What if a "Gay Gene" exists?

[Elizabeth502]

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.

Kindly acquaint yourself with the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the integrated doctrine of sexuality.

Yes, heterosexual sexual acts are gravely sinful outside of marriage. It’s called fornication. And it’s called fornication, and is a mortal sin, whether one is attracted or not attracted to that sexual partner of the different gender.

For a Catholic, the only sexual acts which are not sinful are those confined to the state of a canonically lawful marriage – which eliminates phony “marriages” such as homosexuals playing pretend marriage games, eliminates heterosexual cohabitation as an alternate form of “marriage,” etc.

Parenthetically, though, the Catholic Church does not base its societal opposition to homosexual “marriage” on the sinfulness of homosexual acts per se, but on the natural law which affects all humankind, the natural law written on the heart of every man, woman, and child – believer and unbeliever alike – and which committed Catholics are bound to support by their baptismal vows and their Confirmation commitments.

 

[Vatican2Rocks]

How breathtakingly misinformed.

**I’m not misinformed. its simply the missing link. **

 

[Vatican2Rocks]

Kindly acquaint yourself with the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the integrated doctrine of sexuality.

Yes, heterosexual sexual acts are gravely sinful outside of marriage. It’s called fornication. And it’s called fornication, and is a mortal sin, whether one is attracted or not attracted to that sexual partner of the different gender.

dear miss sarcasm, if you are married to someone you are not sexually attracted then its probably not a marriage to begin with but its not called a mortal sin…but probably should be.

For a Catholic, the only sexual acts which are not sinful are those confined to the state of a canonically lawful marriage – which eliminates phony “marriages” such as homosexuals playing pretend marriage games, eliminates heterosexual cohabitation as an alternate form of “marriage,” etc.

all marriages outside of the church are valid, according to the church, unless you are catholic. that is the teaching of the church. they are not phony marriages as you have categorized them. the church is not the arbiter of everyone else’s marriage ie non catholics.

Parenthetically, though, the Catholic Church does not base its societal opposition to homosexual “marriage” on the sinfulness of homosexual acts per se, but on the natural law which affects all humankind, the natural law written on the heart of every man, woman, and child – believer and unbeliever alike – and which committed Catholics are bound to support by their baptismal vows and their Confirmation commitments.

even though you think that is what the church is basing their opposition to gay marriage on…the church is not a democracy and therefore does not have my vote on this issue. i am not accepting your coercive statements which go contrary to reason as well as to my conscience

marriage, and specifically sacramental marriage, cannot be coercive. on principle it must be a free will act so your coercive statement is doubly unacceptable. I am not bound to the church on marriage for gays in a secular setting.

 

[Joe_5859]

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.

You misunderstood my logic, my friend. Marriage is not some arbitrary license granted by the Church so that people can engage in sin-free sex.

Marriage is something on an ontological level. We can no more change what marriage is than we can change what photosynthesis is or what gravity is. It is what it is.

 

[Corki]

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.

Atrraction is not a morality issue. A married man that is not attracted to his wife is not sinning to have sex with her - in fact he is obligated to do so.

But the point of Catholic teaching that you seem to ignore is that there are two different sins that you are trying to lump together.

1. All sexual acts outside of marriage are sinful.
2. All homosexual acts are sinful.

#2 is not dependent on #1 - it’s a different sin.

 

[bilop]

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.

No, not only in the Catholic Church. God’s plan for marriage and human sexuality is binding on eveyone, whether they believe or not.

“I didn’t believe it”, as an excuse, will no more help someone on Judgement Day for sexual sins, than it will for violating “Thou shalt not kill”.

Adultery, fornication, masturbation, sodomy, etc. are just as sinful for non-Catholics as for Catholics.

Nowhere does the Church say you must be a “baby making machine”. Every person is perfectly free to remain single and celibate and never have children.

It just says that you can not artificially alter the natural marital act into a vehicle for mere pleasure. To do so is to use your spouse as an object, for your own enjoyment.

God Bless

 

[Joe_5859]

Atrraction is not a morality issue. A married man that is not attracted to his wife is not sinning to have sex with her - in fact he is obligated to do so.

But the point of Catholic teaching that you seem to ignore is that there are two different sins that you are trying to lump together.

1. All sexual acts outside of marriage are sinful.
2. All homosexual acts are sinful.

#2 is not dependent on #1 - it’s a different sin.

This is an important point that I think often gets overlooked. I have seen some well-meaning Catholics – in an attempt to “soften the blow” – say that homosexual acts are sinful because all sexual acts outside of marriage are sinful (and so the Church isn’t singling them out). This then leads to people thinking, “Well, then the Church should just let gay people get married and we wouldn’t have a problem!” No, not really.

What we want to avoid, of course, is running around pointing fingers at people saying they are “worse” sinners than these other people. I think that’s the impression the well-meaning people are trying to avoid sending, which is understandable.

 

[fix]

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.

This is all false. If you want to make assertions please provide proof.

 

[djeter]

Does that change how we have to look at homosexuals?

http://payingattentiontothesky.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/genes1.jpg
There are genes and then there are genes…

Even if a hypothetical “gay gene” were ever found, all it would likely determine, similar to most genes governing behavior, would be a genetic predisposition towards a particular sexual preference. This would be something very different from the genetic determinism or “hard-wiring” of, say, eye color or blood type…

Even if we have genes that predispose us towards certain behaviors, we still have a space of freedom within ourselves, and do not have to engage in those behaviors. Our genes may impel us strongly in certain behavioral directions, but they can’t compel us.

More on the topic (which I have gratuitously, but charmingly titled “A Catholic Space Of Freedom”) here

 

[manualman]

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.

 

[buffalo]

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

BPA?

 

[CHRISTINE77]

What about “bisexuals”? Is there a “bi” gene? Are these people who can’t make up thier mind about what sex they are attracted to? Shouldn’t they be protected too? (this is sarcasm)

Clearly people need to make a choice on what and who they are going to have sex with. It is morally and naturally wrong to have sex your same gender, so it really doesn’t matter what one’s attraction is, genetic or not.

Personally I doubt if there is a homosexual gene. In my opinion, homosexuality is a case of arrested development. Homosexuals just don’t want to grow up and have an adult union.

 

[buffalo]

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.

That is one component of the problem.

We now know what is happening to people and animals who are ingesting BPA. Hormones are very important here. Female runners who overtrain lose their breasts and grow hair.

However, the physical changes do not alleviate the repsonsibility to do what is right and moral. So when a teen who has feminine characteristics goes to see the school nurse and she encourages him to explore homosexuality is wrong headed. So we have a psychological component, a societal one as well as inordinate desire. We also know that behaviors will influence brain structure.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Bri89,

Actually, the premise is accurate. Here is a reference:payingattentiontothesky.com/causes-of-homosexuality-a-christian-appraisal-of-the-data/the-top-ten-myths-about-homosexuality-by-peter-sprigg/

Ultimately, not only does sodomy produce no children, it is ultimately self-destructive. The problem with the mythical Narcissis was not that he loved himself - we all do that, and are commanded to do so ("Love thy neighbor as thyself but his self-love exclude every other reality - and the fool falls in love with his image and dies. narcissismfree.com/the-narcissus-myth.php

Inordinate self-love is ultimately self-defeating. No matter what our genetic make-up, for those endowed with a free will, there is moral responsibility for their willful actions. Those of us will flawed genes have a special cross to bear. To whine aloud about God being ‘unfair’ (by human standards) is to fail to appreciate the Divinity.

God bless

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

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Manualman,

A truly excellent post!

God bless

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.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Christine77,

The quest for the ‘Gay Gene’ is essentially the story of the Red Herring that confused the world. As was pointed out, alcoholism may have real genetic components, but such genetic associations are about as material as discussing eye color as a controlling factor for behavior. The distraction of the Red Herring is to get people to stop looking at free will and moral responsibility and accountability - and to focus of ‘fairness’ as defined by the homosexual agenda.

Maybe like Peter Pan, those with arrested emotional, psychological and social development have simply refused to grow up as they have grown older. This is the ultimate foolishness in this life.

God bless

What about “bisexuals”? Is there a “bi” gene? Are these people who can’t make up thier mind about what sex they are attracted to? Shouldn’t they be protected too? (this is sarcasm)

Clearly people need to make a choice on what and who they are going to have sex with. It is morally and naturally wrong to have sex your same gender, so it really doesn’t matter what one’s attraction is, genetic or not.

Personally I doubt if there is a homosexual gene. In my opinion, homosexuality is a case of arrested development. Homosexuals just don’t want to grow up and have an adult union.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Hi, Christine77,

The quest for the ‘Gay Gene’ is essentially the story of the Red Herring that confused the world. As was pointed out, alcoholism may have real genetic components, but such genetic associations are about as material as discussing eye color as a controlling factor for behavior. The distraction of the Red Herring is to get people to stop looking at free will and moral responsibility and accountability - and to focus of ‘fairness’ as defined by the homosexual agenda.

Maybe like Peter Pan, those with arrested emotional, psychological and social development have simply refused to grow up as they have grown older. This is the ultimate foolishness in this life.

God bless

Thanks and I totally agree with you.

 

[bri89]

Hi, Bri89,

Actually, the premise is accurate. Here is a reference:payingattentiontothesky.com/causes-of-homosexuality-a-christian-appraisal-of-the-data/the-top-ten-myths-about-homosexuality-by-peter-sprigg/

Ultimately, not only does sodomy produce no children, it is ultimately self-destructive. The problem with the mythical Narcissis was not that he loved himself - we all do that, and are commanded to do so ("Love thy neighbor as thyself but his self-love exclude every other reality - and the fool falls in love with his image and dies. narcissismfree.com/the-narcissus-myth.php

Inordinate self-love is ultimately self-defeating. No matter what our genetic make-up, for those endowed with a free will, there is moral responsibility for their willful actions. Those of us will flawed genes have a special cross to bear. To whine aloud about God being ‘unfair’ (by human standards) is to fail to appreciate the Divinity.

God bless

Hi tqualey. You can choose to live in a world where there is no sexual ambiguity if you wish; where man is man woman is woman and they are always heterosexual beings. Any deviation is the result of willful behavior, sin. To base your entire understanding of sexuality on the biblical story of Adam and Eve leaves you with an extremely idyllic view and oblivious to certain observable realities. My mother is confined by simplistic sexual ideals. Even though my brother has defied amost every masculine stereotype since always, she still doesn’ t even moderately adjust her views on sexuality and gender. His identity simply doesn’t fit within her scheme.
Similarly, for many christians, homosexuality and gender variance don’t fit within their biblical understanding, and some go so far as to believe that such things don’t even exist.

 

[manualman]

The above is a straw man criticism. I see nobody arguing that sexual identity problems don’t exist. What is being argued is that giving into these disordered inclinations is a harmful thing. That doesn’t single out gay people as especially heinous. Someone inclined to steal shiny things needs to resist that and develop discipline too. So do guys inclined to oggle breasts. And so on.

It is a part of fallen human nature to have disordered inclinations. The key is to refuse to celebrate them, but instead to recognize what is good, and right and ask God for the grace to overcome our disordered inclinations. People with SSA are hardly alone in that aspect… And the major criticism those with SSA validly can claim against christians is that there is a tendency to classify ‘gay sins’ as worse than anybody elses. That’s true because, ironically, it is a part of the fall to have the disordered inclination to exaggerate other people’s sins and minimize one’s own. There are, sadly, plenty of disordered inclinations to go around on this earth.

 

[PumpkinSeed]

That is one component of the problem.

We now know what is happening to people and animals who are ingesting BPA. Hormones are very important here. Female runners who overtrain lose their breasts and grow hair.

However, the physical changes do not alleviate the repsonsibility to do what is right and moral. So when a teen who has feminine characteristics goes to see the school nurse and she encourages him to explore homosexuality is wrong headed. So we have a psychological component, a societal one as well as inordinate desire. We also know that behaviors will influence brain structure.

What would happen if a gay man took testosterone? Or a lesbian took estrogen?