Same sex couples

  • Thread starter Thread starter ratio1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
phil19034 said:
two men living together as roommates isn’t scandalous unless people have good reason to think (based on the actions of the men) that they are involved in a romantic/sexual.
Click to expand...
I think your original post was ambiguous, and this comment clears things up. I thought you had been saying that merely living together as roommates – if people interpreted them to be a gay couple wrongly – could be scandal. I now see that you meant whether various other ways of relating they had caused people to make that inference. Depending on the ways of relating you mean, I agree with you.
 
BoomBoomMancini said:
Yeah, that’s just not true. You can keep making these flat statements all you want, but you’re bringing nothing to the table. There is a lot of research suggesting that at least some of it is genetic. How much of it is genetic is still up for debate, and the ways in which genetic variations interact with the environment is up for grabs, but the idea that there is at least some genetic role is pretty widespread.
Click to expand...
There is ZERO proof that anyone is born gay. People become gay through upbringing, environment and choice. There is no gay gene.
 
thistle said:
There is ZERO proof that anyone is born gay. People become gay through upbringing, environment and choice. There is no gay gene.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that there is no genetic element? That is far from clear. Something like 50% of identical twins who are gay (separated at birth) end up having the other twin be gay, too. That’s way more than the 3-5% that one would expect, if genetics played no role.
 
thistle said:
People become gay through upbringing, environment and choice.
Click to expand...
Nor is this proven. Proof in science - particularly of negatives - is not so common as you might think.

Was/is your interest in the opposite sex purely a function of upbringing, environment and choice?
 
Last edited:
APA researcher explodes myth: Gays aren’t ‘born that way’

A top researcher with the American Psychological Association (APA) and lesbian activist has acknowledged that gays are not “born that way.”

Dr. Lisa Diamond, co-editor-in-chief of the APA Handbook of Sexuality and Psychology and one of the APA’s “most respected members," says sexual orientation is “fluid” and not unchangeable.

As clinical psychologist Dr. Laura A. Haynes summarizes Diamond’s APA Handbook chapters, her book and YouTube lectures, "The battle to disprove 'Born that way and can’t change’ is now over, and (Diamond) is telling LGBT activists to stop promoting the myth."

Contrary to the typical argument that homosexuals are “born gay” as “who they are” and cannot change, the APA officially recognized sexual orientation change in 2011.

 
Last edited:
Yep, homosexuality though an out of order attraction, there is nothing natural about it, either genetically or physically or morally.

Homosexual acts are undeniably 100% determined by the will, not by genes, so there is no excuse for homosexual behavior of any genre.
 
I found that such a Ho hum article. Whether homosexuality is influenced by genetics, or some other factor or a combination of factors is pretty much immaterial to the secular law. And in some cases, my understanding is that reparative theory was simply ineffective and in some cases harmful. I for one would not stand in the way of counseling or therapy for persons wishing to be rid of SSA - but such therapies must be at a minimum safe and preferably effective in a reasonable proportion of cases.
 
Last edited:
Prayer works for all, and gives sufficient grace. Supernatural help is better than any physchotherapy.
 
Buffalo,

(1) The APA has never claimed that sexual orientation is not fluid, in some people.
(2) Nevertheless, most psychologists and psychiatrists believe that there is a genetic component to homosexual attractions.
(3) The fact that orientation is fluid in some people does not mean that it can be changed through deliberate therapy. (Compare: your taste buds change as you age, but you cannot change them).
(4) Even if it could be changed by deliberate therapy in some cases, that does not mean it could be changed in all cases.
(5) Sexual orientation is much more fluid among women than men.
(6) Lifesitenews is terrible source, and the article you cite does not cite ANY APA source.
(7) Dr. Haynes has no APA credentials that I can find online. Is she associated with the APA at all? Can you point to her credentials?
 
goout said:
You can split hypothetical legal hairs all you want, but what you are talking about here is stupidity, not morality.

The person who puts himself in situations that lead to no good is stupid.

Christians are called to be prudent, not recklessly stupid.
Click to expand...
Why all the vitriol? I think it is worthy of applause that a former gay couple can reach some sort of situation that allows them to live a life of celibacy, and still have the one they love still be in their life as a brother. I know of a couple doing this, at my church. One is a friend and I have asked. Not one act of sodomy in five years. They are both converts. They have been together for 19 years. Neither one of them strike me as being stupid.
 
Curious, if you believe the same would apply in the instance of a man having sexual feelings/desires/ATTRACTIONS (seeming to be the buzz word here) towards a child? Would you then say that is MORALLY acceptable, as an ATTRACTION without ACTION?
 
Edward_H said:
So here’s the “minimalism” that pops up in CA so frequently
Click to expand...
I don’t think this is minimalism. Human beings have a need for companionship. The cross of SSA is heavy. Why strip everything from them including companionship if it is chaste? In the case of the two SSA Catholics, that is what they have. If both parties are not on board, then yes, they would have to split up, otherwise it could lead to mortal sin. If both are on board, I don’t see why they would have to separate. If these two can do it, there must be others.
 
Last edited:
LittleRedhead said:
Curious, if you believe the same would apply in the instance of a man having sexual feelings/desires/ATTRACTIONS (seeming to be the buzz word here) towards a child? Would you then say that is MORALLY acceptable, as an ATTRACTION without ACTION?
Click to expand...
This is just a confusion. Suppose you were walking down the street, and you saw a 10-year-old girl with a thin t-shirt on, and you suddenly and involuntarily felt an impulse to see her naked. What does it mean to say that “you did something wrong”? It’s a temptation. It’s not an action of any sort, so it cannot be a sin. It’s precisely the same as the SSA case, yes.

Does that mean that “it’s OK to be attracted to children”? No. Being attracted to children is a problem, a serious issue. But it’s not a sin. No temptation could possibly be a sin. A person who sees his ex crossing the street and feels an involuntary impulse to run her over is not a murderer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top