same-sex attraction

[Abira]

Would the cross given by Christ in this instance be the fact that one is attracted to the same-sex, or would it be that they are required to live a chaste and possibly celibate life.

from my view:

without the existence of God I would not find having SSA a personal pain for me. It is not a challenge in itself.

The thought of having to live alone for sixty years or more would hurt me.

The latter is the choice that hurts and the decision that is asked of me… that’s going to be my struggle or ‘cross’.

S

 

[Kevin42]

without the existence of God I would not find having SSA a personal pain for me. It is not a challenge in itself.

But without the existence of God, you yourself would not be in existence.

Plus, ideally, the idea of living alone should not frighten us, if we would be doing it for God. (Unfortunately I do not think that I am at the level of faith where I can say that I would not be frightened of living alone . Pray for me!)

It seems very complicated to me. Is this a cross I have fashioned for myself, or has it been given by Christ?

 

[Abira]

But without the existence of God, you yourself would not be in existence.

Plus, ideally, the idea of living alone should not frighten us, if we would be doing it for God. (Unfortunately I do not think that I am at the level of faith where I can say that I would not be frightened of living alone . Pray for me!)

I didn’t mean to say that God isn’t in existence… only that without any external factors… one is a challenge and the other is not.

 

[Digger71]

It seems to me that you have not managed to come up with a way to differentiate between natural disgust and socially conditioned disgust.

I did say it was difficult.

But you can make a judgement on the issue by cross checking cultural responses. Revulsion at rotten meat, reevulsion at homosexuality. If you could find the physical basis for revulsion of homosexuality, it would help your purpose a lot

The fact is it is implicitly accepted by the any-homosexual lot that normalisation of same-sex relationships is occurring, has occurred, and will continue due to the gay agenda.

That’s a strong argument for socially conditioning.

In the first place, there is always going to be a subset of individuals who will not have a normative reaction to a certain stimulus.

We know from looking at the past 20 years that once you remove stigma from homosexuality more people come out as gay or bi, and a lot more people have tried it. I was at a bar when the conversation turned to who had had sex with a man, from about 11 blokes and only 4 of us hadnt done some same-sex stuff at least once. Of all of them two were out gays (and going with each other).

I think that demonstrates it well enough.

And, by the way, it is also the belief of social conservatives that without stigma homosexual activity will spread beyond the core group.

Since one can say that it is possible to use social conditioning as a tool to achieve amicable group living.

You are missing the point, social condition is the means by which we learn to live together. It is not a case of “can be used for”, it’s what it does.

The fact is homosexuality is not an issue for about 50% of the population. Thanks to education a huge number of myths have been dispelled and the horror stories used by opponents have been found to be wrong headed.

If we wished to make society stable under an atheistic philosophy, I still fail to see why it is that same-sex sexual activity should be tolerated, much less approved of. Reason dictates that sexuality serves a reproductive purpose, just as hunger serves the purpose of nourishment.

Even your church argues that sex has a unitive process. So you are quite by yourself in that view point. Of course, sex has multiple function, which includes (in the case of gay communities) building social networks and friendships. In a couple, gay, straight, fertile, infertile, etc, it binds the couple together (though you would hope there was more to their relationship than sex).

You may not like this, but it’s there anyway.

Any use of the sexuality that contradicts a reproductive purpose could only have a benefit for the individual who uses it in that fashion, not the larger society.

Well as you are wrong in your first assertion, you are wrong in the decond because it depends on the first.

Societies benefit from having stable communities and stable couples, whether those people have children or not. Stable relationships reduce self destructuve behavious (in gays or straights), reduce depression, reduce mental illness, reduce physicall ilnneses, and reduce costs associated when these conditions arise as the primary carers come from the couple and community, as opposed to exclusively from the state.

It’s good for taxes, industry, and you.

The individual trains himself, by this very sexual act, to seek his own good rather than the good of the larger society. This attitude contradicts our stated objective in facilitating group living.

See above.

Therefore, it seems that the reasoned use of our social conditioning program would be one that inculcates disgust for same-sex attractions and activities.

It would seem reasoned, if you start from a faulty premise (in this case sex=babies). If you start with a fuller understanding of what sex is, or even just admit to its unitive purpose, the original line of reasoning breaks down.

 

[Digger71]

Further, in your references to the religious composition of inmate populations, I fail to see that you have much of a point. It is not unusual for people who become incarcerated to “find religion” once behind bars.

With 10% of the population making up 0.2% of the prison population you are saying there is a 99.8 conversion rate! That’s pretty impressive. So it not really in the ‘not so unusual’ part, it’s in the ‘amazingly effective way to help people find god’ part.

The figures I can find are that there are 30,000-35,000 conversions a year from a population of about 2,000,000. Hmmm. so less than 2% conversion rate, far short of the 99.8% your hypothesis requires (google it)

Lets face it, atheists are simply more law abiding and therefore (arguably) more moral. And look at it this way. Christians may break laws, but that may not be the same as committing a sin. And in anycase, the can ask for forgiveness and get it if they are being genuine. They can, in essense, get away with it.

Highly stressful living environments, like those of a prison block, tend to bring out religious fervor in people who may very well have been functional atheists at the time of their crimes. As an atheist, surely even you should acknowledge the appeal in an escapist spirituality as a method of coping with an unpleasant reality.

The only figures i have found tend not to support you…but in prison drugs are alternative methods of escaping reality.

The Soviet Union, for instance, imploded.

You only have one example? Interesting.

Most commentators put it down to political and economic failures. Not the absense of god.

China is officially atheist as well. No collapse yet.

All functional societies have shown deference to spirituality in one form or another. It is not something that can easily be dispensed with. Even if we did attempt it, it certainly does not follow that same-sex attractions contribute to the overall good of society.

Of course, being ‘officially atheist’ doesnt mean functionally atheist, even the USSR had a noted rate of 33% theism. You may be mixing up oppression and absence.

Still…we can do another check.

Sweden has a homicide rate of 2/100,000 and is 70% atheist, the usa has a rate of 6/100,000 and theism is at 90%…hmmmm.

 

[pablo_rafael]

I’ve just finished reading your post and it basically sums up what I’ve been struggling with for the last ten years. I lost my faith over it for about nine years because I knew that ‘myself’ and my faith could not go hand in hand. I would go for periods without socialising and then periods without God…but they can never be together.

I am firmly convinced that a person can be a devout follower of Christ and be gay at the same time. Why does it always seem to be that we have to be one or the other? When I fimally admitted to myself that I was gay and nothing was going to change that, I refused to accept the choice that people would throw at me, that I either had to give up my faith or give up being gay. Neither one is a possibility for me. God’s grace is showered down upon all people. God has a plan for all of us. It is time to throw away the prejudice and embrace all people as God’s loved and redeemed.

Tu Amigo, Pablo

P.S. Plus most of us gays are boringly normal and live surprisingly UNscandalous lives.

 

[Other_Eric]

I did say it was difficult.

It’s interesting that you inaugurated this conversation of ours asking why it is that an atheist should give any credence to what a theist believes. Now you’re quoting the Church’s teaching on the unitive aspect of sexuality in order to support an atheistic worldview? Do you expect me to take this seriously?

It seems if we are going to take a completely objective look at human sexuality and eschew any type of religious morality, that human sexuality, in its natural state is not unitive at all. Men, in particular, are not prone to attach any emotional significance to the sexual act. Instead, when left to their own devices, tend to sexually exploit as many women as possible. Indeed, the male sexual drive appears to be psychologically programmed to avoid attachment as much as possible in order to efficiently spread genes. Thus, applying a strictly atheistic analysis, I cannot see any naturally occurring unitive aspect to the sexual act beyond aesthetics. We are left, therefore, with the reproductive function of the act as it is the only objectively discernable purpose for it.

Moreover, cultures throughout history and across cultural barriers have overwhelming frowned upon homosexual behavior. Directives against the practice are to be found in Taoism, Confucianism, Hinduism, Buddhism and other religions outside of the Judeo-Christian tradition. That this attitude of disapproval and disgust is found in as many disparate cultures and religions, it seems to me that this is a pretty solid cross-cultural response.

Of course, you’re likely to reply that this is not the sort of primordial disgust we should leave in place. I’d expect you would point out that disgust of this sort can be nicely done away with by social conditioning. The thing is, any sort of innate aspect of an individual’s psyche can be supplanted by social conditioning. The Japanese managed to eradicate the desire for self-preservation in their kamikaze pilots during World War II.

So, it seems we’re back to our inability to distinguish natural impulses from socially conditioned ones. You say it takes some skill but I can’t see any criteria that you’ve come up with that could even begin to be objective. The fact remains that with social conditioning, we can induce people to do anything.

You can prattle on all you want about the wonders of atheism, but at the end of the day, if the ethic is one of social stability, then it seems to me that there is more potential for totalitarianism. That is probably the most efficient method of facilitating group living. As it is now, the gay community is anything but stable.

(continued below . . .)

 

[Other_Eric]

With 10% of the population making up 0.2% of the prison population you are saying there is a 99.8 conversion rate! That’s pretty impressive. So it not really in the ‘not so unusual’ part, it’s in the ‘amazingly effective way to help people find god’ part.

As far your barrage of statistics, I wonder where it is that they came from, since most of them are demonstrably false. Like your figures for suicide. The suicide rate in America was 10.8 per 100,000 in 2001. (1) In Sweden it was 13.4. (2) This isn’t likely a statistically significant difference. Even if you were going to say that it was, it completely contradicts your point. China is not officially atheist. Nowhere does the Chinese constitution identify it as such. (3) Indeed, the government in China officially sanctions several different religions. (4) Indeed, that I can only come up with one example of a specifically atheist country tends to support my claim, rather than impeach it, that a society cannot hold together without some form of deference to religious faith. I challenge you to come up with even one example of an extant society (with a citation, of course) that is specifically atheistic. The conversion rate in U.S. prisons is significant enough that it is specifically referenced in one of your own websites in this way:

If the US Prison Population statistics are accurate then there are far less nonbelievers in the prison system. **This can be interpreted in many ways. Note that religious conversion is very active in prisons. **(5) (Emphasis mine.)

Rather than some vague reference to google figures I do not believe you have, I would prefer that you actually back your arguments up with the sources for your wild, unsubstantiated claims. Like this:

(1) American Association of Suicidology. U.S.A. Suicide: 2004 Official Final Data. 2004. Available online at: suicidology.org/associations/1045/files/2004datapgv1.pdf

(2) World Health Organization. Suicide Rates, by Gender, Sweden, 1950-2001. Available online at: who.int/mental_health/media/en/365.pdf

(3) Constitution of the People’s Republic of China. People’s Daily Online. Available online at: english.people.com.cn/constitution/constitution.html

(4) Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. International Religious Freedom Report 2004. U.S. Department of State. Available online at: state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2004/35396.htm

(5) Collection of Polls Showing Population of Atheists, Agnostics, Secularists and Non-Religious. Population Statistics of Religions, Atheists and Non-Believers. Available online at: atheistempire.com/reference/stats/main.html

 

[blessedtoo]

Sometimes we make our own crosses that are not given to us from Christ, and sometimes we are given crosses by Christ. Would the cross given by Christ in this instance be the fact that one is attracted to the same-sex, or would it be that they are required to live a chaste and possibly celibate life. (Or could neither of them be a cross given by Christ?)

I have a chronic and very painful physical condition. Did Christ give me this cross? It can be argued that my lifestyle contributed to it, my genes, me psychological profile. Or maybe it’s the nature of the human condition. We have various forms of disorder, all of us, because of our fallen natures. Is this from Christ? I don’t believe it is. From Christ, we receive the grace and strength to endure the consequences of living in a fallen world.

 

[setter]

I have a question when it comes to actually what the cross is. Sometimes we make our own crosses that are not given to us from Christ, and sometimes we are given crosses by Christ. Would the cross given by Christ in this instance be the fact that one is attracted to the same-sex, or would it be that they are required to live a chaste and possibly celibate life. (Or could neither of them be a cross given by Christ?) I have been leaning toward the latter, but am unsure. This is the question I have recently been asking myself and I haven’t been able to differentiate it on my own.

Whether the cross is a situation or condition that one created for themself (ex. debt, unwed parenthood, incarceration, …), or a situation or condition presented to us (SSA, lupus disease, bipolar disorder, living chaste as a single person, …), we are all called as followers of Christ to pick up our cross and faithfully follow Him. The subjective weight of carrying the cross is determined by each individual in relationship to the light and truth of God’s love.

 

[setter]

I am firmly convinced that a person can be a devout follower of Christ and be gay at the same time. Why does it always seem to be that we have to be one or the other? When I fimally admitted to myself that I was gay and nothing was going to change that, I refused to accept the choice that people would throw at me, that I either had to give up my faith or give up being gay. Neither one is a possibility for me. God’s grace is showered down upon all people. God has a plan for all of us. It is time to throw away the prejudice and embrace all people as God’s loved and redeemed.

Tu Amigo, Pablo

P.S. Plus most of us gays are boringly normal and live surprisingly UNscandalous lives.

Brother Pablo,

You are seriously self-deluded and fail terribly to understand and accept the grace for conversion offered by Jesus Christ as found in the gospel. You face the same challenge and choice that all of us face – repent and believe, choose God or choose sin, choose Jesus Christ or choose self and inordinate attachment, choose life or choose death. True, God’s grace is showered down upon all people (Matthew 5: 45), but one must accept the grace offered for conversion. True, God has a personal plan for each of us, and that plan is for the salvation of our soul. I agree that is it time to embrace redemption but based on the truth of the gospel. It is time to “cast off the works of darkness and put on the armor of light” (Romans 13: 12) and “for once you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord; walk as children of light” (Ephesians 5: 8), as Jesus Christ proclaimed at the onset of his public ministry “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." (Matthew 4: 17) and St. Paul reiterated “Behold, now is the acceptable time; behold, now is the day of salvation.” (2 Corinthians 6: 20).

I dare say that you are firmly on the road to personal destruction and judgment as you not only seek to confirm yourself in grave sin but also work as an evangelist the kingdom of darkness. Here are some scriptures to ponder and pray over before you offer me a rebuttal to defend the lie that one can persist unrepentant in serious sin still be confident of salvation for their soul. Jesus Christ did not die on the cross to give us a "have you cake and eat it too” gospel message of salvation.

“Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: fornication, impurity, passion, evil desire, …On account of these the wrath of God is coming. In these you once walked, when you lived in them. …Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have put off the old nature with its practices and have put on the new nature, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator.” Colossians 3: 5-10

“Therefore, if any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come.” 2 Corinthians 5: 17

“If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not live according to the truth;” 1 John 1: 6

“Let us then cast off the works of darkness and put on the armor of light; let us conduct ourselves becomingly as in the day, …not in debauchery and licentiousness …But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires.” Romans 13: 12-14

“Jesus then said to the Jews who had believed in him, “If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” John 8: 31-32

 

[blessedtoo]

I am firmly convinced that a person can be a devout follower of Christ and be gay at the same time. Why does it always seem to be that we have to be one or the other? When I fimally admitted to myself that I was gay and nothing was going to change that, I refused to accept the choice that people would throw at me, that I either had to give up my faith or give up being gay. Neither one is a possibility for me. God’s grace is showered down upon all people. God has a plan for all of us. It is time to throw away the prejudice and embrace all people as God’s loved and redeemed.

Tu Amigo, Pablo

P.S. Plus most of us gays are boringly normal and live surprisingly UNscandalous lives.

I would suggest you read the Catechism prayerfully and see what Mother Church says about the choice you have made. I would also suggest you read some of the other threads on this forum to see how others with SSA are living chaste lives in accordance with God’s will. They are truly an inspiration. Stick around and you will continue to learn.

 

[Jennifer123]

Or maybe it’s the nature of the human condition. We have various forms of disorder, all of us, because of our fallen natures. Is this from Christ? I don’t believe it is. From Christ, we receive the grace and strength to endure the consequences of living in a fallen world.

Very well said, thank you! The nature of the human condition is to be disordered period. Christ doesn’t want us to suffer, but only He can make our sufferings meaningful.

We won’t know complete and full joy until we unite with Him in heaven. That is why it is so imperative to live your life so that you can spend eternity with Him. All the struggles of this world mean nothing to what one faces in Hell, and all of the pleasures of the world, even if you were to amass every single pleasurable experience here on Earth, would be nothing compared to the joy of Heaven.

 

[Abira]

P.S. Plus most of us gays are boringly normal and live surprisingly UNscandalous lives.

Tell me about it lol… can I ask a personal question though: How do you take communion when you’re (if you are) actively homosexual? Do you have to go to confession before you take communion??

I find that even though I’m protestant that I avoid church because I feel that I have done wrong… and before people jump on my conscience lol… I would feel the same way about this if it was a heterosexual slip as well.

Take care, S

 

[Digger71]

It’s interesting that you inaugurated this conversation of ours asking why it is that an atheist should give any credence to what a theist believes. Now you’re quoting the Church’s teaching on the unitive aspect of sexuality in order to support an atheistic worldview? Do you expect me to take this seriously?

Certainly not me, but your Church, hmmm. Yes, I expect I do expect to to give that some credence.

Still, it’s interesting that you seem to reject the Churchs’ doctrine only because an atheist points it out to you. I assume you mean sex can not be unitive without procreating, but I’m not sure.

It seems if we are going to take a completely objective look at human sexuality and eschew any type of religious morality, that human sexuality, in its natural state is not unitive at all. Men, in particular, are not prone to attach any emotional significance to the sexual act.

Nonsense! What a low opinion of humans you have.

We could take a look at our closes evolutionary relatives (the Bonobos) and see that group sex seems to have a highly useful function there (and before anyone complains about comparisons to animals, I am simply objectivly looking at animals because for the sake of Erics argument, that is required).

We could transfer this to those gay bars where everyone has slept with everyone. i know a few of those. They are peaceful, friendly places; religion and violence doesnt come up there much.

Well, that’s two counter examples. Lets go for three. People have formed couples and groups related by sex forever. Gays, explictly condemned by so many religions still form couples—are they aping religious based heterosexual couples? Well, some of those are non-monogamous, but non-mongamous couples still have sex with eachother.

Actually, those non-monogamous gay couples demostrate something very interesting. They stick together regardless of not being childless, and they stick together despite not having sexual exclusivity, so maybe those pairing are based on love ad respect for eachother. Or maybe they have sex with outsiders, but make love to eachother.

I agree many men do not put too much emphasis on the emotional aspects of sex, but doesnt stop it having a unitive function, as described above.

Instead, when left to their own devices, tend to sexually exploit as many women as possible.

Speak for yourself!

Firstly, sex is not exploitative is all share the same expectations of it. Secondly, I know many single straight men who do not have that attitude (including me), who do not do one night stands.

Indeed, the male sexual drive appears to be psychologically programmed to avoid attachment as much as possible in order to efficiently spread genes.

Certainly there is a strong biological argument for that men are opportunistic about sex, but being opportunistic does not mean leaving a couple. You could thin of it as ‘gaurding’ their females to avoid other men impregnating them. Jealous attachement, despite being a negative emotion, is still attachement.

Thus, applying a strictly atheistic analysis, I cannot see any naturally occurring unitive aspect to the sexual act beyond aesthetics. We are left, therefore, with the reproductive function of the act as it is the only objectively discernable purpose for it.

Hmmm, once again i have to point out if your basic facts are wrong, what follows can only be correct by accident.

You could see if you wanted to. Go watch Bonobos, go to a local gay bar, read up on open relationships, read up on breeding strategies. It will help.

 

[Abira]

in its natural state is not unitive at all. Men, in particular, are not prone to attach any emotional significance to the sexual act. Instead, when left to their own devices, tend to sexually exploit as many women as possible. Indeed, the male sexual drive appears to be psychologically programmed to avoid attachment as much as possible in order to efficiently spread genes.

I don’t think you’re setting me on the right path to viewing men sexually lol lol… just in case I ever get forced onto an SSA cure scheme lol

I believe that people are higher than their base impulses. When we give ourselves completely over to impulse and instinct we lose control of ourselves… and I think most men are above this view and would be quite offended to be lumped together.

This model does not account for the emphasis our culture has placed upon manogamy… this must also be in our nature, and the idea of love and commitment…

 

[Kevin42]

I find that even though I’m protestant that I avoid church because I feel that I have done wrong… and before people jump on my conscience lol… I would feel the same way about this if it was a heterosexual slip as well.

Take care, S

I don’t want to harass you into going to Church, but I really do urge you to! Jesus did come for the least of us after all. I myself am about to go to confession…talk about anxiety…

 

[Abira]

I don’t want to harass you into going to Church, but I really do urge you to! Jesus did come for the least of us after all. I myself am about to go to confession…talk about anxiety…

yeah I spoke about this in a thread quite a while ago now… when i did something kinda bad, well very bad really…

I’ve tried hard to take the advice I got as people were really great with me. I said then that I’d feel bad about taking communion, but I feel that by going to church it would be expected of me by everyone. Even though I’ve gone some way to resolving what I did wrong, I still feel like I haven’t been kinda cleaned or forgiven in anyway…

so I know you’re right and everyone who was great enough to give me advice was right… but I’m still finding it hard even months afterwards.

Take care, S x

 

[Digger71]

As far your barrage of statistics,

That’s not a barrage of statistics.

I wonder where it is that they came from, since most of them are demonstrably false. Like your figures for suicide.

Suicide? Did i quote figures for suicide? I am most terribly sorry, I meant homicide? Did I write suicide?

Ummm, no, apparently I didnt.

The suicide rate in America was 10.8 per 100,000 in 2001. (1) In Sweden it was 13.4. (2) This isn’t likely a statistically significant difference. Even if you were going to say that it was, it completely contradicts your point.

Once again I refer you to the observation that if you basic premis is wrong, all that follows is wrong, except by accident.

I wrote ‘homicide’.I’ll come back after these emails…

 

[Julian_Peters]

Thank you to all who have participated, this thread is now closed.