What if a "Gay Gene" exists?

[buffalo]

It’s fine to say we aren’t controlled by our compulsions. I would agree with you that Catholics have a devotion to a stricter form of behavior and I agree that the good Catholic should avoid lust and premarital sex and all other occasions of sin.

What I take issue with is the idea that God loves us and wants us to be happy EXCEPT for homosexuals. That somehow homosexually is grouped in with alcoholism, pedophilia and general deviant behavior. I think it’s an insult to God to say that certain members of his children don’t deserve happiness because we think they are disordered when they were created that way by The Creator in the first place.

And to your first point, nobody made you click on the thread if you don’t like the topic. No need to be snippy.

A chaste homosexual can be joy filled.

 

[buffalo]

How Same-Sex “Marriage” Activists Do Not Tolerate Traditional Marriage SupportersAttacked****By "Tolerance"

 

[RileyG]

It is true that homosexuality is not a choice. However, there are rules inside the church regarding chasity etc, that also applies to heterosexuals as well.
“Those who desire the flesh cannot please God”- Romans 8:8

 

[PumpkinSeed]

There is no such thing as a gay ‘gene’.

However whether people are born gay or not, the church has called them to chastity. They can still be saved and still be in the church but they cannot get married or have sex.

I wonder though, what does the church think about gays adopting? Do they allow that? Just curious

 

[Moore11]

There is no such thing as a gay ‘gene’.

However whether people are born gay or not, the church has called them to chastity. They can still be saved and still be in the church but they cannot get married or have sex.

I wonder though, what does the church think about gays adopting? Do they allow that? Just curious

No, they do not. In fact in some states in the US catholic adoption agencies had to shut down when the state insisted they MUST allow Homosexuals to adopt from a Catholic agency. Hopefully the HHS mandate will not stand or in a year we will be able to say the same thing about Catholic Hospitals.

 

[buffalo]

There is no such thing as a gay ‘gene’.

However whether people are born gay or not, the church has called them to chastity. They can still be saved and still be in the church but they cannot get married or have sex.

I wonder though, what does the church think about gays adopting? Do they allow that? Just curious

We should be looking to substances like BPA and man made estrogens in the food we eat.

The Church does not allow homosexual adoption.

 

[PumpkinSeed]

Forgive my ignorance, and this is going to sound incredibly stupid, but what would happen if a lesbian were given estrogen and a gay man given testosterone. I know their body produces it, but perhaps they didn’t get enough of it in the womb?

What would happen if we pumped them with those hormones? Would anything change? If not, then its a mental issue.

 

[Moore11]

We should be looking to substances like BPA and man made estrogens in the food we eat.

The Church does not allow homosexual adoption.

:nope:
Careful, you are getting dangerously close to what pays my mortgage.

 

[FaithBuild18]

Homosexuality is only a disorder because we call it such based on our own close-mindedness. You say it is nature that says homosexuality is disorder, yet homosexuals have always existed and even exist in the animal world, so it seems it occurs quite naturally. The purpose of this thread is to suggest that homosexuality occurs naturally and that we are proving this scientifically.

**We cling to an outdated ideology that relationships should only exist to procreate children. Sure, this was the necessary school of thought for a long time, especially Biblical antiquity when there weren’t many people around and the need to create more people (good Christian/Jewish people!) was paramount. If you lived in a tribe of 1000, only a few people could have children at any given time. It was necessary that every able bodied person reproduce to keep the tribe alive.

But now that we’re pushing 7 billion people, we’re becoming over populated. The primary focus of marriage today has shifted to mutual love instead of the need to populate the earth. Many couples that choose not to reproduce or who are infertile have demonstrated that their relationships can be just as fruitful and life-giving as marriages that produce children. So why do we focus solely on the ability to have children as the only qualifications for normalcy?**

The Catholic Church… STRONGLY disagrees with you, in a matter of doctrine, not opinion.

 

[FaithBuild18]

Homosexuality is only a disorder because we call it such based on our own close-mindedness. You say it is nature that says homosexuality is disorder, yet homosexuals have always existed and even exist in the animal world, so it seems it occurs quite naturally. The purpose of this thread is to suggest that homosexuality occurs naturally and that we are proving this scientifically.

We cling to an outdated ideology that relationships should only exist to procreate children. Sure, this was the necessary school of thought for a long time, especially Biblical antiquity when there weren’t many people around and the need to create more people (good Christian/Jewish people!) was paramount. If you lived in a tribe of 1000, only a few people could have children at any given time. It was necessary that every able bodied person reproduce to keep the tribe alive.

But now that we’re pushing 7 billion people, we’re becoming over populated. The primary focus of marriage today has shifted to mutual love instead of the need to populate the earth. Many couples that choose not to reproduce or who are infertile have demonstrated that their relationships can be just as fruitful and life-giving as marriages that produce children. So why do we focus solely on the ability to have children as the only qualifications for normalcy?

Homosexuality does not naturally exist in the animal world. Bisexuality is what exists in the animal world, and there are literally thousands of examples of such animals, including humans. Animals lack rationality, and cannot choose with what they mate and when. Sexual behavior in animals is purely determined by sex drive. “Gay” animals are not gay, they are simply highly sexually motivated and attempt to reproduce with any individual they can. They do not form pairs exclusively with the same sex. Doing so would be contrary to evolution, as homosexual pairings cannot produce offspring who would inherit such a “gay gene.” This is why it is, in terms of evolution, impossible for a “gay gene” to have ever existed and be passed down to current generations.

There are only two animals which form exclusive homosexual relationships. Sheep and humans. Sheep, unlike humans, do so entirely based on tangible brain anatomy. Brain size in male sheep correlates with sexual orientation.

Homosexuality is not a natural phenomenon in humans, but one that humans who struggle with bisexuality choose to embrace. Bisexuality is naturally occurring as it is the result of a hyperactive sex drive. All those struggling with any form of sexual disorder require our prayers.The merciful aspect of bisexuality is that humans who suffer from it do indeed have a choice in who they choose to bed. All humans, regardless of their condition, have a choice in who they choose to bed.

 

[FaithBuild18]

Murder, theft, rape, incest, cannibalism, misogyny, discrimination, etc. are all naturally occurring in the animal world. Does that mean we should embrace any of these ideals? They are naturally occurring in humans, with a much greater presence in our evolutionary past than homosexuality was.

But they are rightfully condemned as disordered and inherently evil. If you want to revert to an animalistic, barbaric society void of rationality, void of morality, void of self-control, be my guest. But I doubt one will gain many followers.

 

[bri89]

Murder, theft, rape, incest, cannibalism, misogyny, discrimination, etc. are all naturally occurring in the animal world. Does that mean we should embrace any of these ideals? They are naturally occurring in humans, with a much greater presence in our evolutionary past than homosexuality was.

But they are rightfully condemned as disordered and inherently evil. If you want to revert to an animalistic, barbaric society void of rationality, void of morality, void of self-control, be my guest. But I doubt one will gain many followers.

You’re presupposing homosexuality is damaging and destructive, and then grouping alongside cruel and victimizing acts. False premise

 

[Vatican2Rocks]

How interesting that you trust a “college level class” more than you trust the Church.

Wait a minute. Sarah and Abraham did procreate.

More to the point, God made male for female and female for male. That is the order God created. A homosexual inclination is contrary to the order God created – thus it is a disorder.

To act on a homosexual inclination is a perversion of God’s established order and, of course, gravely sinful.

You chose to name yourself “Vatican2Rocks!”, so listen to Vatican II: And this infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded.

The Divine Redeemer willed the Church to be endowed with infallibility in defining doctrine of faith and morals. The Church has taught infallibly from the time of the Apostles, that homosexual actions are gravely immoral.

Submit yourself to the infallible doctrine of the Catholic Church,

yes god made adam and eve and sin still entered the world. there is still suffering and disease and genetic mutations for example. there is no perfect life. there are still children born with both male and female sexual organs. that is not normal order. are you saying they shouldn’t be allowed to marry because they happen to be ‘complete’ already because they happen to possess both male and female organs?

the pope is infallible but the church isn’t. the church is made up of human beings who are imperfect with a tendency to die not to mention sin and other foibles. they also can be very misinformed or not knowledgeable about everything there is to know about. and frankly, that would be humanly impossible.

the bible gets its view about sin from the jews. and the jews are the ones who wrote that sodomy is a sin. they also wrote that women should be stoned if they have been caught in adultery, but not men. today, you can’t be stoned for that, and its hard to get more than 50% in a divorce settlement if one of the spouses committed adultery. the church still teaches against adultery, but it doesn’t preach stoning anymore. so according to you we are not following the bible because according to you, if we did, adulterers should be stoned.

the jews also ignorantly said that being born blind is a sin. and jesus said no that’s not true.

the only reason sodomy is considered a sin is because its out of wedlock sex. if they were married it wouldn’t be a sin.

i think you are misunderstanding infallibility: the pope spoke infallibly on only two occasions. the last of which was the declaration that mary was the mother of god and/or the immaculate conception.

 

[Vatican2Rocks]

They don’t have to, but they can.

This is not true. As long as a person freely and willingly enters into the obligations of marriage, the marriage is valid, no matter what that person considers his “orientation” to be.

I’m sorry, but you are definitely misinformed on what a valid sacramental marriage is. a homosexual cannot rightly enter into a marriage with a heterosexual and a heterosexual would be within their rights to ask for an annulment.

 

[Vatican2Rocks]

No, it would still be a sin.

Anal or oral sex to completion is sinful for married heterosexuals, b/c it does not have the potential for procreation.

Any sex act between “married” homosexuals would be objectively sinful b/c it could never match one of the two tests of licit sex (uniative and procreative).

only in the catholic church, not for the rest of the world. the rest of the world does not define marriage that way. and frankly, i as a catholic resent being expected to be a baby making machine or merely an animal for procreation purposes. i am more than my sexuality.

 

[Vatican2Rocks]

No, it would still be a sin.

Anal or oral sex to completion is sinful for married heterosexuals, b/c it does not have the potential for procreation.

Any sex act between “married” homosexuals would be objectively sinful b/c it could never match one of the two tests of licit sex (uniative and procreative).

only in the catholic church, not for the rest of the world. the rest of the world does not define marriage that way. and frankly, i as a catholic resent being expected to be a baby making machine or merely an animal for procreation purposes. i am more than my sexuality.

another thing, if you, a heterosexual, were married to a homosexual, would your marriage truly be unitive? i think not.

 

[Vatican2Rocks]

This is not an issue of sacramental marriage. Non sacramental marriages are called natural marriages. Natural marriage has a procreative purpose. When we talk about Sacramental marriage, we are only acknowledging that Christ elevated natural marriage to that of a sacrament. He gives us graces to help us live out our matrimonial vow to grow in holiness. It becomes our vocation of service that helps us on our road to Heaven. Sacramental marriage is not granted to people by the Church. It is simply the reality that when two baptized individuals validly marry, their marriage takes on a sacramental natural. These individuals do not have to be Catholic. They simply have to be validly baptized individuals. If one person is not baptized, it is not sacramental until the non-baptized member is baptized.

When it comes to couples who are Catholic who marry outside of the Church, their marriages simply do not exist. It is not that they are in natural marriages. Civilly they have signed a contract, but because they are also bound by Canon Law as Catholics. It gets confusing in its language because the State does not recognize canon law, so legally they are categorized as married, though naturally they’re not married. Its easy to just confuse sacramental marriage with “oh the priest blesses the marriage.”

But in the end, the reality of gay marriage is this as well. Even if all 50 states legalize gay marriage, the objective reality is that these individuals are not married. It would be like if the state decided that sexual relationship or sexual love was not a componant of marriage. It would be if we just decided that rather than adoption, we decided to have children not biologically related to their adoptive family marry their adopted family. We wouldn’t be expecting a sexual encounter. We just might have culturally started to embrace wedding traditions surrounding adoption and wanted to emphasis the child’s consent to be our children. The rhetoric surrounding the issue might involve treating children as property. “Children should marry their parents to express their love and consent to be their children. They shouldn’t be treated as property.”

Now I don’t think that is going to happen because so much feminist thought still sees the history of marriage as embarrassing and sexist. They often compare marriage to the selling of cattle. I can’t imagine someone arguing that marriage is a more dignified term than adoption. But by expanding adoption to unions outside of what has been traditionally understood as marriage, we lose our word for marriage. That’s why today we tend to add the adjective “traditional” to marriage to clarify our meaning. However “Sacramental” is not an adjective that adequately distinquishes between “traditional marriage” and what we like to call marriage today.

protestants don’t consider marriage a sacrament.
just thought i’d mention that.

also in the catholic church, the two catholics are the ministers of the sacrament and the priest is the witness.

 

[Moore11]

yes god made adam and eve and sin still entered the world. there is still suffering and disease and genetic mutations for example. there is no perfect life. there are still children born with both male and female sexual organs. that is not normal order. are you saying they shouldn’t be allowed to marry because they happen to be ‘complete’ already because they happen to possess both male and female organs?

the pope is infallible but the church isn’t. the church is made up of human beings who are imperfect with a tendency to die not to mention sin and other foibles. they also can be very misinformed or not knowledgeable about everything there is to know about. and frankly, that would be humanly impossible. The magesterium of the Church is indeed infallible. I think you need to clarify about infallibility

the bible gets its view about sin from the jews.Or God:shrug: and the jews are the ones who wrote that sodomy is a sin. they also wrote that women should be stoned if they have been caught in adultery, but not men. today, you can’t be stoned for that, and its hard to get more than 50% in a divorce settlement if one of the spouses committed adultery.Paul, a Christian wrote about homosexuality. the church still teaches against adultery, but it doesn’t preach stoning anymore. so according to you we are not following the bible because according to you, if we did, adulterers should be stoned. This is a misunderstanding of the Old and New Testaments and how they intertwine to tell our salvation story.

the jews also ignorantly said that being born blind is a sin. and jesus said no that’s not true. Again, you are missing the entire point of Jesus if that is what you drew out of the blindness analogy.

the only reason sodomy is considered a sin is because its out of wedlock sex. if they were married it wouldn’t be a sin. Again, nope. Sodomy within Marriage is a sin if it does not include a procreative ending. As well as the whole idea that those parts of the body are not meant to do that. It isn’t their natural function. You should study more about the Church’s wise teachings about sexuality in humanae Vitae

i think you are misunderstanding infallibility: the pope spoke infallibly on only two occasions. the last of which was the declaration that mary was the mother of god and/or the immaculate conception. It is you who are misunderstanding the issue of Papal infallibility and you need to provide documentation for your assertion that infallibility has only been invoked twice. That is just false.

I am sorry for the in quote color responses but there were so many false statements that are just given out as fact when they are not.

 

[Vatican2Rocks]

If the Church taught that the simple fact of having same sex attraction was sinful, then whether or not it was genetic would be relevant (because, of course, sin is a choice). This is not what the Church teaches. The Church teaches that the act is sinful. And regardless of whether or not a person chooses the inclination, they certainly choose whether or not to act on it.

so by your logic, people who have opposite sex attraction and act on it are sinning. unless they are married. and that is the crux of the problem.

what if you weren’t attracted to a member of the opposite sex but had sex with them anyway…wouldn’t that be a sin? this happens a lot in the real world actually. so you already know my answer. even married ones.

 

[Elizabeth502]

the only reason sodomy is considered a sin is because its out of wedlock sex. if they were married it wouldn’t be a sin…

How breathtakingly misinformed.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church
Paragraph 2352:

Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” 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.

Nothing in there about

if they were married it wouldn’t be a sin…

In all situations, and without exception, it is gravely sinful.

This is a central feature of the Church’s inerrant doctrine on human sexuality. Infallibility is a technical term which does not mean that the rest of Catholic doctrine is optionally binding, or a matter of opinion, is unstable, relative, changing “with the times” or of lesser importance. Inerrancy on matters of morals has been guaranteed to the Magisterium through the gift of the Spirit which Jesus promised to his apostles and those who succeeded them. That inerrancy is represented by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which is responsible for the Catechism just quoted.