The bottom line on Catholics and gay intolerance

[NewAgeCatholic]

How about these?

• studies showing strong correlations between sexual orientation and attributes that are set during pregnancy (and for the most part, early in pregnancy).
• studies showing correlations between sexual orientation and neurological attributes we know are not consciously chosen (blinking rate, pheremone response, etc.)
• a study that shows that the brain structures of homosexuals and heterosexuals are different.
• “identical twin” studies indicating a genetic basis for sexual orientation.

Yes, if we could just turn off our urges and preferences, a straight person could suddenly do a 180 and turn themself gay. It not something “taught” to be gay or straight or bi imo. As I mentioned, I did differ with the author on that aspect, I know of a few same sex couples or attracted and dating and it’s the way they’ve always been as long as they can remember growing up. If they could go the other way, life would of been much kinder and easier.

 

[Diane_Lynn]

How about these?

• studies showing strong correlations between sexual orientation and attributes that are set during pregnancy (and for the most part, early in pregnancy).
• studies showing correlations between sexual orientation and neurological attributes we know are not consciously chosen (blinking rate, pheremone response, etc.)
• a study that shows that the brain structures of homosexuals and heterosexuals are different.
• “identical twin” studies indicating a genetic basis for sexual orientation.

I did read most of the links you provided and see an ambiguity in the findings rather than a clarified conclusion. I did get the sense from the links that the organization was trying to prove a point in support of their own beliefs or at least sway the reader into accepting a tolerant attitude concept rather than prove a fact.

Don’t get me wrong! I think there is a predisposition to a behavioral pattern but that is quite different than being ‘born that way’. As an example: when a child I was left handed but once in school it was decided that since I used both hands in an ambidextrous manner I should be taught to write right-handed. Today I continue to write with my right hand but since the attention to my other hand uses were ignored today I use my left hand to do most all other things, even throw a ball or twirl a rope. I mention this only because it shows a conditioned response (nature vs nurture) which may well be no different than the issue of sexual orientation. Not sure but I can assume can I not?

 

[NewAgeCatholic]

I did read most of the links you provided and see an ambiguity in the findings rather than a clarified conclusion. I did get the sense from the links that the organization was trying to prove a point in support of their own beliefs or at least sway the reader into accepting a tolerant attitude concept rather than prove a fact.

Don’t get me wrong! I think there is a predisposition to a behavioral pattern but that is quite different than being ‘born that way’. As an example: when a child I was left handed but once in school it was decided that since I used both hands in an ambidextrous manner I should be taught to write right-handed. Today I continue to write with my right hand but since the attention to my other hand uses were ignored today I use my left hand to do most all other things, even throw a ball or twirl a rope. I mention this only because it shows a conditioned response (nature vs nurture) which may well be no different than the issue of sexual orientation. Not sure but I can assume can I not?

I guess there is no mold really, one size fits all in life. I reel in with my right hand, which I guess is considered left hand fishing? I’ve always batted left and I guess considered a good thing on both counts? Pro fisherman reel winder is on the right, and you’re closer to first base if you bat left, but I could never write a lick with my left hand any more than I could get over having the heebee jeebees as to sleeping with anyone of the same sex. It’s horribly repulsive in my brain to think about it, but I don’t want to scold those for their way of being. I’m a live and let live person and what do they harm me?

 

[Nec5]

Pro fisherman reel winder is on the right, and you’re closer to first base if you bat left, but I could never write a lick with my left hand any more than I could get over having the heebee jeebees as to sleeping with anyone of the same sex. It’s horribly repulsive in my brain to think about it, but I don’t want to scold those for their way of being. I’m a live and let live person and what do they harm me?

Then you will need to follow that non-judgmental view to its logical conclusion(i.e. polygamy, consensual incest, public nudity, etc…).

 

[Christopher68]

Then you will need to follow that non-judgmental view to its logical conclusion(i.e. polygamy, consensual incest, public nudity, etc…).

I’ve heard that argument before, but it seems like a ‘straw man’ argument - since even those who support gay marriage are opposed to the things you mentioned.

 

[NewAgeCatholic]

Then you will need to follow that non-judgmental view to its logical conclusion(i.e. polygamy, consensual incest, public nudity, etc…).

I don’t agree with doing things that are against the law which you mention. You can be arrested for polygamy, incest and public nudity in the USA.

 

[Nec5]

I’ve heard that argument before, but it seems like a ‘straw man’ argument - since even those who support gay marriage are opposed to the things you mentioned.

That is because they are not striving to be consistent. If the principle here is “consenting adults and they have no direct affect on anyone else”, then polygamy, consensual incest, public nudity, and a range of other abnormal acts must be permitted. It is a not a straw man. If the principle is accepted, let’s follow the logic to see where and why that principle should be curtailed.

The straw man argument is always contextual. I am not arguing that most gay-marriage supporters argue for polygamy and such. I am stating that they would/will need to approve of these things based on their primary appeal: consensual libertine love and freedom. Instead, they wish to pick and choose for whom that ideal applies. This is ironically the very criticism leveled against traditional Christianity (who are we to pick and choose who can get married?).

The straw man would only be a straw man if I ignored counter-arguments and continued to represent an opposing view falsely.

 

[gearhead]

That is because they are not striving to be consistent. If the principle here is “consenting adults and they have no direct affect on anyone else”, then polygamy, consensual incest, public nudity, and a range of other abnormal acts must be permitted. It is a not a straw man. If the principle is accepted, let’s follow the logic to see where and why that principle should be curtailed.

Polygamy affects the first spouse, whose rights and well-being may be altered by the second and subsequent marriages.

Consensual incest potentially affects any children the couple would have in the form of genetic defects. Also, it raises the issue of undue influence and the question of whether full consent is present.

Public nudity? You may have a point with that one. However, in some places it’s already legal. Personally, I have no problem with repealing laws against public nudity. If local experience shows anything (Ontario struck down the law prohibiting women from going topless in public about a decade ago), it’s that it won’t have much impact at all on how people behave.

 

[Christopher68]

That is because they are not striving to be consistent. If the principle here is “consenting adults and they have no direct affect on anyone else”, then polygamy, consensual incest, public nudity, and a range of other abnormal acts must be permitted. It is a not a straw man. If the principle is accepted, let’s follow the logic to see where and why that principle should be curtailed.

The straw man argument is always contextual. I am not arguing that most gay-marriage supporters argue for polygamy and such. I am stating that they would/will need to approve of these things based on their primary appeal: consensual libertine love and freedom. Instead, they wish to pick and choose for whom that ideal applies. This is ironically the very criticism leveled against traditional Christianity (who are we to pick and choose who can get married?).

The straw man would only be a straw man if I ignored counter-arguments and continued to represent an opposing view falsely.

If I am understanding your post correctly, you are upset that most gay marriage supporters do not support the other activities you mention, because then it would be easier to denounce gay marriage by denouncing polygamy and incent and things which 99% of the population opposes.

You’re trying to create an argument on polygamy and incent where none exists. If you oppose gay marriage, then argue that point on it’s own merits.

 

[Whitacre_Girl]

Polygamy affects the first spouse, whose rights and well-being may be altered by the second and subsequent marriages…

Just throwing in here that in polygamy the first spouse is okay with the idea, and this is the case for the polygamous marriages that exist in fundamentalist mormon circles. The wives know they will be in a polygamist marriage, and consent fully to it.
One could also argue that if it were legalized, consent forms would have to be signed from all existing spouses before another can be added to the ranks.

Consensual incest potentially affects any children the couple would have in the form of genetic defects. Also, it raises the issue of undue influence and the question of whether full consent is present.

Homosexual marriage also allow the same thing, since it would further the rights of homosexuals to adopt, or for lesbian women to conceive from a sperm bank. In both of these cases there is the involvement of a third person who has no choice in the matter, and raises the debate of the harm caused by children being raised withou tthe influence from both genders in the family. Can young boys truly learn to be men with two women raising him and he has no male role model? How will he learn how a man is supposed to treat a woman when he sees only women? How can a young girl learn how a man is supposed to treat her as a woman when she has two fathers who treat each other as men, not women? How can she learn what it means to be a woman when her fathers have literally NO experience in that? How can she grow into an empowered woman, when she has no strong female role model?

Public nudity? You may have a point with that one. However, in some places it’s already legal. Personally, I have no problem with repealing laws against public nudity. If local experience shows anything (Ontario struck down the law prohibiting women from going topless in public about a decade ago), it’s that it won’t have much impact at all on how people behave.

I was actually shocked to see this is the one you agree with. This foists one person’s sexuality on everyone else with no consent from the others whatsoever. Imagine taking your children to the mall to see people walking around in the buff, and there is nothing you can do about it but leave. This may also seem like a good idea (I mean, really! What guy out there doesn’t like the idea of gorgeous babes going around topless?) but keep in mind this applies to men’s “freedom of expression” as well. Wouldn’t you want to require something that stops some guy from going to the movie theatre naked and sitting right next to you? No, this isn’t going to happen rampantly if the laws are repealed, but don’t you want some protection against things like this?

 

[gearhead]

Just throwing in here that in polygamy the first spouse is okay with the idea, and this is the case for the polygamous marriages that exist in fundamentalist mormon circles. The wives know they will be in a polygamist marriage, and consent fully to it.
One could also argue that if it were legalized, consent forms would have to be signed from all existing spouses before another can be added to the ranks.

If all the parties agreed, I probably wouldn’t oppose it. I personally don’t consider it a priority, though, and there would be a number of legal hurdles to clear before polygamy were legal.

Homosexual marriage also allow the same thing, since it would further the rights of homosexuals to adopt, or for lesbian women to conceive from a sperm bank. In both of these cases there is the involvement of a third person who has no choice in the matter, and raises the debate of the harm caused by children being raised withou tthe influence from both genders in the family. Can young boys truly learn to be men with two women raising him and he has no male role model? How will he learn how a man is supposed to treat a woman when he sees only women? How can a young girl learn how a man is supposed to treat her as a woman when she has two fathers who treat each other as men, not women? How can she learn what it means to be a woman when her fathers have literally NO experience in that? How can she grow into an empowered woman, when she has no strong female role model?

Let’s back up for a moment. What does any of this have to do with the point I raised?

Maybe you don’t know what I meant by undue influence. It’s a legal term that describes a relationship where one person exerts such an influence on another that the law presumes that the influenced person didn’t have the capacity to freely consent.

This is presumed to be the case between parents and children, and to a lesser extent between siblings.

Basically, the law already presumes that close family members may not have the legal capacity to give free consent in their legal dealings with each other. Therefore, members of an incestuous relationship, especially in the case of a parent and child (even if the “child” is of age), can’t be automatically assumed to be what the previous poster described: “consenting adults”.

I was actually shocked to see this is the one you agree with. This foists one person’s sexuality on everyone else with no consent from the others whatsoever.

Why would you think that consent would be required?

And the issue is whether genitalia should be allowed to be visible. People are already free to “foist one person’s sexuality on everyone else.”

Imagine taking your children to the mall to see people walking around in the buff, and there is nothing you can do about it but leave.

It’s currently legal for a man to be out in public with nothing but his genitals and anus covered. How many times have you seen that at the mall? Would you find it any less offensive than a man who was entirely nude?

This may also seem like a good idea (I mean, really! What guy out there doesn’t like the idea of gorgeous babes going around topless?) but keep in mind this applies to men’s “freedom of expression” as well. Wouldn’t you want to require something that stops some guy from going to the movie theatre naked and sitting right next to you? No, this isn’t going to happen rampantly if the laws are repealed, but don’t you want some protection against things like this?

Every movie theatre I’ve been in has had a “no shirt, no shoes, no service” rule in place. It’d be simple enough to add “no pants” to that as well.

In areas where there are health concerns about nudity, by all means, feel free to enact Dept. of Health rules prohibiting nudity if you feel they’re necessary - I’d probably agree with them. However, in contexts where a guy is already allowed to wander around in nothing but a “banana hammock” Speedo, I really don’t see why going one more step and letting him be in his birthday suit is such a big deal.

 

[Zoe_Brain]

Can young boys truly learn to be men with two women raising him…

It seems they can. That’s what the data says in all the surveys that have been done.

… and he has no male role model?

Apart from Uncles, teachers, coaches, grandfathers, cousins… people deliberately chosen as being “good influences” by their parents, rather than being shaped by a possibly drunken and abusive spouse.

Same-sex marriage is illegal here, or rather, both partners have to be legally of opposite sexes when they marry.

It may be though that one or the other may be biologically of a different sex than the one they appear to be when they get married. That happens in some rare Intersex conditions - where what is apparently (and legally at the time) an Intersexed male turns out to actually be an Intersexed female. This may only become obvious when they reach puberty, and that may happen rather later than it usually does. Thirty years later, in fact. In such cases the Intersexed woman may actually be not completely sterile as a male before their female puberty, and the couple may have a child - though that can take medical intervention.

It’s rare. But it happens.

In such cases, some couples decide that their marriage vows before God and Man take precedence before anything else. “In sickness and in health, till death do us part”. Any sexual attraction may be gone - often it was always one-sided anyway, such Intersexed people are often asexual before puberty - but the love can remain.

A rather more common situation is where a (usually Intersexed) boy is mutilated shortly after birth in an attempt to make him female. That happens about a thousand times a year in the USA. He grows up knowing he’s a boy, yet he has surgically created female genitalia.

Now while the Church may not recognise his right to marry a woman, as he’s sterile and incapable of intercourse - as a man anyway - is it in the public interest for secular authorities to be bound by this - if say, he’s Jewish, or Baptist?

Lest you doubt what I say, please see oiiaustralia.com/story-r/

The Church however does allow such men to marry other men. In fact, it encourages it. Because they’re capable of intercourse as women. It’s all about the sexual act to them, not love, not procreation, not reality, only keeping up appearances.

I have to help pick up the pieces in such cases.

I’m tired of the hypocrisy. I’m tired of the lack of Charity. I am heartily sick and tired of a Church that says one thing, and practices another. I sometimes let my frustration at the injustices and petty cruelties, the crocodile tears and the pious platitudes get the better of me, and cause a lack of charity in my own dealings with others. As is obvious in some of my comments in this thread, and for which I ask forgiveness.

 

[Abira]

I’m tired of the hypocrisy. I’m tired of the lack of Charity. I am heartily sick and tired of a Church that says one thing, and practices another. I sometimes let my frustration at the injustices and petty cruelties, the crocodile tears and the pious platitudes get the better of me, and cause a lack of charity in my own dealings with others. As is obvious in some of my comments in this thread, and for which I ask forgiveness.

this effects me as well. I see no love of fellow man on this issue and the lack of charity hardens me towards coming back to religion. I have tried several times and each time I am put off by the bad fruits I see being borne within the institutions of religion. (I am born an Anglican so I don’t direct it solely at the Catholic church, or indeed over this one matter)

 

[aspawloski4th]

It seems they can. That’s what the data says in all the surveys that have been done. Apart from Uncles, teachers, coaches, grandfathers, cousins… people deliberately chosen as being “good influences” by their parents, rather than being shaped by a possibly drunken and abusive spouse.

Same-sex marriage is illegal here, or rather, both partners have to be legally of opposite sexes when they marry.

It may be though that one or the other may be biologically of a different sex than the one they appear to be when they get married. That happens in some rare Intersex conditions - where what is apparently (and legally at the time) an Intersexed male turns out to actually be an Intersexed female. This may only become obvious when they reach puberty, and that may happen rather later than it usually does. Thirty years later, in fact. In such cases the Intersexed woman may actually be not completely sterile as a male before their female puberty, and the couple may have a child - though that can take medical intervention.

It’s rare. But it happens.

In such cases, some couples decide that their marriage vows before God and Man take precedence before anything else. “In sickness and in health, till death do us part”. Any sexual attraction may be gone - often it was always one-sided anyway, such Intersexed people are often asexual before puberty - but the love can remain.

A rather more common situation is where a (usually Intersexed) boy is mutilated shortly after birth in an attempt to make him female. That happens about a thousand times a year in the USA. He grows up knowing he’s a boy, yet he has surgically created female genitalia.

Now while the Church may not recognise his right to marry a woman, as he’s sterile and incapable of intercourse - as a man anyway - is it in the public interest for secular authorities to be bound by this - if say, he’s Jewish, or Baptist?

Lest you doubt what I say, please see oiiaustralia.com/story-r/

The Church however does allow such men to marry other men. In fact, it encourages it. Because they’re capable of intercourse as women. It’s all about the sexual act to them, not love, not procreation, not reality, only keeping up appearances.

I have to help pick up the pieces in such cases.

I’m tired of the hypocrisy. I’m tired of the lack of Charity. I am heartily sick and tired of a Church that says one thing, and practices another. I sometimes let my frustration at the injustices and petty cruelties, the crocodile tears and the pious platitudes get the better of me, and cause a lack of charity in my own dealings with others. As is obvious in some of my comments in this thread, and for which I ask forgiveness.

saying one thing and doing another is rapant through out all humanity Zoe, don’t let it get you down. I grew with parents that said do as I say , not as I do. So I know how you feel.

 

[Karmartia]

Everyone has disordered desires. We struggle with them. Loving the sinner is actually the same thing as hating the sin, because sin does damage to the sinner, inevitably. To love someone is to hate what damages someone, from within or without.

Wen fantasy becomes obsession, then obsession reality, then reality becomes fantasy.

 

[Diane_Lynn]

I’ve heard that argument before, but it seems like a ‘straw man’ argument - since even those who support gay marriage are opposed to the things you mentioned.

Not all or have you not heard of the homosexual groups who profess pedophilia as their belief doctrine? Not all mind you but it has never been condemned as an intolerant behavior by the gay groups as being anathema to them either.

 

[Diane_Lynn]

It seems they can. That’s what the data says in all the surveys that have been done. Apart from Uncles, teachers, coaches, grandfathers, cousins… people deliberately chosen as being “good influences” by their parents, rather than being shaped by a possibly drunken and abusive spouse.

Same-sex marriage is illegal here, or rather, both partners have to be legally of opposite sexes when they marry.

It may be though that one or the other may be biologically of a different sex than the one they appear to be when they get married. That happens in some rare Intersex conditions - where what is apparently (and legally at the time) an Intersexed male turns out to actually be an Intersexed female. This may only become obvious when they reach puberty, and that may happen rather later than it usually does. Thirty years later, in fact. In such cases the Intersexed woman may actually be not completely sterile as a male before their female puberty, and the couple may have a child - though that can take medical intervention.

It’s rare. But it happens.

In such cases, some couples decide that their marriage vows before God and Man take precedence before anything else. “In sickness and in health, till death do us part”. Any sexual attraction may be gone - often it was always one-sided anyway, such Intersexed people are often asexual before puberty - but the love can remain.

A rather more common situation is where a (usually Intersexed) boy is mutilated shortly after birth in an attempt to make him female. That happens about a thousand times a year in the USA. He grows up knowing he’s a boy, yet he has surgically created female genitalia.

Now while the Church may not recognise his right to marry a woman, as he’s sterile and incapable of intercourse - as a man anyway - is it in the public interest for secular authorities to be bound by this - if say, he’s Jewish, or Baptist?

Lest you doubt what I say, please see oiiaustralia.com/story-r/

The Church however does allow such men to marry other men. In fact, it encourages it. Because they’re capable of intercourse as women. It’s all about the sexual act to them, not love, not procreation, not reality, only keeping up appearances.

I have to help pick up the pieces in such cases.

I’m tired of the hypocrisy. I’m tired of the lack of Charity. I am heartily sick and tired of a Church that says one thing, and practices another. I sometimes let my frustration at the injustices and petty cruelties, the crocodile tears and the pious platitudes get the better of me, and cause a lack of charity in my own dealings with others. As is obvious in some of my comments in this thread, and for which I ask forgiveness.

I thought the discussion was about Catholic intolerance in regard to homosexuals? Perhaps you might wish to separate the biological condition of Intersex from that of a behavioral one.
I have no argument with your position on those born intersex but to argue as if they are but a bit different in response to church attitude in regard to same sex is taking the subject off line a bit.
The church never asks proof of ability to procreate. It is assumed but not an issue or a pre-marriage test. When I married the only thing asked of me was my baptismal certificate. As I understand at one time the church did allow for the change of name and sex to accommodate those born Intersex. Only after the introduction of same sex relationships within that corridor of understanding did the Church position become less flexible.

 

[Nec5]

"gearhead:

Polygamy affects the first spouse, whose rights and well-being may be altered by the second and subsequent marriages.

Consensual incest potentially affects any children the couple would have in the form of genetic defects. Also, it raises the issue of undue influence and the question of whether full consent is present.

Your polygamy analysis is incorrect if the marriage is consensual. All participants freely enter into it as per the new definition of marriage.

As for incest, it happens to have the same problem as your new definition of marriage. If genetic defects are the issue, then all married couples should be screened to make sure their chromosomes do not have the same inherent disorders and will consequently be passed on to children. The equal protection clause/argument demands it.

Besides, who are you to judge the issue of undue influence? If two related people are in love and want to get married, what logical reason is there to prevent it? It doesn’t concern you, me, or anyone else.

If I am understanding your post correctly, you are upset that most gay marriage supporters do not support the other activities you mention, because then it would be easier to denounce gay marriage by denouncing polygamy and incent and things which 99% of the population opposes.

You’re trying to create an argument on polygamy and incent where none exists. If you oppose gay marriage, then argue that point on it’s own merits.

I can argue how I choose. I am not upset. I am asking that the new definition of marriage be inclusive, non-judgmental, and consistent regarding its treatment of individuals.

I assume that you are redefining marriage to mean “Two consensual human beings”. Is that your new revised and inclusive definition? If not, I want to see it.

Up until now, the accepted codified and non-codified cultural definition was “A man and woman entering into union and receiving all the norms of property rights and parental controls.” The non-codified cultural definition has included til death do us part, love, and all the other values commonly (or used to be commonly) associated with marriage.

I realize I am presenting a theoretical norm that is difficult, if not impossible, to locate today.

That was the norm up until a decade(s) or so ago. You are changing that tradition. Fine. Make sure your new definition applies equally and fairly to all including polygamy and incest. If it does not, then you have a law as equally flawed and bigoted as the traditional one you dislike.

 

[Diane_Lynn]

As for incest, it happens to have the same problem as your new definition of marriage. If genetic defects are the issue, then all married couples should be screened to make sure their chromosomes do not have the same inherent disorders and will consequently be passed on to children. The equal protection clause/argument demands it.

Nec, I don’t think chromosomal tests would suffice especially as it might apply to some intersex or genetic disorders. Perhaps DNA would be more telling, yes???

 

[Nec5]

Nec, I don’t think chromosomal tests would suffice especially as it might apply to some intersex or genetic disorders. Perhaps DNA would be more telling, yes???

As you wish. The biological terminology escapes me but the coding sequences are the key if my memory of biology class is correct.

If my memory is correct, there are usually two pairs for a trait and the idea is that the “correct” gene will become dominant and prevent the genetic disorder. If the two people involved have the same “flaw”, then there is not likely to be a “correction” and the child will likely have that inherited disorder.

I’m sure I’ve butchered the scientific terminology, but I think the general principle is correct? Throw me a bone here.