D
Dakota_Roberts
Guest
Sexual attraction to the same sex in itself doesn’t show up on objective mental illness tests.
- Status
J
johnnyjones
Guest
I think embracing their cross would involve treatment. There are recovered gay people who would support aother gay person who had a desire to change. As many know, that is the philosophy used to aid alcoholics or drug addicts, help your brother with the same struggle (AA).
U
Uzziah1
Guest
Dr. Joseph Nicolosi claims to have essentially proven that male homosexuality is the pre-wired HETEROSEXUAL male formation process gone awry and then imprinted in that state.
In other words, so long as the same heterosexual formation process continues to successfully generate reproductive heterosexual males, the portion of the process which goes awry and generates homnosexuals will not be bred out of our species.
M
mitex
Guest
R
Reepicheep
Guest
Huntington’s Chorea is a genetically transmitted disease that leads to death by advanced physical and mental senility, often by the age of about 30. Very counter-survival. Yet the disease continues to be passes on.
Multiple Sclerosis and Cystic Fibrosis and genetically transmitted, if I’m not mistaken. They also do bad thngs to the sufferer’s chance to pass on their genes. Yet both conditions keep showing up.
I do not believe that there is such a thing as a “gay gene.” Yet I fear the above argument does not disprove the notion that homosexuality is genetic.
C
couponfit
Guest
So why is Fido gay? Why are there gay monkeys? Gay bears? Gay rats? I mean certainly the Gay gene should be gone in those species by now.
L
livingwordunity
Guest
But you are using logic.
E
Et_Cetera
Guest
Qoeleth’s intial post is ridiculous and offensive, not to mention lacking in logic. I literally am not wasting the time and energy to refute it. This stuff is pulled here all of the time. It’s some type of baiting/trolling. Please everyone, just move on.
A
Andre1000
Guest
This is not sound because “Darwinian natural selection” is untrue
O
OraLabora
Guest
Proof that you’re wrong: there are plenty of (incurable) genetic anomalies, diseases and conditions that aren’t conducive to survival.
Yet they happen anyway.
Sorry, the argument has been tried and found wanting after even the most superficial analysis.
1
1AugustSon7
Guest
Arguing from Darwin? shivers the Eugenicists did that and we have Planned Parenthood as a result.
R
Reepicheep
Guest
What is your evidence that there exist gay animals? Please do not point to male animals “mounting” each other in play or dominance behavior unless you can show that they go on to complete an actual homosexual coupling including orgasm, and also that at least some of the individual animals that do this also refrain from mating with females.
P
petras52
Guest
I would have to ask, did you make a conscious choice regarding your sexuality? Bottom line it’s not rocket science. When I was a young teen, I clearly remember being easily aroused looking at scantily clad pictures of women…looking at pictures of scantily clad men did absolutely nothing as far as sexual arousal, even if my life depended on it. There was absolutely no choice on my part, it just happened… the “little guy downstairs” made the choice. Why then is it any different for a gay person? Do you really think a person would choose to be gay knowing full well it would mean a life filled with ridicule and discrimination?
B
Beautiful_Rose
Guest
I’m not male, but I agree with petras52. There may be cases that people choose to turn gay due to a traumatic experience, but lets be honest: our bodies choose for us. Either way, it’s not our problem and we shouldn’t discriminate them just because they’re gay. We must love all people just the same and welcome them regardless of sexual orientation. Just because one is gay, it doesn’t mean they’re going against God, they’d only be going against God if they acted upon such desire. You’re also going against God if you discriminate and hate them for what they are.
R
Rustie317
Guest
You don’t have to have diabetes to understand where it comes from. NARTH actually agrees with you. You did not choose the lifestyle. It never said you had to have a "broken childhood or a dominant mother. Something happened early in your childhood to cause a “detachment” issue with one of your parents (depends on your situation). The way your child mind decided to cope with this is to identify with the oposite gender and just like heterosexuals, you develop an attraction for your imagined oposite gender which happens to be the same as your natural one. Then as you got older, this caused homosexual tendencies when left untreated, led to you identifying with the social group “gay” for support. If some are successfully turning back to their original sexuality, isn’t this cause for celebration as hope for you so you don’t have to continue in “this existence”?
M
mitex
Guest
I’ve never been more offended before. My parents did not screw up.
And ex-gay therapies don’t work. Thousands of dollars and six months later I’m still gay.
M
mitex
Guest
I’d like to add we don’t know what causes a homosexual orientation. And this is the latest thinking coming from the traditional Christian crowd. sexualidentityinstitute.org/resources/faq
D
Deo_Volente
Guest
Grace & Peace!
And keep in mind that not even the catechism speaks of heterosexuality as we understand it as original. In fact, it doesn’t speak of sexuality as we commonly think of it at all. It intentionally eschews entirely the heterosexual/homosexual binary. You could argue that its discussion of human sexuality would lead one to the conclusion that it is speaking of heterosexuality, but it does not itself actually and explicitly draw that conclusion. There are some good reasons for this:
I was reading an interesting discussion on “male and female” which touched on this issue a bit, raising this point–perhaps the reason why the catechism avoids identifying basic human sexuality with “heterosexuality” is this: our appetites (sexual or otherwise) are not actually directed toward a specific material object, but toward a specific act. When we hunger, for instance, we desire to eat–a craving for a particular kind of food is secondary to the hunger-appetite. The human sexual appetite is directed toward the marital act, not to any particular body. To posit otherwise (i.e., to say that a male desires differently than a female with regard to the sexual appetite) is to begin down the path of positing two separate natures in the singular humanity: two different wills, two different appetites oriented to two different goods. Of course all this has consequences with regard to homosexuality being “objectively disordered,” but we can open that can of worms later if we want (or you can just click the link above for the discussion, which is very wide-ranging and interesting).
Under the Mercy,
Mark
All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!
Rustie, as well-meaning as your post may be, it is based on a series of assertions which have no evidential basis. While it might be true that some people are homosexual due to some deep-seated psychological trauma (nothing is impossible), you cannot make a general claim regarding heterosexuality being anyeone’s “original sexuality” unless you can provide evidence that reparative therapy actually changes a person’s sexual orientation (as opposed to simply their behavior or their reporting of their behavior) with clear consistency and in an overwhelming majority of cases. That sort of evidence, however, does not exist. Until that evidence exists, we cannot actually speak of a general original heterosexuality for homosexual folks.
And keep in mind that not even the catechism speaks of heterosexuality as we understand it as original. In fact, it doesn’t speak of sexuality as we commonly think of it at all. It intentionally eschews entirely the heterosexual/homosexual binary. You could argue that its discussion of human sexuality would lead one to the conclusion that it is speaking of heterosexuality, but it does not itself actually and explicitly draw that conclusion. There are some good reasons for this:
I was reading an interesting discussion on “male and female” which touched on this issue a bit, raising this point–perhaps the reason why the catechism avoids identifying basic human sexuality with “heterosexuality” is this: our appetites (sexual or otherwise) are not actually directed toward a specific material object, but toward a specific act. When we hunger, for instance, we desire to eat–a craving for a particular kind of food is secondary to the hunger-appetite. The human sexual appetite is directed toward the marital act, not to any particular body. To posit otherwise (i.e., to say that a male desires differently than a female with regard to the sexual appetite) is to begin down the path of positing two separate natures in the singular humanity: two different wills, two different appetites oriented to two different goods. Of course all this has consequences with regard to homosexuality being “objectively disordered,” but we can open that can of worms later if we want (or you can just click the link above for the discussion, which is very wide-ranging and interesting).
Under the Mercy,
Mark
All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!
R
Rustie317
Guest
I believed I was only speaking from science. There is no evidence of a biological cause, but tons to support a psychological one. All the psychologists and psychiatrists have found they’ll state 100% of the time that the male homosexual cannot describe his relationship with his father as “loving and respectful”. That is pretty strong statistics. Noone said anything about ‘trauma’. I was simply referring to a coping mechanism to respond to some detachment. Until there is conclusive biological evidence, we can only treat this like any other behavior issue.
“unless you can provide evidence that reparative therapy actually changes a person’s sexual orientation (as opposed to simply their behavior or their reporting of their behavior)” That confuses me. Isn’t sexual orientation defined by the “behavior”? If the behavior changes, could the person still call themselves “homosexual”? As I understand they still may have SSA, but not “homosexual”. Please correct me if my thinking is misguided. By “original” heterosexuality, I meant as biologically designed by your gender. I think we can all agree that male parts are designed to fit with female parts.
“unless you can provide evidence that reparative therapy actually changes a person’s sexual orientation (as opposed to simply their behavior or their reporting of their behavior)” That confuses me. Isn’t sexual orientation defined by the “behavior”? If the behavior changes, could the person still call themselves “homosexual”? As I understand they still may have SSA, but not “homosexual”. Please correct me if my thinking is misguided. By “original” heterosexuality, I meant as biologically designed by your gender. I think we can all agree that male parts are designed to fit with female parts.
H
Havard
Guest
Perhaps you aren’t aware, but that is normally considered to be a rather impolite expression.
- Status