstable ones, the abuse problems will most likely be swept under the carpet making finding of the real origins of homosexuality more difficult.

All this has led me to discuss the issue of homosexuality with four psychologists - not the liberal ones at universities, - ones with solid family dynamic experience (and I had to be patient to get an appointment with one of these). All four believe that homosexuals are NOT born that way and that the origin of homosexuality lies in family dynamics.

To claim that homosexuality is in the genes is really senseless. If scientists tell you that divorce is in the genes, then surely homosexuality may be in the genes. Some sins seems to have a way of mysteriously “interfering” with your genes.

From Marsha Linehan’s research on borderline personality disorder:
"In fact, the common denominator in all case studies was invalidation of thoughts or feelings of the child by the primary caretaker; anything from feeling thirsty to NOT allowing anger after abuse. " I believe it will be proven one day that most homosexuality has similar origins - although those who prove it may be thrown in jail.
Years ago I have seen an older movie about a borderline (mother): In the chaotic environment she created in her household, her son became homosexual.

The effect of this abuse that Marsha is talking here about normally is most profound for children < 6years. Borderline type symptoms do get better from about forty - so by the time the child is grown up, his mother may appear quite “normal” relative to. So: they (the children) won’t really remember this abuse. (I can add a lot here about the specifics of the various emotional abuse forms and how it undermines a child’s system - also his sexual orientation system.) And the mother herself may suffer from gaslightng during these abuse attacks - meaning she can’t remember it either or will blame the child (since the child was “born in sin” and must therefore be necessarily rebelious of defiant) and thus deserves this treatment. And the fathers? - in general they see it is wrong to talk bad about the mother of their children (and noboby will believe them anyway since in our non-catholic society’s eyes they are by default bad and the mothers by default good - “not born in sin”), or they have run away long time ago.
So the combination of these factors make it easy for biased researchers to prove that homosexuals are simply born that way.

 

[michelleds]

From Marsha Linehan’s research on borderline personality disorder:
"In fact, the common denominator in all case studies was invalidation of thoughts or feelings of the child by the primary caretaker; anything from feeling thirsty to NOT allowing anger after abuse. " I believe it will be proven one day that most homosexuality has similar origins - although those who prove it may be thrown in jail.
Years ago I have seen an older movie about a borderline (mother): In the chaotic environment she created in her household, her son became homosexual.

The effect of this abuse that Marsha is talking here about normally is most profound for children < 6years. Borderline type symptoms do get better from about forty - so by the time the child is grown up, his mother may appear quite “normal” relative to. So: they (the children) won’t really remember this abuse. (I can add a lot here about the specifics of the various emotional abuse forms and how it undermines a child’s system - also his sexual orientation system.) And the mother herself may suffer from gaslightng during these abuse attacks - meaning she can’t remember it either or will blame the child (since the child was “born in sin” and must therefore be necessarily rebelious of defiant) and thus deserves this treatment. And the fathers? - in general they see it is wrong to talk bad about the mother of their children (and noboby will believe them anyway since in our non-catholic society’s eyes they are by default bad and the mothers by default good - “not born in sin”), or they have run away long time ago.
So the combination of these factors make it easy for biased researchers to prove that homosexuals are simply born that way.

sounds familiar. I want to know more about this theory and research if anyone can direct me to source documents and studies. Thanks.