Same sex couples

  • Thread starter Thread starter ratio1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Edward_H said:
I don’t think there’s that much evidence about desires/attractions as “innate”.
Click to expand...
When you got to about the age of puberty, was your romantic/sexual interest toward the opposite sex, same sex or both? For the vast majority - it’s the opposite sex. Why? 🤔
 
Last edited:
I get it…but I also see a panoply of diverging “attractions and desires”.

You name it…

And you said the right question…“why?”
 
Rau said:
For the vast majority - it’s the opposite sex. Why? 🤔
Click to expand...
Well, most of us sat down, made a pro’s and con’s list, and made a sober, rational decision to flip the “hetereosexual” switch in our brains, obviously.
Edward_H said:
I don’t think there’s that much evidence about desires/attractions as “innate”.

To simply say, as some here do, that “we’re wired” is not a rational statement.
Click to expand...
I can’t tell if you’re just not educated on this, or if you’re waiting to reveal some groundbreaking research I haven’t found yet. In the meantime, one of many articles worth a glance: http://bigthink.com/robby-berman/scientists-link-2-genes-to-homosexuality-in-men.

If I sound like I’m being a little flippant with you, it’s because approaches like yours are frankly dangerous. This is the kind of thinking that leads confused teenagers struggling with SSA to conclude that their existence itself is sinful and hateful to God, and therefore they ought to commit suicide.
 
Last edited:
Most “twin studies” have shot the “born this way” argument not just out of the water, but out of the atmosphere.
 
Edward_H said:
Most “twin studies” have shot the “born this way” argument not just out of the water, but out of the atmosphere.
Click to expand...
There is a HUGE logical distance between “born that way” and “chooses to be that way”, with all sorts of possibilities in between.
 
Last edited:
Rau said:
40.png
Edward_H:
I don’t think there’s that much evidence about desires/attractions as “innate”.
Click to expand...
When you got to about the age of puberty, was your romantic/sexual interest toward the opposite sex, same sex or both? For the vast majority - it’s the opposite sex. Why? 🤔
Click to expand...
Right before puberty it was a romantic interest toward the opposite sex. During late middle school and puberty I became disconected from my same sex peers, during puberty I dealt with it entirely alone, before that point I had rather shamefully forgot about my male genitalia, but during puberty i couldn’t help but notice it, and it brought back all the feeling of embarassment and shame surrounding my body and genitalia from when I was little. (during puberty)I did not have anyone to talk to about it, except at a PG level at the wrong time, leaving out a great many details, which is not helpful. .Without any sexual education, I hadn’t even put two and two together on that men and women fit together, and the shame, It became a fixation on the same sex, in a fantasy of sharing the sexual feeling I was experiencing with others of the same sex, being connected, instead of feeling abnormal, alone and different. It didn’t help that I didn’t know what was going on, and I didn’t even realize females had a complimentary sex organ, as far as I knew initially, well I didn’t know, I just discovered pleasure associated with the male genetalia. masturbatory fantasies and pornography quickly moved on to sexual fantasies older male figures men, as an illusion of male acceptance, mutuality and bonding to something we had in common, to escape the loneliness and shame I was feeling during my sexual awakening. I got addicted to pornography and masturbation for about 4 years.
might be TMI for the question you asked, but oh well.
 
Last edited:
Except no one is saying that “genetic component” means “exclusively genetic.” Stop trying to move the goalposts.

Or don’t. Just stop giving advice that is contrary to Catholic teaching and is likely to encourage people to fall into despair and self-harm.
 
BoomBoomMancini said:
Except no one is saying that “genetic component” means “exclusively genetic.” Stop trying to move the goalposts.

Or don’t. Just stop giving advice that is contrary to Catholic teaching and is likely to encourage people to fall into despair and self-harm.
Click to expand...
My opinion is that genetics are only a factor in so much that they make one more inclined to react enviromentally in a certain way. Like personality. Being affeminate, disliking sports, having unusual gender interests, or strong emotional sensitivity can make one more susceptible to gender connection problems.Those are things that may play a role, but there is nothing disorded in themselves. While some disagree with a gender disconnectedness theory, I don’t.
And while one certainly does not choose same sex attraction, there are ways to worsen it and ways to heal it. Pornography causes a lot of emotional damage and confusion; trauma, making same sex attraction a bigger problem. It is very easy to fall into these traps early on.
 
Last edited:
There’s no widely accepted/repeatable science/evidence whatsoever that any of it is genetic.
 
Exactly, thank you for sharing. Thank you for your sincere answer.
 
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.

Turning away from that, how about we just look to the Church itself:
Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin…
Click to expand...
  • Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons
Does that settle it for you, or are you going to keep going with the “nuh uh” routine?
 
Oh I get that the Church has tried to side-step the matter about the will and desires.

But common sense tells us that they must one day return to address the matter in its essence.

It’s wholly preposterous to pretend that one form of ‘attraction’ is totally non-intersecting with other forms of sexual attraction.

But the USCCB took the politically easier route…and left “desires” untouched.

That doesn’t answer the question though.

The truth is simpler and deeper.

To play pretend is to lie.
 
The 3 results are why they are instructed to avoid occasions of sin for those who are prone to this sin. Many of the sins that are typically venial become mortal because the danger signs are not heeded and occasions not avoided. The devil gains the extra strength to fight the resistance of the couple because of obstinacy to avoid “stage 1”.

BTW: The attraction is also a temptation and is really a base infatuation morphed and intensified to mimic sexual of love.(the spirit can do this). The revelation of this truth is found through devotion to the Rosary for those who are fortunate enough to trust Mary.
 
Long as you get that you’re expressing a position contrary to Catholic teaching, I suppose I can let this go. I just pray you never end up counseling some poor, scared kid about SSA.
 
Don’t confuse pastoral advice and the idea of gradualism…with definitive, settled teaching on human sexuality.

You’re pretending that the Church has decided about attractions and such.

They’ve simply spoken about how to pastorally approach the topic.
 
Last edited:
The Church has definitively said that homosexual inclination in and of itself is not sinful. They didn’t say, “don’t emphasize the sinful nature of homosexual attraction when you minister to people.” They said that the inclination itself is not sinful.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top