What if a "Gay Gene" exists?

[markspost]

God made gays too. get over it. if God made it then its not sinful. so you are the one who is in the wrong. it is not a sin to be born gay.

God did not make anyone gay. In fact, God did not make anyone with the design for them to engage in sin of any kind. God created us and gave us life, the fact we exist does not make us sinful. A basic understanding of our faith regarding our journey in this life is that we must struggle against our wounded nature. Sin is found with willing cooperating with the ills wounded natured, or worst, presenting to others as truth what is really a lie.

From the CCC

A hard battle. . .
407 The doctrine of original sin, closely connected with that of redemption by Christ, provides lucid discernment of man’s situation and activity in the world. By our first parents’ sin, the devil has acquired a certain domination over man, even though man remains free. Original sin entails “captivity under the power of him who thenceforth had the power of death, that is, the devil”.298 Ignorance of the fact that man has a wounded nature inclined to evil gives rise to serious errors in the areas of education, politics, social action299and morals.
408 The consequences of original sin and of all men’s personal sins put the world as a whole in the sinful condition aptly described in St. John’s expression, “the sin of the world”.300 This expression can also refer to the negative influence exerted on people by communal situations and social structures that are the fruit of men’s sins.301
409 This dramatic situation of "the whole world [which] is in the power of the evil one"302 makes man’s life a battle:

The whole of man’s history has been the story of dour combat with the powers of evil, stretching, so our Lord tells us, from the very dawn of history until the last day. Finding himself in the midst of the battlefield man has to struggle to do what is right, and it is at great cost to himself, and aided by God’s grace, that he succeeds in achieving his own inner integrity.303

 

[meme1961]

its only a sin because they are not allowed to get married. if they were married, there would be no sin. just as for married heterosexual couples.

Except that they can’t get married. Since they are of the same sex, it is impossible for them to form a marital bond. The question is not one of “allowing” gay marriage, it is simply that such a thing is an oxymoron: a self-falsifying thing. The phrase “gay marriage” is an offence against reason, akin to insisting on defining a tomcat as a flower. The relationship between two men or two women is intrinsically different than the relationship between a man and a woman.

Proof: if the relationship between two men, or two women is no different than the relationship between a man and a woman, then there would be no need to have this discussion, as the parties involved would have no problem at all with entering into a true marriage (the joining of one woman with one man). Since they do have a problem with this, then obviously homosexual relationships are intrinsically different, therefore we have falsified the attempt to define “marriage” as independent of sexual orientation.

But nothing prevents us from loving each other. Indeed, I doubt very much that the Church has any problem with love in any form. I have a friend that I love dearly, and I doubt that any priest on earth would condemn that love. But that love is not the basis for a marriage, and more to the point, there are different kinds of love. My love for my friend is not the same thing as my love for my wife.

To say it differently: marriage is not simply the sanctification of a mutual love, of any category of love. To attempt to redefine “marriage” to just mean “any kind of love” would be to open the door to incest (If you love your mother, and she loves you, and marriage is simply the sanctification of a mutual love, then “marriage” would have to include the concept of you marrying your mother), bestiality (my dog loves me, and I love my dog, so why not marry?), polyandry and polygamy, and a number of other situations that are not marriage.

I won’t go into the details of what marriage is, the catechism makes a very good start and I would suggest you study it. But I will summarize: Marriage requires conformance to nature, complementarity of spirit and the ability to join two into one flesh. None of which is possible with two men, or two women.

In short: you can’t have “gay marriage” any more than you can make salt out of two sodium atoms. If you start with the wrong mixture of elements, you get a different molecule than you wanted, and all the emotional and self-serving arguments in the world won’t change the outcome.

 

[meme1961]

its ok with me if you don’t write back. i really don’t think you can rebutt me anyway. I know my reasoning is a lock for the win.

Sadly, no. Your post was based on a flawed premise, thus the structure you attempted to erect on said premise was flawed.

“Gay Marriage” is an oxymoron: a self-falsifying phrase, somewhat like “dry water”.

 

[white_sheep]

What if there’s a gene that makes me think lustful thoughts when I see hot chix? Would that make fornication ok?

 

[Peter_Shaw]

One of the greatest and most humane things about the Catholic Church is its compassionate recognition of human weakness. When we sin, our culpability is mitigated to the extent that we were unable to make a completely free choice in the matter. Each of us comes into this world with a certain “kit”, so to speak, of strengths and weaknesses, and we individually experience life in ways that continually change that kit and what we can do with it at any given moment. God knows, and so does the Church, that there is a biological tendency in every healthy person toward sexual attraction — it’s how we’re wired.

But “gay gene” or not — and there are genetic and environmental influences in sexual attraction — the bottom line for all of us, gay and straight, single and married, is this: we’re all, without exception, called to chastity. That may require us to choose not to have sex at all, if doing so would be wrong for us…which I imagine is equally difficult no matter which gender you’re attracted to! However, if we yield to wrongful sexual opportunity in a moment of physical, emotional, or mental duress — when a fully free, coolly rational choice just wasn’t in the cards — the Church understands, and provides us with the sacramental graces to make it right.

Whether you’re gay or straight, it’s still on us to try to do the right thing, in every situation — to the level best of our human ability, with the aid of every physical and spiritual help we’ve been given. None of us is walking on perfectly smooth ground, and for some the path is especially rough; each of us can stumble and fall. And when we do, each of us can acknowledge that we’ve gone wrong, make amends, fix what we can, and keep trying to do the right thing as best we can. In that, we’re all in the same boat.

 

[Kade_Ruddy]

The Church cannot make scientific claims on homosexuality since so very little is known from science respecting homosexuality. Incidentally homosexual activists do not help when they make false scientific claims respecting a gay gene. Too many incidents are available to us of propaganda about the gay gene passing as science by homosexual activists in recent years thereby disrupting the entire truth and discovery process. Later when the propaganda was discovered and fully exposed I did not see the media correcting itself after being the echo-chamber for this false propaganda. Little wonder people are confused. But don’t blame the Church or her so called dodgy relationship to science (see note below). The capacity of our society to discover what is the root of homosexuality was ended when homosexual activists stopped the DSM handbook of mental illnesses from continuing to define homosexuality as a listed pathology. I am not sure it is a pathology. But now I will never know. It must be the first time in science that a handbook shared by all the professionals in that field as the agreed standard had an item changed by a vote! Worse a vote of 3% of the membership of the APA. With the standard thrown out, God knows how, we no longer have an alternative view against which to compare new truths respecting homosexuality as they are discovered. And I hear said regularly that the Church is obscurantist. Ha! Conflicting concepts evaluated in a structured way develops shared truth in our society unless of course one side was tyrannically silenced.

Note:
On the church’s dodgy relationship with science you should know: The discoverer of the Big Bang: A Catholic Priest, The Discoverer of the Laws of Genetics A Catholic Monk. Copernicus, a Catholic priest made very similar claims to Galileo’s 200 years earlier. Galileo’s scientific instruments were purchased for Galileo by the man who later became the Pope that incarcerated him, which Pope had a lifelong interest in science. As a result of the Galileo crisis science itself benefited with the Church’s demand that two Jesuit priests review Galileo’s claims from a mathematical standpoint. These Catholic Priests had two technical criticisms of Galileo’s work that were validated much years later by Isaac Newton. Thus we have peer review, the first instance of it in science, compliments of the RC Church. The very basis for the scientific method was laid down by another Catholic monk Thomas Aquinas. The list of Catholic priests that made great contributions in science has a section devoted to it in Wikipedia where there is a much larger list than mine here. No Catholic need apologize for the Church’s work in science. That contribution is massive when you consider the RC Church is largely not a scientific body. Read the books of that great scientist and historian of science Father Stanley L Jaki and you will be delighted to see how our beautiful Church has been a friend of science for centuries.

 

[Kade_Ruddy]

The Church cannot make scientific claims on homosexuality since so very little is known from science respecting homosexuality. She can with considerable authority make a moral declaration arrived at through reason and faith. Which she has done. Incidentally homosexual activists do not help when they make false scientific claims respecting a gay gene. Too many incidents are available to us of propaganda about the gay gene passing as science by homosexual activists in recent years thereby disrupting the entire truth and discovery process. Later when the propaganda was discovered and fully exposed I did not see the media correcting itself after being the echo-chamber for this false propaganda. Little wonder people are confused. But don’t blame the Church or her so called dodgy relationship to science (see note below). The capacity of our society to discover what is the root of homosexuality was ended when homosexual activists stopped the DSM handbook of mental illnesses from continuing to define homosexuality as a listed pathology. I am not sure it is a pathology. But now I will never know. It must be the first time in science that a handbook shared by all the professionals in that field as the agreed standard had an item changed by a vote! Worse a vote of 3% of the membership of the APA. With the standard thrown out, God knows how, we no longer have an alternative view against which to compare new truths respecting homosexuality as they are discovered. And I hear said regularly that the Church is obscurantist. Ha! Conflicting concepts evaluated in a structured way develops shared truth in our society unless of course one side was tyrannically silenced.

Note:
On the church’s dodgy relationship with science you should know: The discoverer of the Big Bang: A Catholic Priest, The Discoverer of the Laws of Genetics A Catholic Monk. Copernicus, a Catholic priest made very similar claims to Galileo’s 200 years earlier. Galileo’s scientific instruments were purchased for Galileo by the man who later became the Pope that incarcerated him, which Pope had a lifelong interest in science. As a result of the Galileo crisis science itself benefited with the Church’s demand that two Jesuit priests review Galileo’s claims from a mathematical standpoint. These Catholic Priests had two technical criticisms of Galileo’s work that were validated much years later by Isaac Newton. Thus we have peer review, the first instance of it in science, compliments of the RC Church. The very basis for the scientific method was laid down by another Catholic monk Thomas Aquinas. The list of Catholic priests that made great contributions in science has a section devoted to it in Wikipedia where there is a much larger list than mine here. No Catholic need apologize for the Church’s work in science. That contribution is massive when you consider the RC Church is largely not a scientific body. Read the books of that great scientist and historian of science Father Stanley L Jaki and you will be delighted to see how our beautiful Church has been a friend of science for centuries.

 

[sunamcm]

I’m just curious… why would the existence of a “gay gene” necessarily mean that homosexuality is natural and good? There are many genes that exist and are the cause of all sorts of disorders, downs syndrome being the first example I can think of. Does that mean that Downs syndrome is perfectly good and natural? We can’t use the existence of a gene as proof of what is or is not natural.

As a rule, we don’t criticize people for having Downs syndrome or lay heavy burdens upon them saying that they should not live as a person with Downs syndrome. I don’t think the point is that homosexuality being a natural variation makes it “good.” I think it simply means that the existence of the variation itself is morally neutral. I think the Church agrees with that point.

The real question surrounds homosexual actions which the Church sees as intrinsically “disordered”. This is a far trickier question and it is not addressed in the Bible as often or as clearly as many believe. Typically, the Biblical references refer only to male homosexual behavior. People like to quote the translated adjective “abomination” with regard to homosexual acts, but ignore the fact that the same sort of language is used to describe eating pork or shaving a beard.

As Catholics, we do not rest our beliefs on Sacred Scripture alone. The Catholic Church has been consistent throughout history on its teaching regarding the procreative nature of the sexual act and how it should not be separated from the physical act. If we were to condemn homosexuals on this account, then we should equally condemn married couples who practice birth control and anyone who has ever had premarital sex, oral sex or masturbated.

I think that the attitude of many heterosexual Catholics toward their homosexual brethren is akin to focusing on the splinter in the homosexual’s eye while ignoring the plank in their own.

I also believe that the Church should support civil unions as a matter of social justice and equal treatment under the law. I do not believe that the government should be involved in defining “marriage” at all, as it is a religious matter for Churches alone. I have to roll my eyes every time someone argues against civil unions by citing the sacredness of marriage in this country. Divorce statistics simply don’t support the sacrednesss of marriage in the United States. Sadly, that is even true among American Catholics. Maybe we should be focusing on that plank in our own eye…

In their 1976 statement, To Live in Christ Jesus, the American bishops wrote, “Some persons find themselves through no fault of their own to have a homosexual orientation. Homosexuals, like everyone else, should not suffer from prejudice against their basic human rights. They have a right to respect, friendship, and justice. They should have an active role in the Christian community.… The Christian community should provide them a special degree of pastoral understanding and care.”

I think it was proper for the Bishops to emphasize human rights in this regard. Like every other American citizen, homosexuals should be able to live out their lives and personal struggles with dignity and equity.

 

[Yoeman65]

I have good understanding on chastity which is the basis of the teaching of the church on sexuality. if you are not married and are having sex outside of marriage then you are sinning. no one is allowed to have sex outside of marriage whether you are straight or homosexual. it doesn’t matter. if you’re not married, you can’t have sex. because homosexuals are not permitted to marry they are considered to be sinning if they have gay sex. but if they were married, they wouldn’t be sinning.

i also understand human biology and how to make a baby and so do homosexuals. so that is not a good argument for why gay marriage is prohibited.

as far as human sexuality goes, i don’t think homosexuals should be encouraged to have sex with heterosexuals that just would not be natural. i am sure as a straight man you don’t want to have sex with a gay man. it would be unnatural. but for two gays its natural.

as far as secular marriage goes, you are just threatened by the difference between secular marriage and sacramental marriage and are probably against secular gay marriage not just sacramental marriage for the gays. i am sure my arguments are strong and right ordered and fully reconcilable with the church and society.

its ok with me if you don’t write back. i really don’t think you can rebutt me anyway. I know my reasoning is a lock for the win.

You are NOT as knowledgable as you think. Yes, marriage does HELP make sexual relations " right" but is NOT a catch all. I cannot force my wife into sex, cannot treat her as my object, cannot even have sex with her without being open to life. Marriage is NOT the end all, beat all. You have a pride issue! Gay sex can NEVER be " natural". It cannot be total, faithful, free and fruitful. It can be some of these but NEVER ALL. Hetero marriage can. PLEASE " VATCAN2ROCKS" read and study JP2’s Theology of the Body, and get more informed and less prideful.

ALL people should be loved where they are, not for what they are. The act of sex outside of marriage and the Church is sinful. To waive on that is NOT LOVE BUT WEAKNESS. To NOT love someone because of their dispositions is also NOT Godly.

I love my kids but do not say it is ok for them to indulge in over eating in the name of love. Sadly, VATCAN2ROCKS, you are a Protestant and NOT reconciled with Church teaching.

 

[fix]

As a rule, we don’t criticize people for having Downs syndrome or lay heavy burdens upon them saying that they should not live as a person with Downs syndrome. I don’t think the point is that homosexuality being a natural variation makes it “good.” I think it simply means that the existence of the variation itself is morally neutral. I think the Church agrees with that point.

The real question surrounds homosexual actions which the Church sees as intrinsically “disordered”. This is a far trickier question and it is not addressed in the Bible as often or as clearly as many believe. Typically, the Biblical references refer only to male homosexual behavior. People like to quote the translated adjective “abomination” with regard to homosexual acts, but ignore the fact that the same sort of language is used to describe eating pork or shaving a beard.

As Catholics, we do not rest our beliefs on Sacred Scripture alone. The Catholic Church has been consistent throughout history on its teaching regarding the procreative nature of the sexual act and how it should not be separated from the physical act. If we were to condemn homosexuals on this account, then we should equally condemn married couples who practice birth control and anyone who has ever had premarital sex, oral sex or masturbated.

I think that the attitude of many heterosexual Catholics toward their homosexual brethren is akin to focusing on the splinter in the homosexual’s eye while ignoring the plank in their own.

I also believe that the Church should support civil unions as a matter of social justice and equal treatment under the law. I do not believe that the government should be involved in defining “marriage” at all, as it is a religious matter for Churches alone. I have to roll my eyes every time someone argues against civil unions by citing the sacredness of marriage in this country. Divorce statistics simply don’t support the sacrednesss of marriage in the United States. Sadly, that is even true among American Catholics. Maybe we should be focusing on that plank in our own eye…

In their 1976 statement, To Live in Christ Jesus, the American bishops wrote, “Some persons find themselves through no fault of their own to have a homosexual orientation. Homosexuals, like everyone else, should not suffer from prejudice against their basic human rights. They have a right to respect, friendship, and justice. They should have an active role in the Christian community.… The Christian community should provide them a special degree of pastoral understanding and care.”

I think it was proper for the Bishops to emphasize human rights in this regard. Like every other American citizen, homosexuals should be able to live out their lives and personal struggles with dignity and equity.

I think those in the Vatican have settled this nonsense. The problem is those who are Catholic need to conform themselves to the Christ through His Church not to worldy emotionalism

Nevertheless, increasing numbers of people today, even within the Church, are bringing enormous pressure to bear on the Church to accept the homosexual condition as though it were not disordered and to condone homosexual activity. Those within the Church who argue in this fashion often have close ties with those with similar views outside it. These latter groups are guided by a vision opposed to the truth about the human person, which is fully disclosed in the mystery of Christ. They reflect, even if not entirely consciously, a materialistic ideology which denies the transcendent nature of the human person as well as the supernatural vocation of every individual.

The Church’s ministers must ensure that homosexual persons in their care will not be misled by this point of view, so profoundly opposed to the teaching of the Church. But the risk is great and there are many who seek to create confusion regarding the Church’s position, and then to use that confusion to their own advantage.

There is an effort in some countries to manipulate the Church by gaining the often well-intentioned support of her pastors with a view to changing civil-statutes and laws. This is done in order to conform to these pressure groups’ concept that homosexuality is at least a completely harmless, if not an entirely good, thing. Even when the practice of homosexuality may seriously threaten the lives and well-being of a large number of people, its advocates remain undeterred and refuse to consider the magnitude of the risks involved.

 

[buffalo]

What if there’s a gene that makes me think lustful thoughts when I see hot chix? Would that make fornication ok?

Absolutely! Anything goes according to your genes. :nope:

 

[Allen2Saint]

Absolutely! Anything goes according to your genes. :nope:

This is a popular argument. I say I believe homosexuality is natural and then someone immediately goes all “red herring” and puts words in my mouth saying I condone promiscuity or criminal acts like murdering people. If someone chooses, erroneously, to equate all those things, then most likely they haven’t been intimate friends with homosexuals. Sure, you can know them peripherally, but you aren’t intimate friends with them or you wouldn’t be able to manufacture that comparison.

Can homosexuals have children? Can they adopt like straight couples? Can they create a loving household and be a benefit to their community—if they aren’t slandered, that is? Is a family a bunch of kids or is it the creative, nurturing bond of love between equals that then strengthens society.

 

[Moore11]

This is a popular argument. I say I believe homosexuality is natural and then someone immediately goes all “red herring” and puts words in my mouth saying I condone promiscuity or criminal acts like murdering people. If someone chooses, erroneously, to equate all those things, then most likely they haven’t been intimate friends with homosexuals. Sure, you can know them peripherally, but you aren’t intimate friends with them or you wouldn’t be able to manufacture that comparison.

Can homosexuals have children? Can they adopt like straight couples? Can they create a loving household and be a benefit to their community—if they aren’t slandered, that is? Is a family a bunch of kids or is it the creative, nurturing bond of love between equals that then strengthens society.

It isnt a red herring, it is a direct parallel. Homosexuality in all truth is the sexual attraction of one person to another. So, it is parallel to anything that involves sexuality and attracting. Like polygamy, incest, bestiality, pedophilia, fornication, and even strait married sex. However, it has a moral context and law attached to it as does any sort action we do. So to answer your questions

1. Not with each other in a holy way.\
2. In some states
3. No, no matter what kind of household they seem to create they damage society as a whole no matter what their beliefs of intentions are.
4. That is not a complete definition of family I am aware of.

 

[Yoeman65]

It really is amazing how much disinformation is out there about church teaching on human sexuality. One wonders how much of it is on purpose and how much is genuine misunderstanding…

Nowhere does catholic teaching forbid those with SSA from being happy. That statement is absurdly packed with presuppositions and assumptions. The fact is that until you comprehend what sexuality is all about, you can’t comprehend why homosexual activity is inherently sinful.

Marriage is the aspect of humanity in which we most fully reflect the image and likeness of God: overflowing with live giving love. God created man and woman subtly different in both physical and spiritual attributes. When a man and woman join together in the permanent, lifelong, self-sacrificial union of love, that relationship by its very nature is ordered towards the creation and nurturing of new life. The fertile potential is not incidental, it is a physical manifestation of what the relationship IS. We are not spiritual creatures trapped in irrelevant flesh, we are a union of body and soul. Our bodies reflect much about who and what we are. The innate incompatibility of two male bodies isn’t simply an unfortunate, but ultimately irrelevant coincidence. It says something about the relationship intended by God for them. By their very natures, they are sterile together. (btw, don’t bother asking about infertile hetero couples because particular defects do not alter ones basic nature, see the difference?)

The corroborating evidence is not far off. Our society just chooses to ignore it because they are totally committed to the idea of human beings being all the same, in spite of being incidentally inserted in differing packages/bodies. But take a good, hard look at gay subcultures in places where the larger culture has fully accepted and embraced it (Amsterdam and New York for example). Look at their rates of drug use, domestic violence, depression, suicide, prostitution, rape and other innately self destructive behaviors. Homosexual behavior is sinful. Sin begets more sin. The evidence is there for anybody to see. Indulging in their passions does not bring them happiness, it brings them misery and suffering. Sin always does in the end. This isn’t just theoretical for me, there are guys I went to gradeschool with that have committed suicide after later involvement in the gay culture as well as knowing gay people that died of AIDS (early 90’s). I know full well that these are real people, but I refuse to accept the copout that it is ‘loving’ to tell someone to go ahead and do something that will destroy them in the long run.

The alcoholism comparison is extremely accurate. Certain people are even highly genetically inclined towards alcoholism (ask anyone who has worked with people on an American Indian reservation, it’s a HUGE issue). But we aren’t asking people predisposed to alcoholism to be miserable their whole lives when we encourage them to develop discipline to resist their self destructive impulses. Nor are we in the case of those with SSAs. Nobody encourages alcoholics to “be who they are” and nobody drags drunks to their death behind pickup trucks. It is a nasty lie to claim that society cannot mature to the point where we refuse to legitimize destructive behavior while at the same time honor the dignity of the persons so inclined. We manage it for alcoholics, we can manage with those with SSA. Gay isn’t their identity, it is merely an attribute. Ultimately they are sons (and daughters) of God, fallen and broken and in need of a Savior like the rest of us. We do them no favors by encouraging them to go ahead and do as they please. Like all of us, we must learn to do what is good and refrain from what is not.

Wow! Really, REALLY well stated! I think I couldn’t agree more!

 

[Yoeman65]

Except that they can’t get married. Since they are of the same sex, it is impossible for them to form a marital bond. The question is not one of “allowing” gay marriage, it is simply that such a thing is an oxymoron: a self-falsifying thing. The phrase “gay marriage” is an offence against reason, akin to insisting on defining a tomcat as a flower. The relationship between two men or two women is intrinsically different than the relationship between a man and a woman.

Proof: if the relationship between two men, or two women is no different than the relationship between a man and a woman, then there would be no need to have this discussion, as the parties involved would have no problem at all with entering into a true marriage (the joining of one woman with one man). Since they do have a problem with this, then obviously homosexual relationships are intrinsically different, therefore we have falsified the attempt to define “marriage” as independent of sexual orientation.

But nothing prevents us from loving each other. Indeed, I doubt very much that the Church has any problem with love in any form. I have a friend that I love dearly, and I doubt that any priest on earth would condemn that love. But that love is not the basis for a marriage, and more to the point, there are different kinds of love. My love for my friend is not the same thing as my love for my wife.

To say it differently: marriage is not simply the sanctification of a mutual love, of any category of love. To attempt to redefine “marriage” to just mean “any kind of love” would be to open the door to incest (If you love your mother, and she loves you, and marriage is simply the sanctification of a mutual love, then “marriage” would have to include the concept of you marrying your mother), bestiality (my dog loves me, and I love my dog, so why not marry?), polyandry and polygamy, and a number of other situations that are not marriage.

I won’t go into the details of what marriage is, the catechism makes a very good start and I would suggest you study it. But I will summarize: Marriage requires conformance to nature, complementarity of spirit and the ability to join two into one flesh. None of which is possible with two men, or two women.

In short: you can’t have “gay marriage” any more than you can make salt out of two sodium atoms. If you start with the wrong mixture of elements, you get a different molecule than you wanted, and all the emotional and self-serving arguments in the world won’t change the outcome.

Very, very well stated…I agree!

 

[fix]

This is a popular argument. I say I believe homosexuality is natural and then someone immediately goes all “red herring” and puts words in my mouth saying I condone promiscuity or criminal acts like murdering people. If someone chooses, erroneously, to equate all those things, then most likely they haven’t been intimate friends with homosexuals. Sure, you can know them peripherally, but you aren’t intimate friends with them or you wouldn’t be able to manufacture that comparison.

Everyone has friends that do all types of things that are wrong. You are friends with tax cheats, men who cheat on their wife, pornography watchers, all types of things. These people may be kind and generous. That does not make their actions good. That does not mean their actions should be seen as healthy or good for society.

Can homosexuals have children? Can they adopt like straight couples? Can they create a loving household and be a benefit to their community—if they aren’t slandered, that is? Is a family a bunch of kids or is it the creative, nurturing bond of love between equals that then strengthens society.

Family is now redefined to mean anything we want for any purpose we want.

 

[Yoeman65]

The Church cannot make scientific claims on homosexuality since so very little is known from science respecting homosexuality. She can with considerable authority make a moral declaration arrived at through reason and faith. Which she has done. Incidentally homosexual activists do not help when they make false scientific claims respecting a gay gene. Too many incidents are available to us of propaganda about the gay gene passing as science by homosexual activists in recent years thereby disrupting the entire truth and discovery process. Later when the propaganda was discovered and fully exposed I did not see the media correcting itself after being the echo-chamber for this false propaganda. Little wonder people are confused. But don’t blame the Church or her so called dodgy relationship to science (see note below). The capacity of our society to discover what is the root of homosexuality was ended when homosexual activists stopped the DSM handbook of mental illnesses from continuing to define homosexuality as a listed pathology. I am not sure it is a pathology. But now I will never know. It must be the first time in science that a handbook shared by all the professionals in that field as the agreed standard had an item changed by a vote! Worse a vote of 3% of the membership of the APA. With the standard thrown out, God knows how, we no longer have an alternative view against which to compare new truths respecting homosexuality as they are discovered. And I hear said regularly that the Church is obscurantist. Ha! Conflicting concepts evaluated in a structured way develops shared truth in our society unless of course one side was tyrannically silenced.

Note:
On the church’s dodgy relationship with science you should know: The discoverer of the Big Bang: A Catholic Priest, The Discoverer of the Laws of Genetics A Catholic Monk. Copernicus, a Catholic priest made very similar claims to Galileo’s 200 years earlier. Galileo’s scientific instruments were purchased for Galileo by the man who later became the Pope that incarcerated him, which Pope had a lifelong interest in science. As a result of the Galileo crisis science itself benefited with the Church’s demand that two Jesuit priests review Galileo’s claims from a mathematical standpoint. These Catholic Priests had two technical criticisms of Galileo’s work that were validated much years later by Isaac Newton. Thus we have peer review, the first instance of it in science, compliments of the RC Church. The very basis for the scientific method was laid down by another Catholic monk Thomas Aquinas. The list of Catholic priests that made great contributions in science has a section devoted to it in Wikipedia where there is a much larger list than mine here. No Catholic need apologize for the Church’s work in science. That contribution is massive when you consider the RC Church is largely not a scientific body. Read the books of that great scientist and historian of science Father Stanley L Jaki and you will be delighted to see how our beautiful Church has been a friend of science for centuries.

I agree! Thank you for you well reasoned support.

 

[WorkingCatholic]

I agree with the others that have said that it would not change anything–and rightfully so.

Homosexual attraction is not a sin whether it is the result of genetics or environment. However, homosexual activity always has been and always will be a sin. Regardless of the cause of same sex attraction, the individual still has free will and can choose to sin or to avoid sin.

As an analogy, it is not a sin for me to be attracted to another man’s wife, as long as I do not act on that attraction and make efforts to purify my thoughts. Just as I am called on to be chaste in my marriage, a homosexual must also remain chaste. Otherwise, he commits sin.

The church says homosexuality is a disorder based on what?

Like most of our moral laws, the Church’s teaching on homosexuality is derived from the natural law.

I tend to think that the evidence is pointing toward the fact that homosexuality is an innate trait just like heterosexuality and that the homosexual is hard-wired to be gay, therefore meaning that cohabitation and sexual relations with the same gender are natural and intentional.

You may choose to conclude that a “gay gene” means that homosexuality is “natural.” However, “natural” sexual intercourse involves the insertion of a male sex organ into a complementary female sex organ. Putting a sex organ into a digestive tract is not “natural” and is a sin.

 

[CopticChristian]

It isnt a red herring, it is a direct parallel. Homosexuality in all truth is the sexual attraction of one person to another. So, it is parallel to anything that involves sexuality and attracting. Like polygamy, incest, bestiality, pedophilia, fornication, and even strait married sex. However, it has a moral context and law attached to it as does any sort action we do. So to answer your questions

1. Not with each other in a holy way.\
2. In some states
3. No, no matter what kind of household they seem to create they damage society as a whole no matter what their beliefs of intentions are.
4. That is not a complete definition of family I am aware of.

Moore,

Your generalization does not equate to understanding. Homosexuality exists in the mind of the homosexual. The attracting is defined by the one that manufactures this thinking in their head.

Polygamy involves attracting by two heterosexuals in a potential normal relationship that for one or both does not involve promise/covenant. Mormons would be an exception.

Incest is the attracting in the head of the parent that has lost concern for their progeny and has lost boundaries.

Bestiality is a one way street. The attracting can only be explained by the person and not the beast.

Pedophelia like incest is a skewed understanding in the mind of the adult.

Fornication and straight sex are two consenting adults whose minds equate to accepting that they do no wrong outside of marriage.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Sunamcm,

Welcome to CAF!

Let me begin with argeeing with you in commending the Bishops for identifying that all people are to be treated with love and this shows itself in behaviors that incorporate dignity and respect.

Disagreeing with someone because their behavior is disorder does not mean that this diagreement is done with contempt and scorn. We show great love when we identify behaviors that are gravely sinful and, if that person were to die in this state, would be cause for condemnation to Hell.

I must confess, I did have some trouble following your logic in other areas. It seems that you originally began to match items that were on the ‘right’ with those on the ‘left’. Maybe this was just me, but I found that more confsing then balanced.

Let’s look at two item and maybe you can clarify your statements

As a rule, we don’t criticize people for having Downs syndrome or lay heavy burdens upon them saying that they should not live as a person with Downs syndrome. I don’t think the point is that homosexuality being a natural variation makes it “good.” I think it simply means that the existence of the variation itself is morally neutral. I think the Church agrees with that point.

There are genetic markers, physical differences and mental distinctions that can be made between someone with Downs Syndrome and those without this defect. The same can not be said about homosexual behavior. There really are abnormal variations in genetic makeup (e.g., Turner’s Syndrom and Klienfelter’s Senyrome among others) but add all variations from XX and XY sex-linked chromosomes - we still have a genuine <1% of the population type minority situation. None of these people are responsible for their genetic makeup - just like the Down’s Syndrome person - but, given the ability to distinguish between right and wrong, those who choose wrong are guilty of sin. Those who willfully act out sinful behavior are guilty of sin. Your attention is directed to items beginning at #1854: vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a8.htm

Please note, we are not talking about morally neutral acts simply becaue certain acts can be found in the expanse of human experience. If you want to include this, then you will also need to include murder, theft, rape, pedophelia, beastiality, torture, etc. Would we do well to launch a search for the ‘murder gene’ or the ‘theft gene’ or any other gene that we think may exist to explain inherently disordered behavior?

The real question surrounds homosexual actions which the Church sees as intrinsically “disordered”. This is a far trickier question and it is not addressed in the Bible as often or as clearly as many believe. Typically, the Biblical references refer only to male homosexual behavior.

OK, here is your chance to set us on the correct path - please substantiate your position that the Bible does not clearly condem homosexual behavior. Here are a couple of links that identify where the Bible does condem such disordered same sex behavior:

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm (begin at #2357)

catholicdoors.com/faq/qu53.htm

scripturessay.com/article.php?cat=&id=170

bible.ca/s-homo=sin.htm

If we were to condemn homosexuals on this account, then we should equally condemn married couples who practice birth control and anyone who has ever had premarital sex, oral sex or masturbated.

You may be relieved to learn that the Catholic Church does condemn disordred behavior. Here is a link: catholicbasictraining.com/apologetics/coursetexts/8i.htm

Let me stop here. I believe I have addressed your major objections, provided multiple references and refuted your presentation in a charitable manner. Your turn - now refute these argument.s and please provide references.

God bless