Same sex attraction

[JChapel]

You have obviously not read abut Catholic aoption agencies closing their doors instead of agreeing to be forced to allow homosexuals to adopt children:

I could understand homosexual couples posing a problem when it comes to adoption, but what makes any given homosexual single person any worse than a heterosexual single person as a candidate to adopt?

I don’t know, maybe the homosexuals I’ve met were in the minority, being decent people and nothing like the stereotypes.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

JChapel

I could understand homosexual couples posing a problem when it comes to adoption, but what makes any given homosexual single person any worse than a heterosexual single person as a candidate to adopt?

Why doesn’t every heterosexual child have a right to be reared in a heterosexual household?

Again, you are obsessed with the rights of homosexuals rather than with the rights of heterosexual children.

 

[Betterave]

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.

What do you mean, “you won’t change anything”? Every little thing each of us does (or does not do) changes something, including this dumb post you posted (sorry, but I’m just being honest). Can you see that?

 

[Betterave]

Would you then be against adopting a child out to an individual (someone not currently in a relationship)?

Yes (prima facie).

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)?

Quite possibly, though certainly not in all cases. There are orphanages and there are orphanages. I think we tend to think Oliver Twist when we hear the word ‘orphanage.’ But that’s not really fair to orphanages as such.

 

[Betterave]

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?

I don’t think there are hard and fast rules, other than to be concerned for the welfare of the child. What makes homosexuals unfit, as a rule, is simply that they are not in a position to provide a child with a mother and a father as his or her primary care givers. Other than that I think that in general children have a right to have their genetic (and yes, genetically each one come from a mother and a father), ethnic, and cultural heritage reflected in their primary care givers as much as possible given the circumstances, whatever those might be.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Betterave

Other than that I think that in general children have a right to have their genetic (and yes, genetically each one come from a mother and a father), ethnic, and cultural heritage reflected in their primary care givers as much as possible given the circumstances, whatever those might be.

I wonder if this logic will ever sink in with the pro-homosexual faction. Homosexuals have already decided they are disgusted at the thought of having children of their own. So why are they so eager to get their hands on somebody’s else’s child? Why are they so eager to rear a heterosexual child in a homosexual milieu? Why do they think that would be just great for a heterosexual child? Beats me!

 

[Betterave]

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).

With no matter what human being, taken individually, I always find reasons for concluding that sorrow and misfortune do not suit him; either because he seems too mediocre for anything so great, or, on the contrary, too precious to be destroyed.
Simone Weil

Sometimes sorrow and despair are signs of life, signs that you haven’t given up, that you haven’t killed your own soul. When you’re stuck in sin and it stops hurting, that’s the time to worry. I humbly submit that you try to remember that, and remember that you’re too precious to be destroyed, and this is true precisely in the midst of your sorrow, which is a sign of your nobility and your calling.

I couldn’t find it, but I think Simone Weil also once said something like: saying you can’t have a fulfilling life without a sex life is like saying you can’t have a fulfilling life without tennis.

Also, if you’re not familiar, a good blog: johnheard.blogspot.com/

 

[Betterave]

Betterave

Other than that I think that in general children have a right to have their genetic (and yes, genetically each one come from a mother and a father), ethnic, and cultural heritage reflected in their primary care givers as much as possible given the circumstances, whatever those might be.

I wonder if this logic will ever sink in with the pro-homosexual faction. Homosexuals have already decided they are disgusted at the thought of having children of their own.

I’m sure that’s not fair or compassionate to homosexuals.

So why are they so eager to get their hands on somebody’s else’s child? Why are they so eager to rear a heterosexual child in a homosexual milieu? Why do they think that would be just great for a heterosexual child? Beats me!

When you are living a lie, you lie to yourself. It’s pretty simple. But we have to be very careful not to attribute malice where none may be present. There’s no reason to think that homo couples are not genuinely convinced that their embrace of homosexuality is not perfectly legitimate and that they sincerely want to do their best for their adopted children. Never forget that many people have bad relationships with their parents so that they grow up to believe that children don’t need relationships with mom and dad - they might well wish they’d never had to deal with mom or dad or both, so having a mom and a dad must not, in itself, be important for children. They’re wrong, but their error is understandable and we still need to have compassion for them.

 

[JChapel]

Prejudice, prejudice, prejudice. This is why I choose to defend homosexuals. They are one of several groups who are actively persecuted, misrepresented and misunderstood by a substantial portion of The Church.

I wonder if this logic will ever sink in with the pro-homosexual faction.

So you are labeling anyone who supports homosexuals in any way, whether they are against said relationships or not, as part of a “faction”?!

Homosexuals have already decided they are disgusted at the thought of having children of their own.

Hypothetically speaking, let’s say that homosexuals were instead given the right by God to reproduce, and heterosexuals were called to lives of chastity for their infertile “disordered” behavior. Would you, as presumably a heterosexual, engage in homosexual intercourse to bear children? I think not.

So why are they so eager to get their hands on somebody’s else’s child?

Perhaps because they feel called to be parents. Why does anyone adopt?

Why doesn’t every heterosexual child have a right to be reared in a heterosexual household?

Again, you are obsessed with the rights of homosexuals rather than with the rights of heterosexual children.

This is what really irked me into posting. Apparently, there is some massive difference between a homosexual single person and a heterosexual single person adopting a child. This is assuming both stay single, which is, admittedly, a bit of a stretch. So there might be a case for refusing adoptions to the majority of homosexual singles and couples. That said, I’d really be interested in getting my hands on some longitudinal research as to how well-adjusted these children who are adopted by homosexuals turn out to be.

 

[BlueShadow123]

What do you mean, “you won’t change anything”? Every little thing each of us does (or does not do) changes something, including this dumb post you posted (sorry, but I’m just being honest). Can you see that?

Thats okay if you think my post is dumb. You have a right to your opinion. But by challenging some guy on an internet forum, you are not going to change ANYTHING in relation to gays being gay or what their rights are and should be.

So before you get snippy with me again, I suggest you think about I said. Thanks.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

JChapel

*So you are labeling anyone who supports homosexuals in any way, whether they are against said relationships or not, as part of a “faction”?! *

Yes, a faction. What else would you call it? I don’t support homosexuals in their life style, and neither does the Church. That doesn’t mean I wish harm to come to them, or that the Church does not understand their tribulation. However, neither I nor the Church will ever support their right to rear heterosexual children, and I think anybody who does support that right is either naive to the nth degree, or crazy, or perverse.

Sorry if that offends you, but I am too old to be a patsy for political correctness inside or outside the Church. Political correctness has given physicians who are supposed to save lives the right to murder 40 million children in the womb. And now political correctness wants to turn the children who did escape being murdered over to sexual perverts as their primary caretakers?

For God’s sake, have we all gone mad?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Betterave

I’m sure that’s not fair or compassionate to homosexuals.

Since it is true, there is no need to call it unfair or without compassion. Do you know a gay person who looks forward to having sex and his own child with a woman?

 

[JChapel]

Betterave

I’m sure that’s not fair or compassionate to homosexuals.

Since it is true, there is no need to call it unfair or without compassion. Do you know a gay person who looks forward to having sex and his own child with a woman?

To understand exactly what you’re saying, perhaps you should respond to this:

Hypothetically speaking, let’s say that homosexuals were instead given the right by God to reproduce, and heterosexuals were called to lives of chastity for their infertile “disordered” behavior. Would you, as presumably a heterosexual, engage in homosexual intercourse to bear children? I think not.

That’s how homosexuals feel about engaging in heterosexual intercourse, or at least my best guess from what I’ve heard.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

JChapel

Prejudice, prejudice, prejudice. This is why I choose to defend homosexuals. They are one of several groups who are actively persecuted, misrepresented and misunderstood by a substantial portion of The Church.

Are you conflating homosexuals with the homosexual act? Homosexuals as human beings ought to be defended from persecution, but surely you don’t defend the homosexual act? Misrepresented and misunderstood? Have you never read Moses, Paul, and Jesus on the subject of Sodom and Gomorrha?

 

[JChapel]

JChapel

Prejudice, prejudice, prejudice. This is why I choose to defend homosexuals. They are one of several groups who are actively persecuted, misrepresented and misunderstood by a substantial portion of The Church.

Are you conflating homosexuals with the homosexual act? Homosexuals as human beings ought to be defended from persecution, but surely you don’t defend the homosexual act? Misrepresented and misunderstood? Have you never read Moses, Paul, and Jesus on the subject of Sodom and Gomorrha?

No, I’m referring to homosexuals as people. Maybe you don’t realize it, but much of what your saying sounds very discriminatory. What I’m saying is that, in some cases, homosexuals are treated like some breed of sub-humans unfit for God, human rights (hence why any support for homosexuals is so quickly shot down) or their dignity unless they throw away their identities and “convert” to heterosexuality. Maybe I’m misinterpreting, but that’s the blaring message that I’m hearing from these kinds of threads.

 

[JChapel]

Granted, I’m not some covert operative dispatched to spread the “homosexual agenda” either. I’ve seen some gay people who really do fit the stereotypes, and some who are very much against organized religion and unwilling to cooperate. Every group tends to have their black sheep, I guess. What I’ve been trying to get at all along is that, because homosexuals have to deny their very nature if they are to be accepted by the Catholic church, the least we can do is treat them like normal people and not discriminate against them.

 

[Edward_H]

I am not trying to be confrontational here.

I just don’t know what SSA is, really. We’re discussing it here as if it’s a real thing. And I don’t think it’s been decided medically or philosophically or psychologically.

To consider it as a decided / fixed orientation, it begs us to look at other attractions and to examine the differences. Here I am thinking of bestiality, pedophilia, bi-sexuality, various fetishes. How do so called sexual attractions differ from other sensual based attractions, such as music, art, foods, wines. How do all of these sensual attractions differ from intellectual attractions, and from vocational attractions, and recreational attractions.

Again, I am not being confrontational. I am just wondering if the case of SSA has been sufficiently differentiated from other somewhat stable biases and tendencies.

Being attracted to opposite sexes seems more parsimonious with God’s overall plan for creation - the complementarity point and so forth.

And of course this whole topic is so loaded and layered with emotions, “opinions,” and defensiveness, and of course lack of charity. All this clouds a more sincere pursuit of truth. Emotions especially muddy the water.

I don’t think the debate is a real debate and I think there are more fundamental points that haven’t even been answered about what human attraction even is.

So claiming that it is something, without being able to differentiate it cleanly is not helpful.

 

[JChapel]

And of course this whole topic is so loaded and layered with emotions, “opinions,” and defensiveness, and of course lack of charity. All this clouds a more sincere pursuit of truth. Emotions especially muddy the water.

Agreed.

To consider it as a decided / fixed orientation, it begs us to look at other attractions and to examine the differences. Here I am thinking of bestiality, pedophilia, bi-sexuality, various fetishes. How do so called sexual attractions differ from other sensual based attractions, such as music, art, foods, wines. How do all of these sensual attractions differ from intellectual attractions, and from vocational attractions, and recreational attractions.

…and for that, I suppose some research is in order.

 

[Edward_H]

Agreed.

…and for that, I suppose some research is in order.

Well, pointers to “research” I suppose is a nanostep.

Even there is this interesting statement: “Each person determines the qualities that they find attractive, which vary from person to person.”

And this reminds me of an example I should have posted above which is to my point: Take sexual attractions across sexes, some like blondes, some like tall, some like intellectual, some like interracial, some like married, and so forth.

It’s hard to come up with an economical explanation for such variation that’s tied to some sort of fixed, hard wired biological switch.

 

[Sonoran_Son]

Yes (prima facie).

Quite possibly, though certainly not in all cases. There are orphanages and there are orphanages. I think we tend to think Oliver Twist when we hear the word ‘orphanage.’ But that’s not really fair to orphanages as such.

But if we are considering the presence of parental roles in a child’s life as our criteria, it should follow that having one parental role filled is preferred to having no parental role filled. Thus the orphanage would be the worst case scenario out of three possible scenarios going by the criteria of parental role.