Same sex attraction

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mikaele
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Betterave said:
Like what??
Click to expand...
That all homosexuals are just into relationships for sex, and would thus be irresponsible parents.
What standards? I’ve already noted that I do want to apply the basic standard of child welfare not just to homosexuals, so what are you talking about? It sounds like it’s just your prejudices talking again.
Click to expand...
I’ll admit, I am a bit prejudiced against people who make disrespectful comments about minorities. That said, if you want to apply your standards across the board, not that there’s anything inherently wrong with that, more children will be orphaned and the government will have to work harder at providing better care for these kids.
 
JChapel said:
Now, you wanted me to take a closer look at your main argument? Here you go. In an ideal world, where all children are eventually adopted by heterosexual parents, I would have to agree with you, that a nuclear family would be best for adopted children. Unfortunately, this just isn’t the case, and there are many who spend their entire childhoods institutionalized. There certainly isn’t any shortage of children for heterosexual parents to adopt. If these kids can’t have a good, Christian, nuclear family, can’t they at least have parents that care (assuming that the parents are well-screened)?
Click to expand...
Certainly no shortage? That’s not my understanding. In any case, these are questions of fact, and I’m more concerned about questions of principle here. Obviously if there were no better care-givers available, it might be advisable to place children in the care of a homo couple or a single person or an alcoholic or a seriously impoverished person or a career criminal, etc. But you seem to be mistaken about the facts here, and regard the solution to the problem you allege as being obviously resolvable in only one way: place children in what are clearly less than optimal situations. That is obviously not the only possible strategy for addressing the care of orphaned children, and I think it’s probably your prejudices at work again that are preventing you from thinking outside this box you’re currently in.
 
JChapel said:
That all homosexuals are just into relationships for sex, and would thus be irresponsible parents.
Click to expand...
Where did I say anything like that??
I’ll admit, I am a bit prejudiced against people who make disrespectful comments about minorities. That said, if you want to apply your standards across the board, not that there’s anything inherently wrong with that, more children will be orphaned and the government will have to work harder at providing better care for these kids.
Click to expand...
Well I’m a bit prejudiced against people who make stuff up about their interlocutor in order to try to dishonestly advance their positions. 😉
 
Betterave said:
The basic good of having a mother and a father is not a statistical tendency. It’s a fact about human nature. We all come into being as a union of sperm and egg, male and female, and if a child is deprived of relationships with the progenitors of that sperm and that egg, he or she still should have a right to be raised by a mother and a father. When a child is deprived of their biological parents, I think they have a right to have reasonable replacements of those figures. To further deny them a mother or a father just because a homo couple wants to be parents is wrong. It’s not about saying that homo couples are individually bad parent figures. The fact is that they are not good parent figures insofar as either a mommy or a daddy is missing from the picture. A homo person can of course be a great parent in many respects, just as single mothers can be. But it doesn’t follow that a child that has been deprived of his or her biological parents therefore does not deserve to have a mother and a father - it is still wrong to wilfully deprive a child of one or the other. (I of course leave open the possibility that there may be exceptional circumstances where this is justified.)
Click to expand...
Would you then be against adopting a child out to an individual (someone not currently in a relationship)? Is remaining in an orphanage, thus devoid of either parental figure, the better option in contrast to at least having one of the parental roles filled (either by a homosexual couple or an individual)?
 
Betterave said:
Where did I say anything like that??
Click to expand...
Alright, alright. Let’s first clear some things up. What exactly, every reason you can come up with, makes homosexuals unfit to be adoptive parents? Who, besides committed Catholic heterosexual couples, do you see fit to adopt orphans and finally, how do you plan to do deal with all those that aren’t adopted?
 
*Alright, alright. Let’s first clear some things up. What exactly, every reason you can come up with, makes homosexuals unfit to be adoptive parents? Who, besides committed Catholic heterosexual couples, do you see fit to adopt orphans and finally, how do you plan to do deal with all those that aren’t adopted? *

It strikes me that you are not really committed to the right of a child to a normal home environment conducive to promoting role models for heterosexuality. Lacking that home environment, I would say yes, an orphanage is better than being reared by two homosexuals. Many successful and loving parents have spent their youth in orphanages. Do you have stats on how many successful and loving parents have been produced by homosexual couples who despise the very act by which children are produced?

When these adopted children of homosexual parents arrive at manhood, what are the chances they will be more like their parents than like the heterosexuals nature intended them to be? Will they be cheated of their manhood? Will they be less likely or more likely to become victims of sexual promiscuity, drug abuse, alcoholism, and any number of STDs?

*how do you plan to do deal with all those that aren’t adopted? *

Heterosexual American couples are adopting children by the thousands from foreign countries when they could be adopting from our own orphanages. Right?
 
Seeker

If ‘nature’ did not ‘intend’ for there to be homosexuals, they wouldn’t exist.

Excuse me? Do you mean that sado-masochists exists because nature intended for them to exist? 😃

*Why is it the anti-homosexual lobby always speaks as if men were the only gender that has homosexuals? *

No, I never said homosexual and heterosexual pedophiles did not exist among both genders. But I don’t think nature meant for either gender to produce pedophiles either. Why do you think that sexual perversions are what nature intends, rather than a frustration of what nature intends?
 
Charlemagne_II said:
Excuse me? Do you mean that sado-masochists exists because nature intended for them to exist? 😃
Click to expand...
What?! No. Sadomasochism is developed strictly through environmental factors and life experience. Homosexuality, on the other hand, is at least partially determined by genetics at birth.
No, I never said homosexual and heterosexual pedophiles did not exist among both genders. But I don’t think nature meant for either gender to produce pedophiles either. Why do you think that sexual perversions are what nature intends, rather than a frustration of what nature intends?
Click to expand...
What do pedophiles have to do with this? Just like sadomasochism, pedophiles are shaped by life experience. Homosexuals at least partially aren’t. Perversion or not, I want to dispel the myth here and now that homosexuals “choose” to be gay. Sure, they can choose not to pursue their sexuality, but that doesn’t mean they are choosing one sexual orientation over the other. Maybe you are confusing homosexuals with bisexuals, who actually have a choice?
 
Jchapel

What?! No.* Sadomasochism is developed strictly through environmental factors and life experience.** Homosexuality, on the other hand, is at least partially determined by genetics at birth.*

How do you know for a fact that homosexuality is not also produced by environmental factors and life experience?

Are you Catholic or not? Homosexual acts are condemned in the Bible and by the Church as sinful. Are you Catholic or not? Homosexual acts, to be sinful, must be the result of free will. What witless person is teaching you Catholic morals? :confused:

Before you continue this dialogue, you need to read up on homosexual acts in your catechism. You also need to know that whatever disposition people have toward homosexuality can be corrected if the person chooses to undergo therapy and spiritual counseling. The failure to make such a choice is another kind of choice … the choice not to resist those homosexual tendencies. That is a bad choice. :rolleyes:
 
Charlemagne_II said:
Jchapel

What?! No.* Sadomasochism is developed strictly through environmental factors and life experience.*** Homosexuality, on the other hand, is at least partially determined by genetics at birth.

How do you know for a fact that homosexuality is not also produced by environmental factors and life experience?

Are you Catholic or not? Homosexual acts are condemned in the Bible and by the Church as sinful. Are you Catholic or not? Homosexual acts, to be sinful, must be the result of free will. What witless person is teaching you Catholic morals? :confused:

Before you continue this dialogue, you need to read up on homosexual acts in your catechism. You also need to know that whatever disposition people have toward homosexuality can be corrected if the person chooses to undergo therapy and spiritual counseling. The failure to make such a choice is another kind of choice … the choice not to resist those homosexual tendencies. That is a bad choice. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Yes, I’m Catholic. Yes, I know the Churches position regarding homosexuals as per the Catechism.

I’m a firm believer in the separation of church and state. In no way do I approve of homosexuals exercising their sexuality, but at the same time, I believe that we shouldn’t discriminate against them because of it.

I’m all for repealing DADT, because I see no point in denying these people the opportunity of military service just because of one aspect in their private lives. Things get tricky, though, when you get into the issue of adoption. Some might argue that it legitimizes homosexual marriage. Unfortunately, perhaps it does. But at the same token, some homosexuals may choose to remain single (in which case would make this outright discrimination), and some still might enter relationships no matter the church’s position. This likely leaves three options: either tighten the reigns in regards to who can adopt (homosexual couples, the recently divorced…), give these people the right to adopt, solely for the benefit of the child or do nothing (in which case we’d be discriminating against homosexual couples, because they’d be the only unfit adoptive parents denied adoption rights). Of course, the first option appears the most appealing.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
You also need to know that whatever disposition people have toward homosexuality can be corrected if the person chooses to undergo therapy and spiritual counseling.
Click to expand...
It’s that kind of attitude that turns so many homosexuals off of the Catholic church. Have you seen the statistics regarding the success and attrition rates of “conversion therapy”? The percentage of complications that result?
 
JChapel said:
Indeed. This forum sure has a lot of topics on homosexuality, and I find that I’ve been repeating myself a lot. 😛
Click to expand...
Its hard to keep up. Seems like sometimes in a thread ill post my response, then before you know it, it has pages of responses added onto it. 😛
 
JChapel
*
I’m all for repealing DADT, because I see no point in denying these people the opportunity of military service just because of one aspect in their private lives. Things get tricky, though, when you get into the issue of adoption. Some might argue that it legitimizes homosexual marriage. Unfortunately, perhaps it does. But at the same token, some homosexuals may choose to remain single (in which case would make this outright discrimination), and some still might enter relationships no matter the church’s position. This likely leaves three options: either tighten the reigns in regards to who can adopt (homosexual couples, the recently divorced…), give these people the right to adopt, solely for the benefit of the child or do nothing (in which case we’d be discriminating against homosexual couples, because they’d be the only unfit adoptive parents denied adoption rights). Of course, the first option appears the most appealing. *

Your whole focus here is on the rights of homosexual couples to adopt. You do not focus at all on the right of children not to be adopted by sexual perverts. This is not at all the way a Catholic should think.

*It’s that kind of attitude that turns so many homosexuals off of the Catholic church. Have you seen the statistics regarding the success and attrition rates of “conversion therapy”? The percentage of complications that result? *

It’s your kind of thinking that turns me off, because you conveniently ignore the stats on alcoholism, promiscuity, drug abuse, and AIDS that is attributed to homosexual behavior. And you seem to be entirely oblivious to the fact that a boy growing up with two men who go to bed in the next room every night is hardly a role model for the developing of heterosexual personality.

Why are you so keen on homosexual couples adopting children? You won’t find many children who would be so keen on being adopted by homosexual couples if they could get out of it knowing full well what they are up against.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
It’s your kind of thinking that turns me off, because you conveniently ignore the stats on alcoholism, promiscuity, drug abuse, and AIDS that is attributed to homosexual behavior.
Click to expand...
Those issues are attributed to your stereotype of homosexual behavior. By all means, if you have stats, provide them.
And you seem to be entirely oblivious to the fact that a boy growing up with two men who go to bed in the next room every night is hardly a role model for the developing of heterosexual personality.
Click to expand...
I didn’t argue against that. What I’m arguing is that some orphanages, even today, are so bad for children that they’d be better off in any home, no matter how unfit the parents.
Why are you so keen on homosexual couples adopting children? You won’t find many children who would be so keen on being adopted by homosexual couples if they could get out of it knowing full well what they are up against.
Click to expand...
Because 80%+ of the homosexuals I’ve met are not perverts and seem to be pretty normal people. While I’ll admit that homosexuals that choose to be sexually active in front of their children would be terrible role models for a child’s developing sexuality, homosexuals that choose to keep those things behind closed doors might not be that detrimental, either (take for example, my heterosexual parents never so much as hugged in front of me when I was growing up, and I seemed to turn out fine).
 
Charlemagne_II said:
Jchapel

What?! No.* Sadomasochism is developed strictly through environmental factors and life experience.*** Homosexuality, on the other hand, is at least partially determined by genetics at birth.

How do you know for a fact that homosexuality is not also produced by environmental factors and life experience?

Are you Catholic or not? Homosexual acts are condemned in the Bible and by the Church as sinful. Are you Catholic or not? Homosexual acts, to be sinful, must be the result of free will. What witless person is teaching you Catholic morals? :confused:

Before you continue this dialogue, you need to read up on homosexual acts in your catechism. You also need to know that whatever disposition people have toward homosexuality can be corrected if the person chooses to undergo therapy and spiritual counseling. The failure to make such a choice is another kind of choice … the choice not to resist those homosexual tendencies. That is a bad choice. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
The Church only requires chastity for the homosexual person. That one change their orientation is not required by the Church.

Maybe you’re not distinguishing between the inclination or the act? Both are terrible and evil in and of themselves (one being objectively disordered and the other being intrinsically disordered and grave depravity) but only one is imputed to the homosexual person as sin, namely the act. That doesn’t help the problems faced by a person accursed with same-sex attractions, though.

Those who wish to overcome their same-sex attractions have a very difficult path. I’m on it myself. It’s a very painful journey that is often filled with long, dark periods of despair and hopelessness that one will ever be normal or that maybe it’s too late for any change to take place or be of benefit (this is where I am).

Those who don’t wish to overcome their same-sex attractions or find that they cannot are stuck with a life of un-sanctified loneliness forever. But, LCMS, you say, one can offer up their single life to God as a sacrifice and gain merit from it. Okay, yes, one can do so, but does it really gain merit or is it merely obedience? Homosexual persons have no choice but the the single life.
 
“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.”
John Kenneth Galbraith

And the modern liberal is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in morality; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for seizing one man’s hard earned money and giving it to others … whether they need it or not. 😃

The Church only requires chastity for the homosexual person. That one change their orientation is not required by the Church.

No, it isn’t required. But I think the Church would applaud the effort and be willing to do anything it can to support the effort to alter one’s orientation.
 
You guys are challenging some guy on an internet forum. Thats ridiculous. If you want to make any change in this world your voice needs to be heard by millions of people. I don’t care how you will try to persuade people that homosexuality is wrong. It will never go away, and it will be legalized in all states someday. I don’t know if you noticed but now that its 2010 we’re more accepting (well, most of us) on what adults want to do in their life. Is it really your business? No, its not. Whatever happens between two CONSENTING adults is their business. And if what they do in the bedroom actually affects you, then you are the one with the problem. But back to my main point, trying to persuade people on here that its wrong isn’t going to get you anywhere. If you want to stop homosexuality then go out and deal with them yourselves. Good luck though, because you won’t change anything.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top