The Current Political Climate & The Gay Identity

[The_Reginator]

I agree that we’ve each probably said most of what we need to say, and it was nice to have a good peaceful conversation about what is so often a contentious subject.

It is a sensitive topic so there are bound to be feelings in all directions on it. I’ve enjoyed the exchange too.

I must say that it has been a delight to follow an exchange like this without the usual back-biting that these discussions so often turn into!!

Have yourselves a blessed evening and a great tomorrow.

Dominus vobiscum, Reg.

 

[Candide_West]

…

I would say that the majority of parents want their children to grow up heterosexual. Do their wishes count for nothing? Is it really ok for homosexuals to do their advertising on the taxpayers’ dime, against the wishes of the parents?
…

Hi Francis,

I’ve been lurking on this thread and found the conversation interesting to follow, but I wanted to respond to this point because there appears to be an unwritten assumption here - that we can affect peoples sexuality by educating them (or “advertising” as you have called it above).

As far as I have seen (and I have looked) there is no evidence to date that we can “advertise children gay”. Indeed given that we as a society have a lot of experience in trying to make people heterosexual using the law, social stigma, fear, propaganda, advertising, education etc and only ever succeeded in forcing people to pretend to be heterosexual (as per the examples from Thinking Sapian). We would seem to have good evidence that you can’t influence sexuality with “advertising” of whatever form.*

This also seems to be supported by the ever growing raft of other species of animals in which homosexual behaviour has been found. The evidence is increasingly strong that homosexuality is innate to the person and thus no more susceptible to advertising than ginger hair (you can hide it, but it’s always there).

So really the question comes down to whether we wish to educate young people so they know homosexuality exists and shouldn’t be discriminated against. And do it in the same way we teach them it’s wrong to discriminate based on race, or religion, or gender…*

Or alternatively keep quiet and let them make up their own minds. In truth I have a great deal of belief in the ability of the younger generations to make sensible choices on their own (provided we don’t actively teach them discrimination) so I’m pretty open minded on this question.

That’s my thoughts anyway.

 

[The_Reginator]

Hi Francis,

I’ve been lurking on this thread and found the conversation interesting to follow, but I wanted to respond to this point because there appears to be an unwritten assumption here - that we can affect peoples sexuality by educating them (or “advertising” as you have called it above).

As far as I have seen (and I have looked) there is no evidence to date that we can “advertise children gay”. Indeed given that we as a society have a lot of experience in trying to make people heterosexual using the law, social stigma, fear, propaganda, advertising, education etc and only ever succeeded in forcing people to pretend to be heterosexual (as per the examples from Thinking Sapian). We would seem to have good evidence that you can’t influence sexuality with “advertising” of whatever form.*

This also seems to be supported by the ever growing raft of other species of animals in which homosexual behaviour has been found. The evidence is increasingly strong that homosexuality is innate to the person and thus no more susceptible to advertising than ginger hair (you can hide it, but it’s always there).

So really the question comes down to whether we wish to educate young people so they know homosexuality exists and shouldn’t be discriminated against. And do it in the same way we teach them it’s wrong to discriminate based on race, or religion, or gender…*

Or alternatively keep quiet and let them make up their own minds. In truth I have a great deal of belief in the ability of the younger generations to make sensible choices on their own (provided we don’t actively teach them discrimination) so I’m pretty open minded on this question.

That’s my thoughts anyway.

Candid, I’ve a couple of cents -]two/-] too. (Sorry. I couldn’t resist that one…)
My biggest concern is the multitude of influences that our young people are subjected to today.

• Television shows and movies are increasingly trying to make homosexuality appear to be ‘normal’ rather than the disorder that it really is.
• Our children are seeing, or at least hearing about, gay ‘pride’ parades. (If that’s OK, what’s wrong with a pedophile pride parade? After all paedophilia is just another sexual preference…)
• Many governments, including mine here in Canada, have decided that they have the authority to change the very definition of Marriage.
  …

With all these influences I wonder how many people today grow up pondering whether or not they are heterosexual. I find it odd how none of my friends ever claimed to be gay but both my kids (in their early 20s) know of a few friends who say they are.

One of the biggest reasons I have to doubt that all ‘gay’ persons are truly homosexual came about when I first heard the term “bisexual”.
If one is “bisexual” then there is simply a choice: Have a normal sex life or a disordered sex life.

We certainly observe homosexual activity in other species. We also observe cannibalistic activity. Just because lower life forms partake in an activity that we can also see in some humans is not any sort of defence of that behaviour.

God calls us to go beyond our human nature. If, say, a man find himself attracted to little girls he must discourage those thoughts and never act on them. The Holy Spirit has revealed to us that homosexuality is a disordered behaviour than must be controlled.

In fact homosexuality is a grave cross to bear. If a person successfully bears this cross they can help, through their discipline and prayers, lead others to heaven. Any suffering we endure in this life can be the price of souls. I would go so far as to say that the Church needs chaste homosexuals.

Now it’s gotten late and I’m rambling …
(And this probably reads a whole lot more uncharitable than I meant it to. Goodnight.)

 

[Candide_West]

My biggest concern is the multitude of influences that our young people are subjected to today. *

People have often been concerned about “influences” being applied to children throughout history. In each generation they seem to turn out mostly fine. So don’t worry I’m sure it won’t be the end of the world.

**]Television shows and movies are increasingly trying to make homosexuality appear to be ‘normal’ rather than the disorder that it really is.

Homosexuality isn’t a “disorder”, unless you consider as a “disorder” any trait which only a relatively small proportion of the population have (like ginger hair).

Equally I think that tv and films etc are not “trying” to make homosexuality appear normal (after all, we know it is normal in the sense of natural to humans anyway. Just like ginger hair). But they are I think trying to represent gay people more accurately, by which i mean - as people, just like everyone else. Which as far as I can see can only be a good thing.

**]Our children are seeing, or at least hearing about, gay ‘pride’ parades. *(If that’s OK, what’s wrong with a pedophile pride parade?..

What a strange comparison to make. One is a consensual act between two adults (some of whom are in love with each other). The other is a forceful attack by an adult on an unwilling innocent. You might as well say “if marriage guidance councillors are ok, then what’s wrong with a rape instructor”.

Honestly it’s just a really odd thing to say.

**]Many governments, including mine here in Canada, have decided that they have the authority to change the very definition of Marriage.

Yes, indeed. Because marriage is defined in the law of the country. That is what gives marriage it’s special status in under the law. It doesn’t have a special legal status from it’s religious significance.*

So if you want to only consider people to be “really” married who have met the criteria for marriage in your religion then that’s fine. But don’t expect the country to agree with you. Equally remember that people from other religions may decide not to respect what ** you ** consider to be marriage. However, that won’t affect your rights under the law either. So that’s all nice and balanced.

*With all these influences I wonder how many people today grow up pondering whether or not they are heterosexual. *I find it odd how none of my friends ever claimed to be gay but both my kids (in their early 20s) know of a few friends who say they are.

“claimed to be gay” are you saying you doubt that they’re telling the truth? Perhaps you meant that none of your friends admitted to being gay? Perhaps some of them are counted amongst the examples like those cited by TS - of people who hide it?*

A review of history will identify that there seem to have always been gay and bisexual people. The fact that people these days (at least in the west) usually only need to overcome a social stigma as opposed to a threat of being stoned, lynched or similar probably makes coming out of the closet a bit less daunting at least.

*One of the biggest reasons I have to doubt that all ‘gay’ persons are truly homosexual came about when I first heard the term “bisexual”.
If one is “bisexual” then there is simply a choice: *Have a normal sex life or a disordered sex life.

Or to be more accurate “have a heterosexual or homosexual sex life”.

Ok well let’s take an example of a bisexual woman (since men seem to get most of the attention). Let’s say she’s truly, madly, deeply in love with another woman. Should she*

a. Sleep with men who she doesn’t love and have a “normal” sex life. But never marry or settle.

OR

b. Marry and spend the rest of her life with the one woman she does love.

I’d say that the latter is the more healthy choice.*

We certainly observe homosexual activity in other species. *We also observe cannibalistic activity. *Just because lower life forms partake in an activity that we can also see in some humans is not any sort of defence of that behaviour.

No, but it does show (as I said) that the behaviour is natural. So arguing that it is a choice or something which maybe influenced by “advertising” seems rather silly.*

Also if you believe in the Christian God you must believe that he deliberately made animals in all those species homosexual. So presumably homosexuality is not something which offends him too much.

*…a man find himself attracted to little girls he must discourage those thoughts and never act on them. The Holy Spirit has revealed to us that homosexuality is a disordered behaviour than must be controlled.

Why do you keep bringing up pedophiles? This thread is nothing to do with that as far as I can understand.*

As for what you believe the holy spirit has revealed to you, well that’s fine. Nobody is stopping you believing whatever. But obviously that doesn’t make discrimination ok. Equally it doesn’t make it ok for a man to beat his wife because his religion says he can.*

*In fact homosexuality is a grave cross to bear…

Yes, I agree that society has made it difficult to be homosexual. Everything from simple social stigma to a hostile legal system and threat of murder depending on where in the world you are. Slowly attitudes are changing fortunately. Hopefully in my lifetime I’ll see this form of discrimination become as socially unacceptable as racism.*

Regards.

 

[St_Francis]

QUOTE=Candide West;8408799]Hi Francis,

I’ve been lurking on this thread…
Hi Candide,
I started answering your question but it was getting extremely long, and before I was able to finish, I noticed your reply above. It seemed like you were not really jnterested in learning about a different way of looking at this issue but just debating.

So I thought I would ask about your motivation before going into this more deeply.

Welcome to the board, and I am not Francis–Saint (St) Francis de Sales is my patron saint. My name is Annie

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Candide, I would just like to remind you that you can spend the rest of your life with someone you love without marrying or engaging in sex with them.

 

[The_Reginator]

People have often been concerned about “influences” being applied to children throughout history. In each generation they seem to turn out mostly fine. So don’t worry I’m sure it won’t be the end of the world.

No it will not be the end of the world. But it could be the eternal damnation of many poor souls. We have to stop trusting in ourselves as to decide what is moral and what is offensive to God. Our only hope is in the Church, the Body of Christ, that God has given us as an authoritative teacher of His Holy Will.

Homosexuality isn’t a “disorder”, unless you consider as a “disorder” any trait which only a relatively small proportion of the population have (like ginger hair).

Homosexuality is a disordered behaviour. We have the authority of the Catholic Church that tells us so:
[ 2357

Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

](http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm)

Equally I think that tv and films etc are not “trying” to make homosexuality appear normal (after all, we know it is normal in the sense of natural to humans anyway. Just like ginger hair). But they are I think trying to represent gay people more accurately, by which i mean - as people, just like everyone else. Which as far as I can see can only be a good thing.

The big concern here is not the fact that homosexuals are “people, just like everyone else” but rather the attempt to normalize gay sexual activities in our minds. This, of course, goes far beyond homosexual acts – we continually have extramarital sex presented as normal behaviour. Sure people do it. But it is still a grave sin.

What a strange comparison to make. One is a consensual act between two adults (some of whom are in love with each other). The other is a forceful attack by an adult on an unwilling innocent. You might as well say “if marriage guidance councillors are ok, then what’s wrong with a rape instructor”.

Honestly it’s just a really odd thing to say.

My point is that not all “sexual preferences” are equal, or even permissible. To claim that sexual acts between two adults of the same sex is not a sin is not only odd, but it is also a very dangerous statement.

Yes, indeed. Because marriage is defined in the law of the country. That is what gives marriage it’s special status in under the law. It doesn’t have a special legal status from it’s religious significance.*

So if you want to only consider people to be “really” married who have met the criteria for marriage in your religion then that’s fine. But don’t expect the country to agree with you. Equally remember that people from other religions may decide not to respect what ** you ** consider to be marriage. However, that won’t affect your rights under the law either. So that’s all nice and balanced.

When in all the history of the world has marriage ever included two people of the same sex. That very idea is not only disturbing. It is sick.

“claimed to be gay” are you saying you doubt that they’re telling the truth? Perhaps you meant that none of your friends admitted to being gay? Perhaps some of them are counted amongst the examples like those cited by TS - of people who hide it?*

A review of history will identify that there seem to have always been gay and bisexual people. The fact that people these days (at least in the west) usually only need to overcome a social stigma as opposed to a threat of being stoned, lynched or similar probably makes coming out of the closet a bit less daunting at least.

“In my day” (the 1970s) the very idea was virtually unheard of. If you thought you might be gay it was not something to be celebrated as many would like to have it today. Everybody knew that homosexuality was not a choice. Now a days it seems like even some Catholic schools are trying to make it appear acceptable.

CONTINUED …

 

[The_Reginator]

CONTINUED from post # 27:

Or to be more accurate “have a heterosexual or homosexual sex life”.

Ok well let’s take an example of a bisexual woman (since men seem to get most of the attention). Let’s say she’s truly, madly, deeply in love with another woman. Should she*

a. Sleep with men who she doesn’t love and have a “normal” sex life. But never marry or settle.

OR

b. Marry and spend the rest of her life with the one woman she does love.

I’d say that the latter is the more healthy choice.*

A choice that will destroy your immortal soul is not a “healthy choice”. It is the exact opposite. It would be better to spend a few short decades doing what you don’t want rather than spending 500,000,000+ years in agony. Eternity, of course, is much longer than that.

But “bisexual”? That is just a lack of self control. There is no such thing. One only allows it to exist within oneself. A person must make a firm decision not to allow those thoughts to grow into fruition.

No, but it does show (as I said) that the behaviour is natural. So arguing that it is a choice or something which maybe influenced by “advertising” seems rather silly.*

Also if you believe in the Christian God you must believe that he deliberately made animals in all those species homosexual. So presumably homosexuality is not something which offends him too much.

It does not show that it is natural. It only shows that an anomalous behaviour can be observed in lower life forms. We are not mere animals. We have free will. Free will to choose what is right rather than to follow our base desires.
Let’s rephrase your second point here:
" Also if you believe in the Christian God you must believe that he deliberately made animals in all those species cannibals. So presumably eating cannibalistic activity is not something which offends him too much."
That’s how it works for homosexual activity.

Why do you keep bringing up pedophiles? This thread is nothing to do with that as far as I can understand.*

I bring that up, again, to illustrate that not all ‘sexual preferences’ are OK.

As for what you believe the holy spirit has revealed to you, well that’s fine. Nobody is stopping you believing whatever. But obviously that doesn’t make discrimination ok. Equally it doesn’t make it ok for a man to beat his wife because his religion says he can.*

The Holy Spirit has revealed His Truths to all humanity through His Church. These are not simply something that we can ‘take or leave’. We have been told for the good of our immortal souls.

Yes, I agree that society has made it difficult to be homosexual. Everything from simple social stigma to a hostile legal system and threat of murder depending on where in the world you are. Slowly attitudes are changing fortunately. Hopefully in my lifetime I’ll see this form of discrimination become as socially unacceptable as racism.*

Regards.

Certainly some attitudes need to change. The death penalty for being homosexual? We can all agree that that is horrid. But we must be on our guard so that we do not loose sight of the fact that all perverse sexual activity, from masturbation to extra-marital sex to homosexual sex, must be stigmatized. The people suffering from real problems in these areas need prayers and any help we can give. But we can never condone evil behaviour.

Anyways …
I think we’ve both made our viewpoints somewhat clear. Do not forget, though, that this is a Catholic forum. We know that the ultimate authority resides with God. God established His Catholic Church to teach the world with authority.

I do not feel like re-hashing this anymore, so you may end up with the last word if you so decide. (Unless, of course, I find something brilliant to say.)

• Reg.

 

[Candide_West]

Welcome to the board, and I am not Francis–Saint (St) Francis de Sales is my patron saint. My name is Annie

Hey Annie, nice to meet you. Sorry about the misnaming thing.*

Hi Candide,
I started answering your question but it was getting extremely long, and before I was able to finish, I noticed your reply above. It seemed like you were not really jnterested in learning about a different way of looking at this issue but just debating.

I do enjoy a good debate and I thought the things that Reginator said deserved a reply. That said I’m not just looking for an argument, indeed I find myself in a general sense agreeing with the OP on this thread. I think that homophobia etc makes Catholics look bad. As he said it’s closely associated with various groups which are viewed extremely negatively by society in general.*

Equally I was impressed with the discussion on this thread. Too often these discussions become somewhat rude when on topics that people feel strongly about. However, I just thought that the point I replied to above deserved further consideration in it’s own right.

So I thought I would ask about your motivation before going into this more deeply.

Motivation for being on this thread or on this forum in general?*

The forum, I engage in because I find it an interesting place for discussion and one where I encounter opinions which differ widely from my own to test my thoughts and assumptions against.*

This particular thread. As I said, I just felt that an assumption had been made which I believe to be at least unsupported and quite likely untrue. That seemed to merit a reply to me.*

Take care.

 

[Candide_West]

Candide, I would just like to remind you that you can spend the rest of your life with someone you love without marrying or engaging in sex with them.

True enough, but that of course applies to heterosexual couples just as much as homosexual ones. And just like for heterosexual couples I’m sure they would find it difficult and lacking in fulfillment.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

True enough, but that of course applies to heterosexual couples just as much as homosexual ones. And just like for heterosexual couples I’m sure they would find it difficult and lacking in fulfillment.

I’d really only advise it for heterosexuals in love who can not marry since marriage would be so much less stressful

 

[Candide_West]

No it will not be the end of the world. *But it could be the eternal damnation of many poor souls. *We have to stop trusting in ourselves as to decide what is moral and what is offensive to God. *Our only hope is in the Church, the Body of Christ, that God has given us as an authoritative teacher of His Holy Will.

I know that you believe that, and that’s fine. You have a perfect right to. If you feel that it’s wrong then just don’t do it.*

What you don’t have a right to do is discriminate against people on the basis of your belief. As per the OP, if you do so you are taking a position which will inevitably been seen as standing alongside other discriminatory groups. In which case I suspect society will have little choice but to turn away from you.*

*Homosexuality is a disordered behaviour. *We have the authority of the Catholic Church that tells us so…

Again, that’s your belief and that’s fine. But there is no evidence anywhere I have found which suggests homosexuality is a disorder in either the medical or psychological sense. So you can consider it to be “disordered” according to your religion. You can consider eating meat on a Friday to be “disordered” too if you wish. As long as you don’t try to discriminate against people who don’t agree then that’s all fine.*

*The big concern here is not the fact that homosexuals are “people, just like everyone else” but rather the attempt to normalize gay sexual activities in our minds. *This, of course, goes far beyond homosexual acts – we continually have extramarital sex presented as normal behaviour. *Sure people do it. *But it is still a grave sin.

Well therein lies the problem, tv and movies are depicting as normal behaviour which is normal, but which you don’t like. Well, again that’s fine, I don’t like a lot of tv as well. I’d suggest not watching the programmes which show things you don’t like.*

*My point is that not all “sexual preferences” are equal, or even permissible. *

Well, yes. That seems rather too obvious to even require stating. As long as you weren’t trying to draw some kind of correlation between homosexuality and paedophillia. Which clearly would be silly.

*To claim that sexual acts between two adults of the same sex is not a sin is not only odd, but it is also a very dangerous statement.

It doesn’t appear to be as far as I can tell. Again I appreciate that it’s defined as a sin in catholic teaching. That’s fine, but remember not everyone is a catholic. If we are going to make laws that make it illegal to do anything which are proscribed in a religion we are going to be having some vast and difficult social changes. How do you think christian women in Canada are going to take to wearing the burka for example?*

*When in all the history of the world has marriage ever included two people of the same sex. *That very idea is not only disturbing. *It is sick.

…In your opinion. And again you have the right to it. So I’d suggest you don’t engage in same sex marriage. But to say that other people can’t do it because you believe it’s wrong is rather silly.*

*“In my day” (the 1970s) the very idea was virtually unheard of. *If you thought you might be gay it was not something to be celebrated as many would like to have it today…

And yet there were still plenty of gay people around. They just hid it. Again, the examples from TS demonstrate the point.

A choice that will destroy your immortal soul is not a “healthy choice”. *It is the exact opposite. *It would be better to spend a few short decades doing what you don’t want rather than spending 500,000,000+ years in agony. *Eternity, of course, is much longer than that.

Indeed, and that’s all well and good if you believe you have an immortal soul which will be destroyed by such behaviour. I (and an awful lot of other people) do not share that belief. So I think about what’s good for a persons physical and mental wellbeing right here on earth. And again the latter seems better to me no doubt it would seem better to you too except for the gender of the other party involved.

Incidentally in truth eternal life even in heaven sounds terrible to me. If God exists and gave me the choice of living for eternity or simply ceasing. I think I’d go for the latter.

*But “bisexual”? *That is just a lack of self control. *There is no such thing. *One only allows it to exist within oneself. *A person must make a firm decision not to allow those thoughts to grow into fruition.

That again is your belief and I fear a wildly inaccurate one. I don’t think I’m likely to be able to convince you to review your opinions. But I’ll settle for again reminding you that your views are not necessarily shared by others. So expecting the world to conform to your views is rather irrational.

 

[Candide_West]

*It does not show that it is natural. *It only shows that an anomalous behaviour can be observed in lower life forms. *We are not mere animals. *We have free will. *Free will to choose what is right rather than to follow our base desires.

But again, if animals do not have free will, then they cannot have “chosen” to be homosexual. They are and can only ever be what God made them. He must have done it deliberately (since he makes no errors, indeed he cannot being omniscient) so their behaviour is not anomalous, it’s intended.*

If it’s intended in animals and appears to be natural in humans. It’s a reasonable guess that God intended some people to be gay. After all he must have known that having given them these natural preferences many people would follow them. If he really didn’t like homosexuality he could just cease giving people the natural tendency to it and it’d be all over in a generation.*

*Let’s rephrase your second point here:
" Also if you believe in the Christian God you must believe that he deliberately made animals in all those species cannibals. So presumably eating cannibalistic activity is not something which offends him too much."
That’s how it works for homosexual activity.

Right, that makes sense. However, the difference becomes obvious when you look at it from a human perspective. In the case of homosexuality there is no “victim” as both participants engage in it willingly and enjoy it. Obviously cannibalism is different in that there is always at least one victim (the chap getting eaten).*

*I bring that up, again, to illustrate that not all ‘sexual preferences’ are OK.

True enough, but obviously it doesn’t follow from “some types of sexual preferences are wrong” to “type X of sexual preference is wrong”. So the point is irrelevant. You’d be as well saying that straight sex is wrong because rape is wrong.

*The Holy Spirit has revealed His Truths to all humanity through His Church. *These are not simply something that we can ‘take or leave’. *We have been told for the good of our immortal souls. *

Again, that’s fine, it’s your belief. Just don’t try to impose it on others. Reminds me of a story of a girl in Afghanistan what had acid thrown in her face for being out of the house without her veil. The perpetrator believed he was justified because it would stop other women from committing other such terrible “sins”.

*Certainly some attitudes need to change. *The death penalty for being homosexual? *We can all agree that that is horrid. *But we must be on our guard so that we do not loose sight of the fact that all perverse sexual activity, from masturbation to extra-marital sex to homosexual sex, must be stigmatized…

Again it’s your view that those things are “perverse”, as for stigmatising etc. Unfortunately stigmatising people for doing things you don’t like and actively punishing those people through the law or direct action are just two sides of the same coin. Even after homosexuality ceased to be a crime in Britain people who considered it to be wrong carried out beatings and murders of people who were suspected. Those murderers had the same kinds of justification as you do, they were just willing to go further for their cause.

*Anyways …
I think we’ve both made our viewpoints somewhat clear. *Do not forget, though, that this is a Catholic forum. *We know that the ultimate authority resides with God. *God established His Catholic Church to teach the world with authority.

Yes, I know that those are your beliefs. Obviously I don’t agree with them.*

*I do not feel like re-hashing this anymore, so you may end up with the last word if you so decide. *(Unless, of course, I find something brilliant to say.)

• Reg.

I’m hoping for something brilliant. We’ve drifted a long way from the simple point I started out with but it’s been an interesting wander. Thanks for the journey.

 

[tonyrey]

Again, that’s fine, it’s your belief. Just don’t try to impose it on others.

In the UK there are many unhappy children who have been waiting for years to be adopted. The Catholic adoption society no longer exists because it did not allow homosexuals to adopt the children in its care. Christians have lost their jobs because they wear a crucifix. The principle of tolerance has led to intolerance of minority beliefs and values. Is that a progressive society?

 

[Elizabeth502]

It’s a reasonable guess that God intended some people to be gay.

No, that guess is actually not “reasonable” at all. It’s reasonable, indeed apparent, that God intended that maleness and femaleness be uniquely manifested in each individual of the respective gender. But sexual attraction is far more complex, dynamic, and evolving in the individual than “assigning” it to some deterministic path from birth. We are asexual creatures at birth; our sexuality develops over time.

Further, God is not the author of some mechanistic determinism, playing some disconnected role of puppeteer. Not only is there enormous flexibility with regard to our outcomes, three elements, at minimum, affect those outcomes:

~given physiological, chemical, and personality characteristics from birth
~environment, which affects sexuality in a huge way
~free will.

After all he must have known that having given them these natural preferences many people would follow them. If he really didn’t like homosexuality he could just cease giving people the natural tendency to it and it’d be all over in a generation.

You might want to do a search of these terms on CAF, restricted just to the last 12 months even. Be careful with those terms ‘nature’ and ‘natural.’ Some people are born with “natural” tendencies to do evil; yet those are utterly incompatible with God who is pure goodness itself; there can be no evil in Him. What is “natural” is not necessarily either willed by God or designed by God. People can be born with genetic material which has a strong possibility of developing into psychosis by puberty or at least by late adolescence; that doesn’t mean that God willed the psychosis, regards it as “natural,” let alone “good.”

Unchecked, unmodified, many of our inborn (“natural”) tendencies are not good at all. They may be neutral in many cases, originally. It is when those tendencies interact with an environment, and decisions are made by that individual (decisions to assent, ignore, take ownership, or even pervert them) that the “tendency” can become good or evil. The tendency is no longer a passive trait but a decision.

it’s your belief. Just don’t try to impose it on others.

Every society, including that of the United States of America, both historically and currently, is built on sets of beliefs. The secular political realm (including the entire spectrum of political positions) operates on the premise of competing and cooperative beliefs about what is better or best for society. Citizens of all religions contribute to those legitimate voices of investment in society’s outcomes.

 

[St_Francis]

Hi Francis,

I’ve been lurking on this thread and found the conversation interesting to follow, but I wanted to respond to this point because there appears to be an unwritten assumption here - that we can affect peoples sexuality by educating them (or “advertising” as you have called it above).

…

That’s my thoughts anyway.

Hi Candide,
In thinking over your question, I realized that it would require not only a long post, but some background information as well. So I have decided to write a series of shorter posts, because I’m having trouble finding time to write a long one all at once.

The first thing I wanted to say is that I was not raised Catholic; I was raised pretty much secular. As a result, I spent around half my adult life thinking similiarly to the way you think. I mention this because I want you to know that I was not brainwashed from my youth into the way I think now but that I have lived both ways of thinking and chosen this one.

Underlying the problem of homosexual behavior is human sexual behavior in general. We do not believe that heterosexual people can do whatever they want whenever they want but that sexual behavior is very important and because of its nature should be limited to certain circumstances.

The “end” or function of sexual behavior is procreation. Procreation is important to society because without it, the society would die.*

Society not only needs babies to be born, but babies to be raised to become adults who can function as productive members of the society. So you can see that the issue of child-bearing and child-raising is of interest to society.

Children are best and most safely and securely raised in a family with two parents, one of each gender, and as far as possible the same parents throughout the child’s life.

For all these reasons, societies have all come up with systems for maintaining and encouraging stable family groups, involving some form of what we call marriage, or strong lifelong commitment.*

The nature of the commitment wrt marriage is generally considered a covenant rather than a contract. Another example of a covenant is adoption. The bonds are much tighter than with a mere contract.

Because of the nature and purpose of marriage, benefits are conferred upon the family which are not conferred upon individuals, whatever their relationship may be.

In our current society, we have disconnected sexual activity from procreation. This resulted from the acceptance of artificial birth control as a means to limit procreation.*

What has been the result of this? Familes have become less stable, resulting in a much higher rate of bad outcomes for children. Sexual behavior outside the bounds of marriage has become the norm. And the idea of marriage being the establishment of a family, a unit of society, has devolved to the idea of marriage as a bigger form of going steady, with a big party.

This has all been bad for society, and Catholic teaching is against it. The Church is against any separation between sexual activity and procreation, from masturbation and birth control to in vitro fertilization.

So that’s the background I wanted to explain. More later!

 

[Candide_West]

In the UK there are many unhappy children who have been waiting for years to be adopted. The Catholic adoption society no longer exists because it did not allow homosexuals to adopt the children in its care.*

I know and that’s very unfortunate. But the reality is that it’s the result of even handed application of anti-discrimination laws (which have got to be applied even handedly otherwise they can’t exist at all). And an organisation which has a fixed position from which it won’t / can’t shift to the extent that they would rather close down than change.

Christians have lost their jobs because they wear a crucifix.

I’ve only heard of one example of this which on closer examination actually turned out to be because all necklaces were banned in the woman in question’s workplace. It was nothing to do with the symbol which happened to be on her necklace. Perhaps you have heard of other examples?

*The principle of tolerance has led to intolerance of minority beliefs and values. Is that a progressive society?

I fear that there will always be some negative aspects to any social change due to the highly complex nature of society. This does not mean that discrimination is better. No doubt there were some changes which were perceived at the time as negative from banning racism and sexism too. But I’m sure you wouldn’t seek a return to those forms of discrimination.*

 

[Acapiteadcalcem]

When I read this it immediately made me think of claims that there is a biological factor in one sexuality. It reminds me of that because there’s also a biological explanation behind the preferences that my older sister and I have with respect to ice cream. She won’t eat certain flavours because they taste like other foods that cause her to vomit. I don’t eat ice cream at all any more. Some time during the past five years the gradually decreasing expression of my LCT gene has reached the level at which I can consume ice cream or milk without experiencing intestinal pains and other disgusting symptoms. Though to people observing our behaviour because of these preferences I’m sure the behaviour looks completely arbitrary.

Human beings are not helplessly subjected to deterministic causes. We have the freedom to act for or against or impulses, even natural ones. Fasting, for example, is in a sense an ‘unnatural’ activity from a subjective standpoint.

Theologians make a distinction between ‘actus hominis’ and ‘actus humanus’. For Aquinas, for example, there can be no human act (actus humanus) without the use of reason. Thus, moral actions are distinguished from those actions done without reason, or without sufficient deliberation of the end. So for example, picking up a straw or walking would not qualify as being human acts properly speaking, even if in such acts there is the power of thought behind them (ST q18, a8). Things like tapping ones fingers while thinking or chewing on a straw or walking while chatting with a friend are acts that humans do (actus hominis) but they are not the subject of moral, rational choice (actus humanus) and as such as “indifferent in species” (ST Ia, q18, a8). We are not disposed to moral action through genes. To suggest so would inevitably involve a denial of free will.

The Church itself admits it doesn’t know the causes of a homosexual orientation…

No one does, but that’s not the point. One does not have to know the effieicent cause of something to know that it is wrong. I don’t need to know who keeps painting obscene graffiti on my neighbour’s house, or why, in order to know that there is something objectivley disordered about that act.

 

[Candide_West]

No, that guess is actually not “reasonable” at all. It’s reasonable, indeed apparent, that God intended that maleness and femaleness be uniquely manifested in each individual of the respective gender. But sexual attraction is far more complex, dynamic, and evolving in the individual than “assigning” it to some deterministic path from birth. We are asexual creatures at birth; our sexuality develops over time.

I’m not saying that sexuality is simple. Just that I have yet to see any research to date which suggests that sexuality is a choice and yet as per my previous post we have both academic and practical evidence suggesting that is not influenced by either external factors, or the sexuality the person would like to have.

Think about it, if you were living in 60’s America in the bible belt and you knew that if people realised you were homosexual you’d be at least socially stigmatised and are almost guaranteed to get beatings and possibly even murdered. Not to mention the distain of your family, loss of friends, job… would you “choose” to be gay? Personally I’d have done everything possible to avoid it, but people were still gay anyway.

Further, God is not the author of some mechanistic determinism, playing some disconnected role of puppeteer. Not only is there enormous flexibility with regard to our outcomes, three elements, at minimum, affect those outcomes:

~ given physiological, chemical, and personality characteristics from birth

I agree with you on this one. For example evidence suggests strongly that the there is a correlation between hormone levels during development in the womb and sexuality and indeed other physical features of the individual later in their life.

~environment, which affects sexuality in a huge way

I’d be interested in any sources on this topic if you have any? To date as I’ve said I’ve encountered no evidence that environment influences sexuality at all. Indeed given that homosexuality has continued to exist even in societies through history in which it was strongly stigmatised against etc. It appears that there is no combination of environmental influences which can prevent people being homosexual.

~free will.

Again I’ve not seen any evidence that someone can choose their sexuality. If you have any sources then i’d be very interested. I know that this is only anecdotal but a good friend of mine wanted desperately to be heterosexual (for religious and social reasons) and tried everything he could to be so but ultimately he just wasn’t. Eventually he accepted the fact and I’m glad to say is much happier for it (and he’s still Christian incidentally).

You might want to do a search of these terms on CAF, restricted just to the last 12 months even. Be careful with those terms ‘nature’ and ‘natural.’ Some people are born with “natural” tendencies to do evil; yet those are utterly incompatible with God who is pure goodness itself; there can be no evil in Him. What is “natural” is not necessarily either willed by God or designed by God. People can be born with genetic material which has a strong possibility of developing into psychosis by puberty or at least by late adolescence; that doesn’t mean that God willed the psychosis, regards it as “natural,” let alone “good.”

Fair enough, but given that God (if he exists) can influence whatever he pleases and clearly this is an area which he could interfere without either providing any evidence for himself, or interfering with free will, for example by just directing a different sperm to join with the egg (we’d never have any idea that he had intervened if it had happened). He would appear to be able to prevent these things without breaking any of his rules, so it rather begs the question of why he doesn’t if he finds these things so offensive. Especially given that he knows in advance exactly which people will end up acting on the tendencies he has given them (or allowed them to have if you prefer).

Unchecked, unmodified, many of our inborn (“natural”) tendencies are not good at all. They may be neutral in many cases, originally. It is when those tendencies interact with an environment, and decisions are made by that individual (decisions to assent, ignore, take ownership, or even pervert them) that the “tendency” can become good or evil. The tendency is no longer a passive trait but a decision.

Certainly someone can choose their actions, but that doesn’t mean you can choose your sexuality. As I said, if you know of evidence that this is possible then I’d be interested.

Every society, including that of the United States of America, both historically and currently, is built on sets of beliefs. The secular political realm (including the entire spectrum of political positions) operates on the premise of competing and cooperative beliefs about what is better or best for society. Citizens of all religions contribute to those legitimate voices of investment in society’s outcomes.

Indeed, and secularism provides the level playing field on which these differing beliefs can be put together for the best that we can. We don’t just take the rules of any particular religion make them law, that’s why we don’t live in a theocracy. Equally we don’t just make all of them law, that’s why women in western countries are not required to wear the burka and we’re allowed to eat beef etc.

 

[Candide_West]

…So I have decided to write a series of shorter posts, because I’m having trouble finding time to write a long one all at once.

Okaydokey. I’ll reply to them as we go along if that’s ok? Avoids me needing to write a single massive one back and hopefully should help iron out any communication issues along the way.

Underlying the problem of homosexual behavior is human sexual behavior in general. We do not believe that heterosexual people can do whatever they want whenever they want…

Agreed, I’d say sex should always be consensual for a starter.

The “end” or function of sexual behavior is procreation. Procreation is important to society because without it, the society would die.

Certainly in evolutionary terms for our species as a whole yes. Obviously there are other purposes as well, such as bonding, intimacy etc. Which aspect is percieved as being the most important aspect for any particular individual is of course down to that individual.

Society not only needs babies to be born, but babies to be raised to become adults who can function as productive members of the society. So you can see that the issue of child-bearing and child-raising is of interest to society.

Agreed.

Children are best and most safely and securely raised in a family with two parents, one of each gender, and as far as possible the same parents throughout the child’s life.

I personally agree, but I must admit to a lack of experience with other kinds of family so perhaps my view is biased. Also I don’t think we as a species have much experience of children raised in stable families with two parents of the same gender so it’s difficult to know how it would compare.

For all these reasons, societies have all come up with systems for maintaining and encouraging stable family groups, involving some form of what we call marriage…

True.

The nature of the commitment wrt marriage is generally considered a covenant rather than a contract. Another example of a covenant is adoption. The bonds are much tighter than with a mere contract.

Depends, I know that in Christian terms marriage is considered to be something holy “what God hast bound together…” etc. But obviously neither Christian or indeed even religious marriages represent the full spectrum of marriage. Would you consider a marriage between two atheists in a registry office to be a covenant with God?

Because of the nature and purpose of marriage, benefits are conferred upon the family which are not conferred upon individuals…

True. This special status of marriage is held in the law of the country due to the importance of children to the future of the country and of course because marriage helps create stable societies which are much easier to govern and generally more successful.

In our current society, we have disconnected sexual activity from procreation. This resulted from the acceptance of artificial birth control as a means to limit procreation.

Actually I’d say this is the other way around. That because attitudes towards sex changed contraception became a normal part of our society.

What has been the result of this? Familes have become less stable, resulting in a much higher rate of bad outcomes for children…

Now this seems to be where our opinions diverge. I don’t think that contraception causes the breakup of families etc. Rather I think that both the rise of contraception and the reduced stability of the family unit has resulted from a number of different social changes. Including the increased freedom that we possess (such as sexual equality).

For example a few hundred years ago if a man was a terrible husband, beat his wife etc. The wife had few options, if she stayed she had little hope of changing his behaviour, after all the man was the head of the family and his house is his castle. Equally if she sought a divorce what would she do? She’d greatly struggle to acquire a job which earned sufficient money to support herself well, let alone any children. The law favoured men so she’d get next to nothing in a divorce if she could even achieve it, not to mention the social stigma… So most women in that situation put up with it, because the other options were even worse.

If you don’t believe me, read up on the social conditions for married women in the middle east at the moment. Things weren’t so different here once.

Equally vastly fewer women are now satisfied with simply staying at home, cooking, cleaning and raising the children. They want careers and lives of their own, obviously this inevitably makes families less “stable” on average because people have more choices and some will take them.

Really, do you think if we made contraception illegal tomorrow people would stop having sex, or that women would return to the stove and accept their position as “homemaker”? The horse has definatively bolted, and even if the rise of contraception was part of the social change which you are referring to, taking it away will not change things back.

This has all been bad for society, and Catholic teaching is against it. The Church is against any separation between sexual activity and procreation, from masturbation and birth control to in vitro fertilization.

Understood, although I can’t say that I agree with this position. Indeed the reality out in the world as far as I can see is that where most people don’t use contraception they still merrily engage in sex. Take a trip to South Africa for example, rampant HIV and other STD’s, minimal use of contraception.

So that’s the background I wanted to explain. More later!

Great. Thanks.