What if a "Gay Gene" exists?

  • Thread starter Thread starter voctor09
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The church teaches in fact, that a person is born gay. plus it stands to reason-why would a person choose to be gay and therefore choose a life of social ridicule and rejection.l
You need to be honest in your assertions. The Church does not in fact teach that someone is born Gay. You need to produce evidence of that. It just is not true.
-Why would God make a person and force them to never show affection-but to change this would mean that Gay Marriage would have to be permitted in the church which would NEVER EVER HAPPEN as sex outside marriage (fornication) is prohibited its a viscious circle because imagine the chaos that would insue if the church decided to permitt gay marriage there would be a second reformation and we CERTAINLY dont want another group of deluded spin off wrong people to emerge like the Protestant church.
This is a flawed understanding of both God and homosexuality. God does not make people to “not love” you can love anyone you wish and should love everyone. Homosexuality is not about two people that just want to cuddle in bed at night, it involves deviant sexual attraction.
 
As a health care worker, I find this shockingly and dangerously ignorant. The reason that AIDS was initially considered a “gay disease” is because the “patient 0” in America…the first person believed to bring AIDS into the country, was gay, and he was also very promiscous and infected many partners single handedly. Thus AIDS hit the gay community first before moving to other segments in society. In other countries, the disease is not associated with homosexuality and it is much more commonly spread via heterosexual intercourse, i.e. Sub Saharan Africa or Haiti.

In fact, a huge problem right now is HIV with the elderly, who are one of the fastest growing cohorts of HIV/AIDS patients. STDs are practically epidemic in nursing homes, it is actually a huge problem in the health care system. Unprotected sex is rampant within nursing homes, who erroneously think of STDs as being “after their time” or and something that does not affect their generation. The fact that elderly women cannot get pregnant also lowers their incentives for practicing safe sex.

You’re information regarding AIDS being a “gay disease” is outdated by about twnety years. You don’t get AIDS from “being gay.” You get AIDS by a virus that can be passed (among other ways) by unprotected sex. Heterosexuals are just as capable of having unprotected sex as homosexuals. As we are seeing in nursing homes across the country, an 85 year old grandma is just as capable of getting HIV as a marcher in a gay pride parade.

Promiscuous and unprotected sex is absolutely a health hazard and should be treated as such. But this applies no less to promiscuous heterosexuals who do not use protection than it does to gays who do the same.

It should be noted that The Netherlands is unquestionably the most tolerant society towards homosexuals and they have been freely accepted in their society for some time. The Netherlands is also probably the most sexually libertine country in the world. Yet they have the very lowest rate of abortion in the world (despite abortion being legal), and one of the lowest rates of teen pregnancy AND of HIV in the world. Why? Because of their sexual education programs and widespread availability of cheaply obtained condoms and birth control.

Massachussetts is probably the most tolerant state for gays, and has had gay marriage the longest. Yet our HIV infection rate is quite low, and is a fraction of the rates in many other states where gay marriage is illegal and homosexuals are far less permitted in society. Vermont allows gay marriage and is another very gay tolerant state, and they have the lowest HIV rate in the nation.

In Maryland, 80% of AIDS cases reported are in African Americans. In 2009, African Americans comprised 14% of the US population but accounted for 44% of all new HIV infections. Although Africa is home to about 14.5% of the world’s population, it is estimated to be home to 69% of all people living with HIV and to 72% of all AIDS deaths in 2009

Why do you consider AIDS a gay disease rather than a “black disease?” (please note I am not claiming it IS a black disease, only asking why you don’t since you are so willing to call it a gay disease when it actually affects blacks more than gays - though it should be noted that gay blacks are at particularly high risk).
You are a healthcare worker and dont admit the horribly risky and unealthly aspects of gay behavior?:eek:
This has nothing to do with gay marriage and everything to do with homosexual actions. Which are unnatural and disordered. in africa it is a different problem but having lost dear friends to aids I implore you to not manipulate the statistics to further a point that is only to support an agenda. To do so, only trivializes those who are suffering and have suffered this disease.
 
Regarding the “natural order” argument.

I assume that means that all of you here wish to legalize rape and infanticide, correct? After all, these attributes are intrinsic to the “natural” world. It is only humans which have prohibitions against rape and infanticide. In many species, these behaviors are completely commonplace and quite natural.

I also assume that none of you have ever flown in an airplane. After all, this is CERTAINLY against the “natural order” of humans not being able to fly.

I assume none of you use any synthetic materials, or take any synthetically designed drugs, as they are not “natural.”

How do you feel about hermaphrodies? Should they be killed? They go against the “natural order” aren’t they an affront to God? How do you account for the existance of hermaphrodites, and how should they be treated in society? Should they been exiled, jailed, killed, or banned from ever having any kind of romantic relationship? Whose “fault” is there existence? Did Satan create hermaphrodites?

Should people who marry if one partner is sterile, or postmenopausal be denied marriage licenses, or should they be expected to be celibate for the course of their marriage?

If a woman refuses to have sex with her husband one night, should he be legally allowed to rape her? Marital rape was legal until just a couple decades ago, specifically because it was considered that having sex with his wife was the natural right of the man.

What’s more, homosexuality does occur in nature. For instance, swans mate for life and are known to form same sex pairs on occasion. The swans in the Boston Garden, for instance, while called “Romeo and Juliet” are actually two female swans. However, one of the female swans takes the role of the “male” swan. That is, she behaves the way male swans behaves, while her mate continues to behave as a female swan.
This is not what the Church teaches. And it is a logical fallacy if drawn out to its logical conclusions. You are misunderstanding what natural order really means in this context.
 
Also, the historical information regarding Galileo othe posters have listed here here is not correct, in that it is said that he was persecuted not for promoting the heliocentric theory, but because he drew theological conclusions from it without first consulting the Church.

This is wrong for several reasons. First off, before Galileo, less famous scientists were burned by order of the Catholic Church for researching and believing the heliocentric theory. The only reason Galileo himself escaped a death sentence was most likely his close relationship with the very powerful Medici family.

Secondly, Galileo did NOT draw theological conclusions from his theory. He presented the heliocentric theory as a “dialogue.” That is, he wrote a book with three different characters discussing the theory. One character promoted it, another character denied it, and a third character was undecided. The dialogue was designed to be portrayed as a hypothetical discussion that debated the merits of the heliocentric theory.

Thirdly, at the time when Galileo published his work, published works were strictly censored in the Iatlian provinces and all books were required to be submitted to Church authorities to review it before publishing. Galileo submitted his work to a Church reviewer, they approved it and told him he was allowed to publish it and he was not breaking heresy laws by doing so specifically because he wrote out the theory in such a way that it drew no theological conclusions and in fact did not even state that heliocentrism was certainly true, it only presented the merits of the heliocentric theory. It was only after the publication, when powerful and influential cardinals who had a long standing grudge against Galileo due to past personal dealins with him started petitioning Pope Urban VIII and later Pope Paul V to persecute Galileo that he was arrested and charged with heresy by the Inquisition.

What about the fact that early practitioners of medicine, particularly in the dark ages, were often regarded as witches and burned as heretics? I’m not talking about people who called themselves witches and who sought to make magical remedies. I’m talking about midwives, physicks, etc, who, as practicing Catholics, sought natural remedies for afflictions. Were they right to be burned? Why aren’t we burning nurses, doctors, pharmacists, etc today if these past actions of the Church were not wrong and were guided by the Holy Spirit?

What about the Jews who were burned during the Black Death? When the Black Death ravaged Europe throughout the 1300s, an unfortunate scapegoat became the Jews. many believed that either the Jews had deliberately caused the plague, either through poison or witchcraft. The result was that Jews, sometimes on the orders of Church authorities, were killed in the thousands. One of the more common methods was to round up all the Jews in a community, lock them all in a wood structure (such as a barn), and then set it on fire. Thousands of Jewish men, women, and children were burned to death, sometimes on the authority of (or with the blessing of) Church authorities. Were they not wrong to do this? Did Jews actually cause the Black Death?

The head of the Catholic Church in Ireland is Cardinal Sean Brady. The Cardinal not only was aware of sexual abuse of children by one of his priests, he not only allowed this priest to continue to work with children directly after he became aware of abuse, but he actually accosted and made the children sign documents promising to never tell anyone they had been abused.** Did the Holy Spirit tell him to be an accessory to child molestation, and tell him to coerce child molestation victims into silence?
Nice derail.
It is false and there are many threads on Galileo, crusades, inquisitors, and molestation on here. Feel free to add to your education on any one of them.
 
Hi, CopticChristian,

Not quite…😃 I do not think Moore missed the mark at all! 👍

Yes, homosexuality does exist in the mind of the homosexual - but, that is not the only place where it exists. There is quite a lot written about disordered behavior both in Scripture and by the Church. And, as you know, homosexual behavior is clearly condemned by both. We are not talking about a mere attraction - but disordered behavior that is both objective and sinful.

If a person had a ‘bank robber gene’, he would not be condemned for having this gene - something he had no control over. If this person tried to rob a bank, or in fact did commit robbery, he would be guilty of disordered behavior and an objectively gravely immoral act.

We can define acts in many different ways. If we neglect to identify that there is an objective behavior component we run the risk of thinking things just exist in our mind - and thinking one was as opposed to another will make them so. This would be an example of delusional thinking.

God bless
I do not understand what your point is.

You act based on what you think and believe. If there is some other way to act let me know.
 
Regarding the “natural order” argument.

I assume that means that all of you here wish to legalize rape and infanticide, correct? After all, these attributes are intrinsic to the “natural” world. It is only humans which have prohibitions against rape and infanticide. In many species, these behaviors are completely commonplace and quite natural.

I also assume that none of you have ever flown in an airplane. After all, this is CERTAINLY against the “natural order” of humans not being able to fly.

I assume none of you use any synthetic materials, or take any synthetically designed drugs, as they are not “natural.”

How do you feel about hermaphrodies? Should they be killed? They go against the “natural order” aren’t they an affront to God? How do you account for the existance of hermaphrodites, and how should they be treated in society? Should they been exiled, jailed, killed, or banned from ever having any kind of romantic relationship? Whose “fault” is there existence? Did Satan create hermaphrodites?

Should people who marry if one partner is sterile, or postmenopausal be denied marriage licenses, or should they be expected to be celibate for the course of their marriage?

If a woman refuses to have sex with her husband one night, should he be legally allowed to rape her? Marital rape was legal until just a couple decades ago, specifically because it was considered that having sex with his wife was the natural right of the man.

What’s more, homosexuality does occur in nature. For instance, swans mate for life and are known to form same sex pairs on occasion. The swans in the Boston Garden, for instance, while called “Romeo and Juliet” are actually two female swans. However, one of the female swans takes the role of the “male” swan. That is, she behaves the way male swans behaves, while her mate continues to behave as a female swan.
Jules,

I loved 20,000 leagues under the sea. I believe it was a springboard to Star Trek. I believe you need to define “Natural Order” as you see it.

I believe you are taking the rare instance of Hermaphrodite and PseudoHermaphrodite and commenting on what you do not know.

Homosexuality in animals does not equate to human behavior. Animals don’t have the ability to do “reflective thinking” humans do and can. This is why we accept or reject our behavior while animals just do what they do.
 
I do not understand what your point is.

You act based on what you think and believe. If there is some other way to act let me know.
I suppose in a general sense that we also act on what we desire. For instance a person my believe that sexual immorality is wrong, they may believe all the teachings about it but they find themselves in a strip club on Friday and the confessional on Saturday.
I dont speak for the poster you quoted but there are many other reasons we act rather than what we believe and think. Sadly.
 
The church teaches in fact, that a person is born gay. plus it stands to reason-why would a person choose to be gay and therefore choose a life of social ridicule and rejection. It is also harder for those of strong faith who are gay (including me) it conflicts so much with our beliefs. I hate being like this. plus, The church also teaches that people who are homosexuals should be treated with the uttmost respect, and to inhibit or persecute them is a serious matter that only God’s forgiveness can absolve. They are given a test from God and it is up to the Catholic community to assist them. these are the words of the catechism and the only question I would have is-Why would God make a person and force them to never show affection-but to change this would mean that Gay Marriage would have to be permitted in the church which would NEVER EVER HAPPEN as sex outside marriage (fornication) is prohibited its a viscious circle because imagine the chaos that would insue if the church decided to permitt gay marriage there would be a second reformation and we CERTAINLY dont want another group of deluded spin off wrong people to emerge like the Protestant church. well that’s my rant over. I’m a 17yr old male from Ireland and hope to become a priest some day and study astrophysics also lol
G,

The Hobbit was a great read. You did not come across well in the movie. Plus. This is a difficult sentence. Preceeding plus you make a statement that is a charley horse between the ears.

You say that it is fact that the Church teaches that one is born Gay. I need to know everything about this Church I am a part of. Show me where I might be able to find this “fact” so that I may correct my thinking and understanding. Once you correct my thinking on this I can then understand the next part of your sentence or reject it.

thank you…loved Lord of the Rings…🙂
 
You need to be honest in your assertions. The Church does not in fact teach that someone is born Gay. You need to produce evidence of that. It just is not true.

This is a flawed understanding of both God and homosexuality. God does not make people to “not love” you can love anyone you wish and should love everyone. Homosexuality is not about two people that just want to cuddle in bed at night, it involves deviant sexual attraction.
So your position is that if something is different (aka deviant), it is inherently bad? And that someone being or different justifies bigotry against them? So it is okay, for instance, for Muslims in Islamic countries to persecute Christian minorities, because they are deviants in their society?
 
you quoted dont say ‘don’t judge’ but it should be said because the only true Judge IS GOD therefore for a man to judge another man is to condemn himself. how dare anyone else judge another person. it annoys me people judging others and not everyone judges there is a difference between assuming and judging
G,

Those Hobbits sure are cute. Hey listen. Judging is about judging a relationship in communion with the almighty not about sin otherwise there would be no passages about take it to two witness, take it to the Church. We don’t take it to the Church to judge someones Justification, Sanctification or Glorification…that is a work of God…sin, now well that is another matter.:eek:
 
I suppose in a general sense that we also act on what we desire. For instance a person my believe that sexual immorality is wrong, they may believe all the teachings about it but they find themselves in a strip club on Friday and the confessional on Saturday.
I dont speak for the poster you quoted but there are many other reasons we act rather than what we believe and think. Sadly.
M,

Yes emotions are a factor. If you look at Aquinas model of the intellect, the passions influence our will to act. In the Meta model the passions are feelings and these feelings attached to a thought cause us to act. In your case finding yourself in a strip club on Friday suggests that whatever emotions you tie to that thought caused you to act on Friday and a different set of emotions tied to that thought caused you to act on Saturday. It would be the hope that alignment of thoughts and feeling would cause you to act differently the upcoming Friday and Saturday.👍
 
Jules,

I loved 20,000 leagues under the sea. I believe it was a springboard to Star Trek. I believe you need to define “Natural Order” as you see it.

I believe you are taking the rare instance of Hermaphrodite and PseudoHermaphrodite and commenting on what you do not know.

Homosexuality in animals does not equate to human behavior. Animals don’t have the ability to do “reflective thinking” humans do and can. This is why we accept or reject our behavior while animals just do what they do.
That’s rather my point. You guys want it both ways. You want to judge homosexuals because they go against the order of the “natural” world. But then when presented with behaviors that are common in animals or primitive human societies (i.e. nature), then those should not be applied to humans even though that is how things occur “in nature.” My point is that “how nature works” is a really bad standard for human behavior, because, as you yourself said, animals are not self reflective. And the “natural order” also entails things like dying when you get sick, not giving people drugs or machines to lengthen or improve their lives.

As far as “natural order,” I take the classic definition; the relationship between beings to one another in the absense of a defining societal infrastructure to exhude control on those beings.

If you are using “natural law” in this thread as an alternate definition I am unfamiliar with, then that of course would change how I am viewing this argument and if that’s the case please let me know.

What does the fact that hermaphrodites are rare have to do with anything? They are actually less rare than people think (though still rare). The fact of the matter is, they exist. How do you feel they should be treated in society if gender relations are strictly between a man and a woman? Should hermaphrodites be allowed to adopt, marry, have sex, etc?

Also, may I ask why you felt the need to tell me that I don’t know what I’m talking about, but why you failed to tell another poster when they posted completely incorrect information about Galileo, or the poster who posted completely incorrect information about AIDS?

Why are anti-homosexual advocates here allowed to tell things that are flat our lies/falsehoods that can be easily and factually disproven?
 
That’s rather my point. You guys want it both ways. You want to judge homosexuals because they go against the order of the “natural” world. But then when presented with behaviors that are common in animals or primitive human societies (i.e. nature), then those should not be applied to humans even though that is how things occur “in nature.” My point is that “how nature works” is a really bad standard for human behavior, because, as you yourself said, animals are not self reflective. And the “natural order” also entails things like dying when you get sick, not giving people drugs or machines to lengthen or improve their lives.

You can’t have it both ways. Either you shrug off modernity and go live in a cave and die when you get sick as is “natural” to do, or you stop saying that if something a human does isn’t “natural” then that is justification to label it as wrong.

What does the fact that hermaphrodites are rare have to do with anything? They are actually less rare than people think (though still rare). The fact of the matter is, they exist. How do you feel they should be treated in society if gender relations are strictly between a man and a woman? Should hermaphrodites be allowed to adopt, marry, have sex, etc?
Jules,

come up for air and define your understanding of “Natural Order”👍
 
So your position is that if something is different (aka deviant), it is inherently bad? And that someone being or different justifies bigotry against them? So it is okay, for instance, for Muslims in Islamic countries to persecute Christian minorities, because they are deviants in their society?
Of course not. I have no idea how you make that jump. However in this case, homosexuality is deviant. But the act is the immoral thing, not the inclination. Just like it is wrong for me to cheat on my wife if I am attracted to another woman. Yes, we live in a time where no can can call things wrong. But this is. If you are Catholic you need to read the catechism on how homosexuals should be treated in a loving manner. No, bigotry should be tolerated by any Catholic. But not disapproving of sinful behavior is not bigotry. You need to stop making sweeping generalizations so we can have an honest dialogue.
 
Jules,

come up for air and define your understanding of “Natural Order”👍
yes my apologies, I should have done that first. I did go back and edit my post to put it in, but you had already posted your reply by that time.

Again, if you folks are using “natural order” in a different sense than I am, then that obviously changes things.
 
That’s rather my point. You guys want it both ways. You want to judge homosexuals because they go against the order of the “natural” world. But then when presented with behaviors that are common in animals or primitive human societies (i.e. nature), then those should not be applied to humans even though that is how things occur “in nature.” My point is that “how nature works” is a really bad standard for human behavior, because, as you yourself said, animals are not self reflective. And the “natural order” also entails things like dying when you get sick, not giving people drugs or machines to lengthen or improve their lives.

You can’t have it both ways. Either you shrug off modernity and go live in a cave and die when you get sick as is “natural” to do, or you stop saying that if something a human does isn’t “natural” then that is justification to label it as wrong.

What does the fact that hermaphrodites are rare have to do with anything? They are actually less rare than people think (though still rare). The fact of the matter is, they exist. How do you feel they should be treated in society if gender relations are strictly between a man and a woman? Should hermaphrodites be allowed to adopt, marry, have sex, etc?
Our perspective is that God created a natural order of things and sex is ordered to procreation. The organs of sex compliment each other in a life affirming manner. Homosexuality goes against that. And in male cases is dangerous and damages the body. Homosexuality deviates from the “natural” or "Holy’ order because it serves no purpose.
 
Of course not. I have no idea how you make that jump. However in this case, homosexuality is deviant. But the act is the immoral thing, not the inclination. Just like it is wrong for me to cheat on my wife if I am attracted to another woman. Yes, we live in a time where no can can call things wrong. But this is. If you are Catholic you need to read the catechism on how homosexuals should be treated in a loving manner. No, bigotry should be tolerated by any Catholic. But not disapproving of sinful behavior is not bigotry. You need to stop making sweeping generalizations so we can have an honest dialogue.
The reason I made that jump is that you specifically said that homosexuality is a deviant act with no further statement; the fact that it is “deviant” is the only point you were making. If an act being “deviant” or “different” is not wrong, then why did you even bother to bring up the fact that it is deviant? Many behaviors, like lying, are not deviant and are very common, but are still bad. Why didn’t you just say that homosexual sex acts are sinful or against god or the Bible? Why did you even bring up the issue of deviancy?
 
The reason I made that jump is that you specifically said that homosexuality is a deviant act with no further statement; the fact that it is “deviant” is the only point you were making. If an act being “deviant” or “different” is not wrong, then why did you even bother to bring up the fact that it is deviant? Many behaviors, like lying, are not deviant and are very common, but are still bad. Why didn’t you just say that homosexual sex acts are sinful or against god or the Bible? Why did you even bring up the issue of deviancy?
Lying is deviant. It is against how things are made to work. I think the difference in what is “supposed” to be and what is are hindering our understanding of each other.
 
Our perspective is that God created a natural order of things and sex is ordered to procreation. The organs of sex compliment each other in a life affirming manner. Homosexuality goes against that. And in male cases is dangerous and damages the body. Homosexuality deviates from the “natural” or "Holy’ order because it serves no purpose.
Then why don’t you seek to curtail marriage rights to anyone who uses birth control, does not want children, is not able to have children, is post menopausal, or is a hermaphrodite?
Do they not go against the “natural order” just as much as homosexuals do?

“And in male cases is dangerous and damages the body”

What? How is it “dangerous?” I mean, sure I suppose if you use really rough sex often it can be dangerous, but that is true of sodomy between heterosexual couples. Do you know how dangerous child birth used to be, to the point that in the middle ages a woman was EXPECTED to die in childbirth and rarely lived past thirty because of gynecological complications? And do you know that the more pregnancies you have, the more dangerous it becomes for the woman and for the child? Surely pregnancy itself is far more dangerous than sodomy (assuming of course the sodomy is occuring between two tested-and-disease-free-monogamous individuals).

it serves no purpose

So? I like to pop bubble wrap. It serves literally no purpose what so ever, but no one has ever told me popping bubble wrap is wrong. A huge amount of the food humans eat in modern society is processed, unhealthy, and not only serves no nutritional purpose, but is demonstrably dangerous to our health and well being.

The natural order of things is that food is meant to nourish our bodies. To eat non nutritious food regularly is against the natural order, for food becomes unhealthy and inhibits rather aids our lives and productivity. It also can decrease our ability to do the things we naturally do, as extremely poor diet can severely limit mobility. It can vastly decrease our lifespan. It is dangerous, and it serves no purpose other than the pleasure of taste.

Why do you concentrate on homosexuals and not people who love cheetos or ho hos?
 
Lying is deviant. It is against how things are made to work. I think the difference in what is “supposed” to be and what is are hindering our understanding of each other.
But that’s not the definition of the word. Deviant doesn’t mean “against how things are made to work.” It means “outside the social norm.” Being deviant can be bad, but the word as it is defined does not connotate bad behavior. For instance, a serial killer would be a deviant, but so is person who is against slavery in a society in which slavery is permitted and widely accepted. A person with dyed blue hair is a deviant, and so is a Christian in a Muslim country.

In any event, I understand now that your post was due to not knowing what the word “deviant” means rather than you implying that being different in society is a bad thing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top