Same sex attraction

[Seeker2010]

No matter how much you try, the stats do not paint a pretty picture, Seeker.

Yes, the stats are the stats. 700 people die every year from anal cancer. 18,000 die every year from AIDS. Even if you assume that 100% of the above are gay men, it’s still barely a blip compared with the actual number of gay men. 2.4/100,000 in the case of AIDS, 0.1/100,000 for anal cancer. That’s fewer than 1 in 1,000,000, and that’s trimming it down to measuring only gay men, and assuming all cases of anal cancer are gay men, when we know that 60% are actually women, so the reality is it’s less than half of that.

Regardless, the CDC estimates that 440,000 people die annually due to smoking. That’s 20x the number of deaths from AIDS and anal cancer combined, and despite the fact that I see thread after thread after thread after thread on this board railing against homosexuality, cursing the health affects, and judging the participants, in my entire time here at CAF I haven’t yet seen even a single anti-smoking thread.

It kills 20 times more people than male homosexuality, but not one peep is said about it.

Wonder why that is?

How you wish. But don’t hold your breath.

Can you seriously tell me with a straight fact you don’t think I’m right?? When my grandfather was my age, homosexuals just stayed in the closet, lest they risk losing everything they had due to discrimination. When my father was my age, it was more socially acceptable to live as openly homosexual, but it was still marginal and ideas such as gay marriage were considered so ridiculous that they weren’t even up for discussion. Today, most homosexuals live totally openly with few consequences, and ideas like gay marriage, while still controversial, are being openly debated. It’s only a matter of time before same sex marriage is the law of the land, and if SCOTUS affirms the California Court, it may be sooner than any of us expect.

For what it’s worth, my analysis wouldn’t be any different were I opposed to it. My reaction might, but not my analysis.

In your rabid defense of same sex acts, you minimize behavior that could have been curbed, as though men are only ruled by libido.

And in your (collective, not you you) obsession about stomping out homosexuality, you’ve missed a behavior that is 20 times as destructive, and probably practiced by a fair number of catholics.

And you blame God for men in their exercise of free will by acting on a disordered sexual urge!

No, I blame god for designing homo sapiens in such a way that some of us experience attraction to members of their own gender. It is an inherent trait of the species, either intentionally designed into it, or at the very least was a result of natural evolution and allowed to remain.

 

[Betterave]

You were being rude, and I pointed it out. Because your ‘tactic’ of debating by calling others names, is no way to debate successfully.

You’re just ignoring what I said again. That’s stupid and rude. It just is. I’m not debating this. A debate would require that you attempt to respond to the substance of my claims. You refuse to do this, so I’m just pointing it out (again).

 

[Betterave]

You say masturbation (or whatever, it’s merely an example) is evil, which is laughable, but nonetheless by masturbating people are choosing damnation, I say that’s wrong.

Seeker,
We’ve discussed this at length and it was very clear that when push came to shove you didn’t understand this issue and that you have no good reasons grounding your moral evaluation of masturbation. Now you’re just back to repeating the same misinformed dogmas which you hold so dear, even though the unreasonableness of your misinformed dogmas has been clearly explained to you. May I suggest that whatever else God may punish you for, your hatred of the truth and your obstinate insistence on refusing to acknowledge the truth and in promoting lies, even when those lies have been clearly refuted, is certainly very likely to be deserving of punishment. We believe that ignorance that an act is evil can neutralize the sinfulness of that act, but that the ignorance itself can be the result of evil choices and dispositions and so can be deserving of punishment. And that clearly makes sense, doesn’t it? I also think this clearly applies to your evident misology here. Maybe you should seriously think about that.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Seeker

Can you seriously tell me with a straight fact you don’t think I’m right?? When my grandfather was my age, homosexuals just stayed in the closet, lest they risk losing everything they had due to discrimination. When my father was my age, it was more socially acceptable to live as openly homosexual, but it was still marginal and ideas such as gay marriage were considered so ridiculous that they weren’t even up for discussion. Today, most homosexuals live totally openly with few consequences, and ideas like gay marriage, while still controversial, are being openly debated. It’s only a matter of time before same sex marriage is the law of the land, and if SCOTUS affirms the California Court, it may be sooner than any of us expect.

I would be too quick to congratulate the sodomites on their moral victory.

History has a way of reversing course when disaster looms ahead.

 

[Seeker2010]

History has a way of reversing course when disaster looms ahead.

So are you saying you are in favor of returning to the days when homosexuals were openly discriminated against?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Seeker

*So are you saying you are in favor of returning to the days when homosexuals were openly discriminated against? *

I’m looking forward to the day when sodomites are no longer congratulated for their unnatural behavior. I’m also looking forward to the day when sodomy and AIDS goes into such radical decline that gay men and women will truly have something to celebrate. But I don’t expect such a phenomenon because homosexuality is an intrinsically disordered condition, and even if the physical damages are curtailed, the psychological and moral ones remain.

There is a profoundly important reason that homosexuality never has and never will be universally accepted and condoned as you contend it one day will. No doubt as late as the third century A.D. the pagan Romans thought sodomy, gladiatorial combat to the death, and regular visits to the vomitorium would always be accepted and condoned. They didn’t count on the rise of Christianity.

You would be ill advised to count on the demise of Christianity and a New Age of barbarian savagery.

 

[Seeker2010]

I’m looking forward to the day when sodomites are no longer congratulated for their unnatural behavior.

So am I to assume you are ok with lesbianism, given the fact that not only do lesbians not commit sodomy (as you are using the term) but indeed are physically incapable of it?

There is a profoundly important reason that homosexuality never has and never will be universally accepted and condoned as you contend it one day will.

You are right. Bigotry. Rooted in theology.

You would be ill advised to count on the demise of Christianity and a New Age of barbarian savagery.

I don’t know that we’ll see the demise of christianity or any other religion, but you’re deluding yourself if you don’t see that religion as a whole is in decline. As for the ultimate fate of homosexuality in our society, I stand behind my previous predictions.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Seeker

You are right. Bigotry. Rooted in theology.

Plato and Aristotle were not Christian theologians. They weren’t Jewish theologians either. They were natural law advocates, and they found sodomy to be shameful and unnatural. So has every other civilization, Christian or not. And believe it or not, even some atheists know it is unnatural and shameful.

So am I to assume you are ok with lesbianism, given the fact that not only do lesbians not commit sodomy (as you are using the term) but indeed are physically incapable of it?

They bring each other to orgasm, sometimes even by using a substitute for the male organ. That’s unnatural, shameful, and rooted in dislike for the male sex organ unless it is an artificial one. How is that natural? Lesbianism is rooted in hatred of the male, whereas male sodomy is rooted in hatred of the female. How is either of those conditions natural? Please explain in detail.

*I don’t know that we’ll see the demise of christianity or any other religion, but you’re deluding yourself if you don’t see that religion as a whole is in decline. As for the ultimate fate of homosexuality in our society, I stand behind my previous predictions. *

Any competent historian will be glad to explain to you that the rise of religion is associated with maintaining social order, whereas the rise of atheism is associated with social disorder. We are seeing social disorder on the rise in the West, just as Christianity is in decline. But the pendulum swings both ways. It will swing back toward Christianity when it has had its fill of atheism and moral disorder. Ask the people in Russia and Poland, where Christianity has been given a resurgence by the fall of atheistic communism. Christianity has survived 2,000 years of onslaughts. Official atheism perished in Russia, where it had a strangle hold, in just 70 years.

Sixty years there were no Catholic on the Supreme Court. Today there are six out of nine, with three Jews, no Protestants, and no atheists. Pendulum effect.

 

[Seeker2010]

They were natural law advocates, and they found sodomy to be shameful and unnatural.

The ‘Natural Law’ argument relies upon the assumption that recreational sex (i.e. sex that is for fun only and not for making babies) is unnatural. Seems to me that’s not the case.

They bring each other to orgasm, sometimes even by using a substitute for the male organ. That’s unnatural, shameful, and rooted in dislike for the male sex organ unless it is an artificial one. How is that natural?

Define natural. BTW, some women are only part-time lesbians, as they have no such dislike of the male sex organ. They’re called bisexuals, and there’s a lot of them. In fact, I read somewhere that only 20% of women who have sex with women never have sex with men.

Sixty years there were no Catholic on the Supreme Court. Today there are six out of nine, with three Jews, no Protestants, and no atheists. Pendulum effect.

And those same judges (at least most of them) are the ones who found sodomy to be a constitutional right. Good thing, too, for if they used their faith to render judgment on secular laws, they’re not fit for the office they hold.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

*And those same judges (at least most of them) are the ones who found sodomy to be a constitutional right. Good thing, too, for if they used their faith to render judgment on secular laws, they’re not fit for the office they hold. *

So you’re telling us that 6 Catholics and three Jews will uphold sodomite marriages between members of the same sex? And that without using their faith, they could not possibly find other reasons rooted in natural law and common sense to rule against gay marriage?

Define natural. BTW, some women are only part-time lesbians, as they have no such dislike of the male sex organ. They’re called bisexuals, and there’s a lot of them. In fact, I read somewhere that only 20% of women who have sex with women never have sex with men.

Your answer is not relative to my point. Since bisexuals are all over the place, let’s leave them aside for the moment. Please explain why strict lesbians do not want to have sex with men, and why men who are strictly homosexual do not want to have sex with women. You may want to cite your source if you are going to use biology. If you are not going to use biology, you still need to use a source, as I know for a fact (by the way you cavalierly use statistics) that you are definitely not an authority on the subject.

 

[Seeker2010]

*So you’re telling us that 6 Catholics and three Jews will uphold sodomite marriages between members of the same sex? *

They very well might. I think it’s going to go 5-4 one way or the other with Kennedy the swing vote.
Charlemagne II;7322985:

Please explain why strict lesbians do not want to have sex with men, and why men who are strictly homosexual do not want to have sex with women.

For the exact same reason I do not want to have sex with men. They are not sexually attractive to me. It’s really just that simple.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Yes, the stats are the stats. …

Regardless, the CDC estimates that 440,000 people die annually due to smoking. That’s 20x the number of deaths from AIDS and anal cancer combined, and despite the fact that I see thread after thread after thread after thread on this board railing against homosexuality, cursing the health affects, and judging the participants, in my entire time here at CAF I haven’t yet seen even a single anti-smoking thread.

It kills 20 times more people than male homosexuality, but not one peep is said about it.

No question that smoking is an unhealthy habit, placing additional risk to each individual with heart and other cancerous conditions. As the Church and priests as Fr. Corapi admonish, smoking falls under the 4th commandment as it is an act / habit that does not value life.

I think the forum does not have too many threads on smoking (I remember coming across a few) because people are in general agreement that it is bad. There is no debate about the harms of smoking; there is much debate about active homosexual behavior in many levels. You are not surprised about this, are you?

It is good that you brought up the comparison between smoking and anal sex. Both carry serious health risk —> cancer. Both are addictions that chain the person to pool health and medical risks.

About the stats, smoking necessarily would have more incidents because smokers cut across ages, both genders, all races, cutting across a bigger segment of the population. The majority does not ascribe to the practice of homosexuality, although homosexuals, in the minority, just make it a point to be heard and seen all the time.

*I see thread after thread after thread after thread on this board railing against homosexuality, cursing the health affects, and judging the participants, in my entire time here at CAF *

And in every thread you make yourself present as if you can change Church teaching against homosexual behavior. Tell me, do you also make yourself present in Mormon and Muslim sites? Or are you just picking on Catholic forums to straighten Catholics out?

Can you seriously tell me with a straight fact you don’t think I’m right?? When my grandfather was my age, homosexuals just stayed in the closet, lest they risk losing everything they had due to discrimination. When my father was my age, it was more socially acceptable to live as openly homosexual, but it was still marginal and ideas such as gay marriage were considered so ridiculous that they weren’t even up for discussion. Today, most homosexuals live totally openly with few consequences, and ideas like gay marriage, while still controversial, are being openly debated. It’s only a matter of time before same sex marriage is the law of the land, and if SCOTUS affirms the California Court, it may be sooner than any of us expect.

For what it’s worth, my analysis wouldn’t be any different were I opposed to it. My reaction might, but not my analysis.

With a strong homosexual agenda and secular cheerleaders like you, who does not notice the progression of what goes against the wish of most that same sex marriage does not get legalized.

It may come down to further polarization of opposing positions. Just seeing the results of the mid-term elections, I am glad to see the rise of conservatism. Those of us on this side can just prepare for the worst but hope (and pray) for the best (along with conservative political / religious activism). I would not count on a victory just yet, if I were you.

…
And in your (collective, not you you) obsession about stomping out homosexuality, you’ve missed a behavior that is 20 times as destructive, and probably practiced by a fair number of catholics.

No, I blame god for designing homo sapiens in such a way that some of us experience attraction to members of their own gender. It is an inherent trait of the species, either intentionally designed into it, or at the very least was a result of natural evolution and allowed to remain.

Do you see Catholics breaking down the doors where homosexuals live or preaching thus? Homosexuals are free in this country to live the lifestyle they want, they have rights, but want super rights (the militant ones).

Your repetition that “god” intentionally designed homo sapiens, some with SSA, is futile. You are in a Catholic forum, so you just have to agree we do not agree with your proclamations here. The fact that some self-ascribed Catholics in the forum align themselves in the position on homosexuality or may be practicing homosexuals does not change Church teaching, to which faithful Catholics adhere.

. . . . . .

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Seeker

*For the exact same reason I do not want to have sex with men. They are not sexually attractive to me. It’s really just that simple. *

No, it isn’t really just that simple.

When you desire the opposite of what most people desire, there is a reason other than just desiring it. There is something that spurs us toward something, and something that spurs us away from something. Your answer … desire … is no answer at all.

But I don’t blame you for the dodge.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

…
It might. Don’t misunderstand me, I’m not championing incest, the very idea skeeves me out, but just because I think something is skeevey is not a good enough reason for me to insist other people don’t do it. For that matter, the idea of male-male sex skeeves me out, but that doesn’t matter.
…

Okay, you do not personally engage in homosexual relations (which “skeeves” you out), but you are vociferously for homosexual ‘marriage’.

Further, you find incest “skeevy” (I do not find this word used by anyone but you but I get by context that you mean this as “icky”?) as well. But, if two consenting family members carry on sexual relations and make sure that no baby is conceived , rendering said acts victimless, you might be for incest as well. Because nobody is really harmed and it’s business between consenting adults. You would probably be okay if laws against incest be stricken down as with sodomy laws by Lawrence v Texas.

Yep, we can see what kind of society you want for this great country of ours. No absolutes, just absolute licentiousness. No, thank you, sir.

. . . . .

 

[Seeker2010]

As the Church and priests as Fr. Corapi admonish, smoking falls under the 4th commandment as it is an act / habit that does not value life.

But I’ve seen, with my own eyes, priests smoking! And if the catholic church wants to ban pornography and criminalize sodomy, why are they not actively pursuing the criminalization of smoking?

I think the forum does not have too many threads on smoking (I remember coming across a few) because people are in general agreement that it is bad.

OK, fair enough, but my guess is the amount of smokers here is probably very close to the general population. In fairness, that’s rank speculation, but I suspect it’s not far from the truth. But, at the risk of being redundant, my question is not why people here are not debating is smoking bad, my question is why you’re not calling for it to be banned.

(For the record, I don’t think it should be banned, as if people want to harm themselves they should have that right.)

It is good that you brought up the comparison between smoking and anal sex. Both carry serious health risk —> cancer. Both are addictions that chain the person to pool health and medical risks.

Anal sex as an addiction? I think not. But the point with the cancer risk is that it’s extremely small. Only 700 people die per year from it, and 90% of those stem from HPV. As HPV will be completely wiped out within a generation or two, spending your time worrying about anal cancer is a waste. In the future, more people will die from bee stings than from anal cancer.

AIDS is still an issue, but just in the past few weeks a new drug with very promising results hit the market. I suspect we’re not that far away from AIDS no longer being considered the death sentence it once was. For that matter, it’s not today the death sentence it once was, Magic Johnson announced his HIV+ status almost 20 years ago. While I have no idea what his health is like today, I’m fairly certain I would have heard about it had he died, of AIDS or anything else.

But my overall point is that you guys use AIDS and other diseases as a good reason to denounce (if not ban) homosexual behavior. While it’s true that male on male sex is the riskiest form that humans can partake in, it’s not even as risky as I thought prior to actual research. I would have guessed that 30-40% of homosexual men, if not more, are dealing with these debilitating diseases, and that just doesn’t seem to be the case. Sometimes, hearing anti-homosexual advocates rant about, I would have thought it was 90%.

About the stats, smoking necessarily would have more incidents because smokers cut across ages, both genders, all races, cutting across a bigger segment of the population.

It’s not about number of incidents it’s about rates. Annually smoking kills 0.14% of the US Population, while AIDS (assuming all AIDS deaths are gay men and 5% of men are gay) kills 0.24% of the gay male population.

Tell me, do you also make yourself present in Mormon and Muslim sites? Or are you just picking on Catholic forums to straighten Catholics out?

My participation here was accidental. A random google search back when brought me here, and I was curious so I kept coming back. I never intended to even be a poster, until someone said something that I perceived as so completely over the top that I had to reply. I suppose I keep coming back because I enjoy a good debate.

I do participate in other internet forums, political and spiritual. This is the only denomination specific one that I follow.

It may come down to further polarization of opposing positions. Just seeing the results of the mid-term elections, I am glad to see the rise of conservatism. Those of us on this side can just prepare for the worst but hope (and pray) for the best (along with conservative political / religious activism). I would not count on a victory just yet, if I were you.

100 years ago, had you polled the American public on gay marriage, 90% (or likely more) would have said not just no, but hell no. 50 years ago, probably 85% would have said the same thing. Today, it’s what 55/45 no? (BTW, I’ll full admit what I’m saying about 50 and 100 years ago is presumptive on my part, but I doubt you’d disagree.)

But demographics are not working in your favor. Every time an elderly voter dies, chances are that’s taking a ‘No’ vote away, and every time a young voter joins the rolls, chances are that’s adding a ‘Yes’ vote. It’s not 100% in either case, but it doesn’t have to be. Demographics are working against you on this issue, and that’s got nothing to do with my opinion, that’s a simple fact.

Homosexuals are free in this country to live the lifestyle they want, they have rights, but want super rights (the militant ones).

I don’t call the right to wed the spouse of your choosing as a ‘super-right’. If it is, I was not aware that I myself seem to have a ‘super right’. That’s good to know.

Your repetition that “god” intentionally designed homo sapiens, some with SSA, is futile.

Then refute it, sounds like that ought to be a walk in the park.

 

[Seeker2010]

Your answer … desire … is no answer at all.

Then what answer are you looking for? I am sexually attracted to women. When I see an attractive woman, I notice her. Last night I watched the Victoria’s Secret event on CBS, and enjoyed what I saw.

My wife, on the other hand, is sexually attracted to both genders, so she too watched it and enjoyed it.

Had it been Vick’s Secret, with a bunch of male models, while I can acknowledge male beauty when I see it, it does nothing for me, and a showcase of that would have bored me to tears. As my wife also is attracted to men, she on the other hand would likely have enjoyed it that way, too.

But neither of us made a choice. I never decided to be attracted to women, and she never decided to be attracted to both. We just are what we are. We desire what we desire.

(And before you suggest some trauma or abuse led her to be bisexual, she had a poor childhood, but a relatively normal one. She was never abused, neglected, or accosted. The closest thing she ever had to trauma was her mothers conversion and devotion to Jehovas Witness, but she was sexually mature by then, and consciously aware of her bisexuality. Her parents are still alive, still together, and they have a good relationship.)

 

[Seeker2010]

Because nobody is really harmed and it’s business between consenting adults. You would probably be okay if laws against incest be stricken down as with sodomy laws by Lawrence v Texas.

(Yes, ‘skeevy’ means ‘icky’.)

It’s called adhering to a principal. I believe that an action which causes no harm to others, or at least causes no undue risk of harm, ought to be allowed in a free society, no matter how skeevy myself or anyone else finds it.

With incest, you cannot create a blanket condition wherein all potential cases of incest are rendered sterile, unless I suppose a precondition to the coupling being said sterilization. I don’t like it, wouldn’t participate, and may just be judgmental enough that I wouldn’t associate with those who would, but it doesn’t harm me, nor anyone else, so I cannot object.

Which is the same reason despite the fact that I can’t stand the KKK or what they stand for, I nonetheless recognize they have, and should have, the absolute right to say what they say, for if their rights are selectively taken away, even for what appears on the surface to be a pretty good reason, someday mine will fall victim to someone else’s ‘good reason’.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Seeker

I never decided to be attracted to women, and she never decided to be attracted to both. We just are what we are. We desire what we desire.

Still dodging. Every effect has a cause. We don’t explain drug use or smoking or alcoholism by just saying it is a desire. We don’t explain chronic lying or obesity by just saying it is a desire. We don’t explain pedophilia or rape by just saying it is a desire. We don’t explain choosing art and philosophy and music as life occupations by just saying they are desired. We don’t explain choosing to live or choosing to die just by saying that each choice is a desire.

So why do men sexually desire other men rather than women? And why do women sexually desire other women rather than men?

Because they desire?

 

[Seeker2010]

Because they desire?

OK. Since clearly I have no idea what it is you’re looking for, and equally clearly you’re looking for a very specific answer before the conversation can resume, why don’t you just tell me and the rest of the class exactly what you mean.

If necessary, and if possible, I’ll refute it. Perhaps, I’ll agree with it.

I guess we’ll see.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Seeker

*Which is the same reason despite the fact that I can’t stand the KKK or what they stand for, I nonetheless recognize they have, and should have, the absolute right to say what they say, for if their rights are selectively taken away, even for what appears on the surface to be a pretty good reason, someday mine will fall victim to someone else’s ‘good reason’. *

Homosexuals have every right that heterosexuals have. None have been taken away. You can never take away what never was a right in the first place. Homosexuals never had the right to marry each other. In the history of the world they never even claimed that right. Not until now. No claim to a disordered relationship has to be honored by any state with a civil license. Would you give fathers and daughters a license to marry each other? Would you give mothers and sons a right to a marriage license?

If so, I see, as others have seen, what a savage state of affairs you and other libertines are preparing to create and defend. Before long, it will be the right of adults to have legal sex with children … “If not by eight, it’s too late.” (NAMBLA has already campaigned for that one). Then there will be licenses demanded for psychologically unhinged people to marry their pets. And the beat goes on … maybe marrying our furniture? After all, who can be harmed by such a marriage? And surely no-fault divorce with your furniture is a given.

OK. Since clearly I have no idea what it is you’re looking for, and equally clearly you’re looking for a very specific answer before the conversation can resume, why don’t you just tell me and the rest of the class exactly what you mean.

Nope. You can refuse to answer the question, or you can admit that you don’t have an answer. But you can’t make me give the answer that should be in your head … if you have no answer to give!

Seeker, keep seeking.