Serious doubts about Church teaching on homosexuality

  • Thread starter Thread starter naomily
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
frobert said:
Ender posted an misleading interpretation about the origin of orientation which SMGS127 and myself wished to correct.
Click to expand...
I made a simple statement about genetics which was completely accurate. It’s not clear what part of that truth you found misleading.
If we stay with the CC’s view that the causes are unknown we could all or at least most be in agreement.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you should have this conversation with SMGS127 who not only asserted that the cause is genetic and epigenetic but stated that this was your position as well.

Ender
 
Ender said:
Perhaps you should have this conversation with SMGS127 who not only asserted that the cause is genetic and epigenetic but stated that this was your position as well.

Ender
Click to expand...
I said no such thing. I said it was epigenetic, not genetic. Do you know the difference between these two terms?
 
SMGS127 said:
This is completely false, and it shows a lack of knowledge of genetics. 50% is a very high shared trait percentage for identical twins, and it actually indicates the opposite of what you are saying. That is to say, twin studies show a likelihood of a biological cause to homosexuality.

No, lesbians occasionally stay with their partners who transition, but this also has to do with the facts that:

a) Lesbian relationships are incredibly emotional/close, so even though the relationship may technically become heterosexual, that initial bonding remains.

and b) Transmen rarely get SRS.
Click to expand...
Thanks, I believe you helped me make my point. I agree, the issue with homosexuality could both biological and choice. The point I was trying to make is that it is not genetic. There is NO “gay gene” but it could be biological in that is could be some biological difference in the brain.

Again, if it is an emotional bound, it is a choice.

So I think without stating it directly, you seem to agree with my beliefs.
 
bobcrawford said:
Thanks, I believe you helped me make my point. I agree, the issue with homosexuality could both biological and choice. The point I was trying to make is that it is not genetic. There is NO “gay gene” but it could be biological in that is could be some biological difference in the brain.

Again, if it is an emotional bound, it is a choice.

So I think without stating it directly, you seem to agree with my beliefs.
Click to expand...
What? A biological basis would still be unchangeable, and would have the same practical effect of a “gay gene.” There would be no practical difference. So no, the attractions would not be a choice, as they would be biologically determined from before birth.
 
SMGS127 said:
What? A biological basis would still be unchangeable, and would have the same practical effect of a “gay gene.” There would be no practical difference. So no, the attractions would not be a choice, as they would be biologically determined from before birth.
Click to expand...
No, a biological condition - as in a mental disorder - can usually be treated with drugs. There is no gay gene, they’ve looked and cannot find one. Again, it is either a choice, or as once thought before political correctness, a mental defect.
 
bobcrawford said:
No, a biological condition - as in a mental disorder - can usually be treated with drugs. There is no gay gene, they’ve looked and cannot find one. Again, it is either a choice, or as once thought before political correctness, a mental defect.
Click to expand...
Not if it’s a STRUCTURAL issue, which is probably what it is. Gay people react to pheromonal influences the same as straight people do, indicating that they likely have structures (or structural responses) similar to the opposing gender in those areas.
 
SMGS127 said:
Not if it’s a STRUCTURAL issue, which is probably what it is. Gay people react to pheromonal influences the same as straight people do, indicating that they likely have structures (or structural responses) similar to the opposing gender in those areas.
Click to expand...
It’s clearly not a toggle-switch in the brain, as evidenced by the experience of bisexuals like myself. This seems to support the idea that epigenetic factors could influence the brain in a structural way.

It’s worth mentioning quite loudly in this conversation that, so far as we know, same-sex attraction is merely a phenomenon, or a symptom. The same symptom/phenomenon could have many different causes, as the sniffles can be caused by a cold or allergies. This means that some people might be genetically gay, others might be gay because of epigenetics, still others could be caused to be gay in some other way.

There is LOTS of room to learn about this. Almost any statement about the etiology of homosexuality is bound to be false, to some degree.
 
Prodigal_Son said:
It’s clearly not a toggle-switch in the brain, as evidenced by the experience of bisexuals like myself. This seems to support the idea that epigenetic factors could influence the brain in a structural way.

It’s worth mentioning quite loudly in this conversation that, so far as we know, same-sex attraction is merely a phenomenon, or a symptom. The same symptom/phenomenon could have many different causes, as the sniffles can be caused by a cold or allergies. This means that some people might be genetically gay, others might be gay because of epigenetics, still others could be caused to be gay in some other way.

There is LOTS of room to learn about this. Almost any statement about the etiology of homosexuality is bound to be false, to some degree.
Click to expand...
Technically, it could be two toggle-switches though Prodigal, with both On = Bisexual, both Off = asexual, and the monosexual orientations would have mixed toggles.
 
SMGS127 said:
Technically, it could be two toggle-switches though Prodigal, with both On = Bisexual, both Off = asexual, and the monosexual orientations would have mixed toggles.
Click to expand...
Maybe a set of slide controls, like on an audio equalizer?😃
 
Rau said:
Maybe a set of slide controls, like on an audio equalizer?😃
Click to expand...
This is completely against Catholic teaching, but I just imagined God as a DJ, sliding someone back and forth. It’d be like :eek: wait I don’t feel it anymore, wait…:eek: etc. etc.
 
SMGS127 said:
This is completely against Catholic teaching, but I just imagined God as a DJ, sliding someone back and forth. It’d be like :eek: wait I don’t feel it anymore, wait…:eek: etc. etc.
Click to expand...
Perhaps Satan is at the controls?
 
estesbob said:
Perhaps Satan is at the controls?
Click to expand...
If so, he is – as always – God’s fool. Every action of Satan provides us more opportunities to come into contact with God’s love. That’s why being Satan is the most frustrating thing in the universe; your plans always play into the enemy’s hands.
 
SMGS127 said:
Well that got super-serious super-quickly :(.

But no I don’t believe that. Satan pushes the temptations, not the attractions.
Click to expand...
If you do not accept that the “attractions” can lead to temptations…of worse…you are playing with fire.
 
Zoltan_Cobalt said:
If you do not accept that the “attractions” can lead to temptations…of worse…you are playing with fire.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry, but I think this is crazy.

“Hey isn’t Ellen Page super attractive?”

“Be careful! You might spontaneously combust into a ball of sexual desire!”

Like…I just don’t get it. Do other people have such a low trigger point that even mentioning or acknowledging one is attracted to someone will cause them to uncontrollably sexually sin? What a world.
 
Kamaduck said:
Hm. I suppose it makes sense to say that sex is different because it is a sacred act, but I was under the impression that perverting any action from its natural purpose was sinful. But outside of sex, this does lead to some inconsistencies, so maybe I’m wrong about that.

If sex and sexual pleasure are special, then we’re back to the question of whether making out is inherently sexual. If it’s not, then I suppose it would be licit under some circumstances. Continuing with Prodigal_Son’s line of questioning, if L only applies to sexual actions, and making out is not sexual, then L would be largely irrelevant.

I think what you’re describing is OK. I can’t cite any documents that say so, but I also can’t cite any documents that say it isn’t, so we’re sort of stuck on that front. But if there’s no reason to call something sinful (other than an emotional reaction, since those are unreliable), then I assume that things aren’t sinful until I have reason to believe otherwise.

I really can’t see any reason (other than scandal and the possible near occasion of sin) that calling each other “girlfriend”, going on dates, and kissing would be immoral. I obviously can’t give you the OK (and anyway, I’m sort of biased myself), but I’m really at a loss as to why it might be inherently immoral. Nothing involved in going on dates, kissing, or having a particular form of address need be exclusive to marriage or the process of discerning marriage, so I don’t see why those things would be wrong outside that context.

Again, that’s just where my understanding is right now. I’m not going to pretend to know what Church teaching is on the matter, if a relevant teaching even exists.
Click to expand...
I’m an old married lady of 63 so what do I know? Having said that, what is the purpose of making out? Is it not a sort of pre-sexual enjoyment between 2 lovers? I kiss my aunt on the cheek. I kiss my sister on the cheek. But I made out with my husband before and of course made out and more with him after our marriage. If a homosexual person makes out with another homosexual person, there’s an element of sexual gratification in it. It reminds me of that old terminology of getting to first or second base with a girl. Just as it’s hard for heterosexuals to have truly close, platonic friendships with members of the opposite sex–and keep it strictly on the up and up, I think any homosexual who thinks of a same sex person as a “friend” but makes out with them, is using Bill Clinton’s definition of “What is sex?” Moreover, it’s certainly a temptation to go further and further.
 
SMGS127 said:
Not if it’s a STRUCTURAL issue, which is probably what it is. Gay people react to pheromonal influences the same as straight people do, indicating that they likely have structures (or structural responses) similar to the opposing gender in those areas.
Click to expand...
Huh? For example…(some examples of how you feel they respond similar to the opposing gender?)
 
Starrsmother said:
I’m an old married lady of 63 so what do I know? Having said that, what is the purpose of making out? Is it not a sort of pre-sexual enjoyment between 2 lovers?
Click to expand...
According to SMGS, not always. I don’t know whether she’s right, but I have no reason to doubt her experience.
I kiss my aunt on the cheek. I kiss my sister on the cheek. But I made out with my husband before and of course made out and more with him after our marriage. If a homosexual person makes out with another homosexual person, there’s an element of sexual gratification in it.
Click to expand...
Again, SMGS says there doesn’t have to be. My response was based that premise.
It reminds me of that old terminology of getting to first or second base with a girl. Just as it’s hard for heterosexuals to have truly close, platonic friendships with members of the opposite sex–and keep it strictly on the up and up,
Click to expand...
It’s not impossible, though.
I think any homosexual who thinks of a same sex person as a “friend” but makes out with them, is using Bill Clinton’s definition of “What is sex?” Moreover, it’s certainly a temptation to go further and further.
Click to expand...
SMGS claims that this is not an issue. I have no reason to suspect that she is lying, either to herself or to us, though I suppose it’s not impossible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top