Proof that homosexuality is a matter of conditioning

[BenedictFTW]

There are behaviors I consider to be right and wrong. I don’t typically think along the axis or order/disorder.

I do not consider the gay lifestyle to be wrong. I consider murder to be wrong. The reasons for this are both common enough and involved enough that they would deserve a detailed discussion, probably not as a part of this thread. Maybe I will start such a discussion, at some point in the near future. Or you would be welcome to start such a discussion, and I would contribute.

We Catholics have it easy - we simply follow the teachings of the Catholic Church. I do not ‘consider’ on these topics. I obey the teachings of Jesus, which are the teachings of my Church. Only Protestants think they have the right to ‘consider’ even when it goes against God. In another post, you say you do not think the bible is perfect. Have you any idea how arrogant that statement sounds? Really? Who do you think you are to ‘consider’ whether the bible is perfect? Your argument, you say is philosophical rather than religious. Your inference seems to be that your philosophical stance is on a much higher plane than our spiritual/religious one. Therefore, your philosophy is flawed due to your mistaken and awesomely arrogant belief that you have more knowledge and wisdom than God, who wrote the bible.

 

[Brandon_Rimmer_1]

We Catholics have it easy - we simply follow the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Why do you follow the teachings of the Catholic Church?

In another post, you say you do not think the bible is perfect. Have you any idea how arrogant that statement sounds?

About as arrogant as when someone says “I do not think the Koran is perfect” or when a Catholic says “I think that Catholic Church is the one true church.”

This isn’t arrogance. It’s exclusive belief… you are beginning to sound like more of a post-modernist than I am!

Therefore, your philosophy is flawed due to your mistaken and awesomely arrogant belief that you have more knowledge and wisdom than God, who wrote the bible.

How do you know that God wrote the Bible?

For many of these questions, there is an excellent thread on Church and Authority, forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=9257187#post9257187 The discussion is quite interesting, and if we talk about it there, we won’t derail this thread.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Poseidon

In studies of identical twins they’ve found that if one twin is gay, the other is much more likely to be gay than a fraternal twin or sibling.

This makes sense if the identical twins identify (as they usually do) more closely with each other than other twins and normal siblings would. However, the reason the first identical twin became homosexual is not determined as genetic by this study. So the question of environment is still very much the eminent factor so far as we know.

 

[sw85]

You are correct. I do not defend my stance biblically. I defend it philosophically.

I do not think that the Bible is perfect.

Well, there’s hardly any sense trying to reason with such pride.

Disorder: Contrary to Normative Order

If ‘normative’ is used as sociologists use it, then what ‘normative’ is can change over time. Therefore acting in a way contrary to the ‘normative order’ is not necessarily wrong. In fact, I would encourage more of it! It makes the world a more exciting place to live in. And sometimes it is morally necessary. If people never acted against the ‘normative order’, in this sense, there would be no United States of America and there would still be slavery, and women wouldn’t be able to vote.

If by ‘normative’ you mean ethically normative, then this is just a fancy way to call something wrong. Since I don’t think the gay lifestyle is wrong, I don’t think it’s disordered in this sense, although it may be disordered, as society sees it (though this seems to be rapidly changing!).

Obviously I mean biologically normative AND ethically normative. Are you following my argument?

Disorder is that which is contrary to the normative order. Homosexuality is contrary to the normative (biological) order. Sin is disorder which is freely and deliberately chosen. QED.

 

[Brandon_Rimmer_1]

Obviously I mean biologically normative AND ethically normative. Are you following my argument?

No. But what is the point in reasoning with such pride?

I will be happy to listen and to learn, but I may not come to agree with you. I don’t know what ‘biologically normative’ means, except maybe as it relates to health… and I don’t think it’s a sin to be sick, or that someone who is in a wheelchair is morally inferior… I don’t imagine you think this either…

So I wonder, what do these terms even mean to you?

Disorder is that which is contrary to the normative order. Homosexuality is contrary to the normative (biological) order. Sin is disorder which is freely and deliberately chosen. QED.

I don’t understand at all… it seems that sin just appears in the last sentence without context. I’m confused.

 

[Rustie317]

Grace & Peace!

an original heterosexuality just doesn’t make sense…not even (and perhaps surprisingly) for heterosexuals. And I would argue that this is why the catechism doesn’t affirm that original sexuality=heterosexuality. (Also, an original homosexuality doesn’t make sense in this scheme either!)

I agree Mark, the whole thing is confusing. But I don’t think the church has to define “heterosexual” as the original because I don’t think either really exist. Originally “sex” was a noun meaning what gender you are. it is the “differenness” (if there is such a word) of the genders. And I do not believe the word “heterosexual” even existed until someone coined the term “homosexual”. “homo” sexual (same differentness) negates the meaning of the root and doesn’t make sense and “hetero” sexual (different differentness) is redundant. So I think that leads to just “sexual” and it has to do only with male and female keeping to the meaning of the root.

Peace…Rustie

 

[Elizabeth502]

I do not believe the word “heterosexual” even existed until someone coined the term “homosexual”

Ridiculous. Both terms arose together in 1868, in Germany.