The Science Of Sexual Orientation

[MikeinSD]

I don’t understand why a devout Christian would even be concerned with the science of sexual orientation. The Catholic church teaches physical expression of homosexual love is against the church’s teachings. Enough said. Devout Catholics do not engage in homosexuality. They do not because they believe in the teachings of their faith. How or why an individual is gay doesn’t matter. Faithful Catholics are not gay. Period.

A good comparison is instructing a devout Baptist how the human body metabolizes alcohol. A good Baptist would respond that drinking is sinful. No need to get into enzyme reactions or liver functions. Good Baptists don’t drink. Period.

Devout Christians do not need to believe in conspiracies, mass scientific fraud, or elderly gay radicals threatening professional medical associations for the past 35 years. Why get into science explainations when yr faith’s teachings are clear? The Christian response to homosexuality is that it is a sin. Nothing more should be needed.

 

[setter]

Back to creationism, theology vs science. Natural Law is theology.

Here are a couple CCC citations that you may wish to reflect on a bit and consider how the moral law relates to the science of sexual orientation:

1958 The natural law is immutable and permanent throughout the variations of history; it subsists under the flux of ideas and customs and supports their progress. The rules that express it remain substantially valid. Even when it is rejected in its very principles, it cannot be destroyed or removed from the heart of man. It always rises again in the life of individuals and societies:

159 Faith and science: “Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth.” “Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are.”

It doesnt matter if you ‘buy it’ or not, the evidence is bountiful.

Oh, and the “he said, she said” line has also been trotted out by creationists.

How can you stand by the integrity of the sources (such as NARTH) when they dont mention penetrance in twin studies?

Have you read any of the psychiatric reports from the 1950s-1990s of military men discharged from the forces?

But enough of this.

I can agree with you on this one point: enough already. Circular discusion/exchanges indicate a lack of fundamental basis–either you believe that God is who He says that He is (Lord of all, “I AM WHO AM”), or not.

 

[setter]

I don’t understand why a devout Christian would even be concerned with the science of sexual orientation. The Catholic church teaches physical expression of homosexual love is against the church’s teachings. Enough said. Devout Catholics do not engage in homosexuality. They do not because they believe in the teachings of their faith. How or why an individual is gay doesn’t matter. Faithful Catholics are not gay. Period.

A good comparison is instructing a devout Baptist how the human body metabolizes alcohol. A good Baptist would respond that drinking is sinful. No need to get into enzyme reactions or liver functions. Good Baptists don’t drink. Period.

Devout Christians do not need to believe in conspiracies, mass scientific fraud, or elderly gay radicals threatening professional medical associations for the past 35 years. Why get into science explainations when yr faith’s teachings are clear? The Christian response to homosexuality is that it is a sin. Nothing more should be needed.

Because God created science. Leading a moral life that acknowledges, respects and cooperates with God’s design is not a basis for exclusion. In fact, it adds more to the curiosity and intrigue of discovering more the complexity of the Creator’s design.

 

[MikeinSD]

setter:

Because God created science. Leading a moral life that acknowledges, respects and cooperates with God’s design is not a basis for exclusion. In fact, it adds more to the curiosity and intrigue of discovering more the complexity of the Creator’s design.

I suggest you pick either theology or science to define and defend yr position on homosexuality. Blending them does a disservice to yr faith. Blending theology and science makes a faith some 2000 yrs old look small. Makes it look petty. Makes it look ridiculous.

Say homosexuality is a sin. Can’t use scientific arguments with theology because theology is ultimately based on the supernatural. Be confident in yr faith and be happy with that. Use science to futher yr religious arguments ends up with (looking over this thread) the following ideas:

conspiracies involving thousands of medical professions in several different medical fields lasting over decades
leading mental health scientists committing massive world wide fraud over a period of decades
a medical conspiracy in western democracies to deny that homosexuality is a mental illness.
a legal conspiracy in western democracies to give equal rights to obviously mentally ill people, i.e., homosexuals
50 plus years of fraud and distorted data framed by thousands of researchers conspiring to show gay men and lesbians as mentally well adjusted as heterosexuals.

Now you’ve made a vibrant faith look paranoid and more than a little ridiculous. Pls do not do a disservice to either science or yr faith by mixing them up.

 

[Granny_D]

Mike… is it possible that you have come to your position and it makes you comfortable… and you would feel even more comfortable if we held the same position?

I admire your position on chastity… for everyone… but we have inherited concupiscence… through original sin… and therefore anyone of us can fall … It seems to me that the more you know about yourself the stronger you will be in avoiding sin… and avoiding judging others…when you know there are multiple factors involved in human behavior. True science and true religion will never contradict each other.

Yours for “LIFE” Granny D

 

[Digger71]

setter:

Here are a couple CCC citations th1958

The natural law is immutable and permanent throughout the variations of history; it subsists under the flux of ideas and customs and supports their progress. The rules that express it remain substantially valid. Even when it is rejected in its very principles, it cannot be destroyed or removed from the heart of man. It always rises again in the life of individuals and societies:

From: plato.stanford.edu/entries/homosexuality/

This has a good philosophical.historical account of natural law arguments, ‘problems’ (percieved or real), and homosexuality. It contains a short discussion of the place of sterile, but loving relationships. It contains a critique of queer theory, a quick aside on the social constructions of identity, etc.

It’s a long read, and quite dense.

 

[setter]

I suggest you pick either theology or science to define and defend yr position on homosexuality. Blending them does a disservice to yr faith. Blending theology and science makes a faith some 2000 yrs old look small. Makes it look petty. Makes it look ridiculous.

Say homosexuality is a sin. Can’t use scientific arguments with theology because theology is ultimately based on the supernatural. Be confident in yr faith and be happy with that. Use science to futher yr religious arguments ends up with (looking over this thread) the following ideas:

conspiracies involving thousands of medical professions in several different medical fields lasting over decades
leading mental health scientists committing massive world wide fraud over a period of decades
a medical conspiracy in western democracies to deny that homosexuality is a mental illness.
a legal conspiracy in western democracies to give equal rights to obviously mentally ill people, i.e., homosexuals
50 plus years of fraud and distorted data framed by thousands of researchers conspiring to show gay men and lesbians as mentally well adjusted as heterosexuals.

Now you’ve made a vibrant faith look paranoid and more than a little ridiculous. Pls do not do a disservice to either science or yr faith by mixing them up.

IOW, anyone who ascribes to the Christian worldview as their reference for reality is inherently biased and need not apply.

You would have us believe that the larger scientific community is “unbiased”, purely objective, and free of political influences. I do understand your suggestion of those holding a Christian worldview of reality remove themselves entirely from critque of scientific research, as this would fit nicely into the agenda of the gay activists to mainstream and normalize the gay lifestyle.

 

[BlindSheep]

MikeinSD:

I don’t understand why a devout Christian would even be concerned with the science of sexual orientation. The Catholic church teaches physical expression of homosexual love is against the church’s teachings. Enough said. Devout Catholics do not engage in homosexuality. They do not because they believe in the teachings of their faith. How or why an individual is gay doesn’t matter. Faithful Catholics are not gay. Period.

A good comparison is instructing a devout Baptist how the human body metabolizes alcohol. A good Baptist would respond that drinking is sinful. No need to get into enzyme reactions or liver functions. Good Baptists don’t drink. Period.

Devout Christians do not need to believe in conspiracies, mass scientific fraud, or elderly gay radicals threatening professional medical associations for the past 35 years. Why get into science explainations when yr faith’s teachings are clear? The Christian response to homosexuality is that it is a sin. Nothing more should be needed.

This is actually a good point, but I would like to point out a couple of things you haven’t considered.
If Catholics really “believe in the teachings of their faith”, they believe that if a non-Catholic sins, it is harmful to that person anyway, and if a society accepts sin, it is harmful to that society. Their belief in responsibility towards society and their fellow human beings does not allow them to shrug and say “if they want to wreck their lives, it’s not my problem”. That would be easy, and we wouldn’t attract so much hostility - but it would be irresponsible.
If you see someone walking blindfolded toward the edge of a cliff, you are responsible for warning them. That remains true even if it turns out the cliff was an illusion, since you could only act on the information availiable to you at that time.

 

[BlindSheep]

gilliam:

We need to keep in mind that sin is behavior and not caused by biology. We can be predisposed to sin or more inclined to certain behaviors because of biology. For example, some people seem to be genetically more inclined to habitual alcohol consumption, but that doesn’t give someone the right to be an alcoholic.

:clapping:

 

[setter]

Digger71:

setter:

From: plato.stanford.edu/entries/homosexuality/

This has a good philosophical.historical account of natural law arguments, ‘problems’ (percieved or real), and homosexuality. It contains a short discussion of the place of sterile, but loving relationships. It contains a critique of queer theory, a quick aside on the social constructions of identity, etc.

It’s a long read, and quite dense.
This is an excerpt from your above article link:

Natural law theorists, if they want to support their objection to homosexual sex, have to emphasize procreation

. If, for example, they were to place love and mutual support for human flourishing at the center, it is clear that many same-sex couples would meet this standard. Hence their sexual acts would be morally just.

There are, however, several objections that are made against this account of marriage as a central human good. One is that by placing procreation as the ‘natural fulfillment’ of marriage, sterile marriages are thereby denigrated. Sex in an opposite-sex marriage where the partners know that one or both of them are sterile is not done for procreation. Yet surely it is not wrong. Why, then, is homosexual sex in the same context (a long-term companionate union) wrong (Macedo, 1995)?

But is this biological distinction also morally relevant, and in the manner that natural law theorists assume? Natural law theorists, in their discussions of these issues, seem to waver. On the one hand, they want to defend an ideal of marriage as a loving union wherein two persons are committed to their mutual flourishing, and where sex is a complement to that ideal. Yet that opens the possibility of permissible gay sex, or heterosexual sodomy, both of which they want to oppose. **So they then defend an account of sexuality which seems crudely reductive, emphasizing procreation ** to the point where literally a male orgasm anywhere except in the vagina of one’s loving spouse is impermissible. Then, when accused of being reductive, they move back to the broader ideal of marriage.
This article excerpt attempts to present a false dichotomy by pitting the unitive and procreative aspect of authentic conjugal love against one another. In fact, these 2 aspects of conjugal love are an essential and indispensable finality of conjugal love, something which homosexual relations lack. Natural infertility in one of the spouses in no way alters the procreative potential of the conjugal act, something which cannot be claimed by homosexual relations.

2363 The spouses’ union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple’s spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family.

The conjugal love of man and woman thus stands under the twofold obligation of fidelity and fecundity. (CCC)

Natural law theory, at present, has made significant concessions to mainstream liberal thought. In contrast certainly to its medieval formulation, most contemporary natural law theorists

argue for limited governmental power, and do not believe that the state has an interest in attempting to prevent all moral wrongdoing.** Still, they do argue against homosexuality**, and against legal protections for gays and lesbians in terms of employment and housing, even to the point of serving as expert witnesses in court cases or helping in the writing of amicus curae briefs. **They also argue against same sex marriage ** (Bradley, 2001; George, 2001).
The article author is confusing different level of law and neglecting that natural law application can never violate moral law.

1952 There are different expressions of the moral law, all of them interrelated: eternal law - the source, in God, of all law; natural law; revealed law, comprising the Old Law and the New Law, or Law of the Gospel; finally, civil and ecclesiastical laws. (CCC)

1957 Application of the natural law varies greatly; it can demand reflection that takes account of various conditions of life according to places, times, and circumstances. Nevertheless, in the diversity of cultures, the natural law remains as a rule that binds men among themselves and imposes on them, beyond the inevitable differences, common principles. (CCC)

 

[Digger71]

setter:

Digger71:

This is an excerpt from your above article link:

This article excerpt attempts to present a false dichotomy by pitting the unitive and procreative aspect of authentic conjugal love against one another.

The dichotomy was presented because there were social goods, which are essentially intangible and physical results, basically kids.

In fact, these 2 aspects of conjugal love are an essential and indispensable finality of conjugal love, something which homosexual relations lack.

Except they’re not. The Catechgism says that even sterile marriages can be fruitful in terms of the intangibles (love, sacrifice). The concession is already in there.

Natural infertility in one of the spouses in no way alters the procreative potential of the conjugal act,

Yes it does, it makes the congugal closed to procreation. Sterile = not fertile which means no kids.

something which cannot be claimed by homosexual relations.

The congugal act with a post menopausal woman has no procreative potential.

The article author is confusing different level of law and neglecting that natural law application can never violate moral law.

Alternatively, he was not discussing moral law, but flaws with natural law.

 

[setter]

The dichotomy was presented because there were social goods, which are essentially intangible and physical results, basically kids.

This comes across as a disingenuine response. Children are the crowing glory of married conjugal love that produce physical and qualitative “goods”. The attempt to segregate and categorize the unitive and procreative “goods” of conjugal love contradicts the very nature of conjugal love; which by logical extrapolation SSA based relations can never “produce” and fully embrace, i.e., it takes a complement of the sexes.

“By its very nature the institution of marriage and married love is ordered to the procreation and education of the offspring and it is in them that it finds its crowning glory.”

Children are the supreme gift of marriage and contribute greatly to the good of the parents themselves. God himself said: “It is not good that man should be alone,” and “from the beginning [he] made them male and female”; wishing to associate them in a special way in his own creative work, God blessed man and woman with the words: “Be fruitful and multiply.” Hence, true married love and the whole structure of family life which results from it, without diminishment of the other ends of marriage, are directed to disposing the spouses to cooperate valiantly with the love of the Creator and Savior, who through them will increase and enrich his family from day to day.

   (CCC **1652**)

Except they’re not. The Catechgism says that even sterile marriages can be fruitful in terms of the intangibles (love, sacrifice). The concession is already in there.

This is a gross misunderstanding. Marriages where one spouse is sterile does not remove the procreative potential of the marital act as it is “still open to fertility”, which no homosexual relations can ever claim. Just ask Sarah and Abraham.

"Conjugal love involves a totality, in which all the elements of the person enter - appeal of the body and instinct, power of feeling and affectivity, aspiration of the spirit and of will. It aims at a deeply personal unity, a unity that, beyond union in one flesh, leads to forming one heart and soul; it demands indissolubility and faithfulness

in definitive mutual giving; and it is open to fertility. In a word it is a question of the normal characteristics of all natural conjugal love, but with a new significance which not only purifies and strengthens them, but raises them to the extent of making them the expression of specifically Christian values." (CCC 1643)

Yes it does, it makes the congugal closed to procreation. Sterile = not fertile which means no kids.

Sterility=open to fertility, i.e., the procreative potential. Homosexual relations=no fertility, i.e., no procreative potential.

The congugal act with a post menopausal woman has no procreative potential.

Wrong. I refer you to my prior comments and Sarah and Abraham as documented examples.

Alternatively, he was not discussing moral law, but flaws with natural law.

I was discussing the relationship between natural and moral law and why the author’s critique of apparent flaw was not in fact a flaw at all, but consist with the Catholic understanding of moral and natural law. (I refer you back to those CCC citations).