What if a "Gay Gene" exists?

[Moore11]

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?

I am shocked at the lack of moral direction here. Bubble wrap and other things are not equivalent to homosexuality. I have no idea why you are just throwing up all these little bullet points that make no sense.

Lets slow down and deal with one issue at a time.
Dangerous and unhealthy:
You claim to work in the medical field. You should know what I am talking about. It is damaging to one’s body. It lends itself to the spread of bacteria and can cause damage to the digestive tract which is very very fragile. I dont want to get any more graphic than that on these boards. But you need to think honestly about the real act.

Now, as for other things.
If my wife and I for some reason only liked to have the act done the way homosexuals do it and intended to only do it that way for the rest of our lives, we could not be Cathoic and get married. Period. It isnt against a person but rather a sinful act.

Are you a Christian? It would help to know what frame of reference you are coming from. If it is a secular atheistic view then theological arguments wont do much. And we need to focus on more “secular” arguments against it. We need to have some sort of moral framework in common to have a discussion, even if it starts with, eating babies is wrong.

 

[Moore11]

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.

I agree deviant can mean those things. So we can now agree that homosexual behavior is deviant. Progress!

 

[codefro]

I agree deviant can mean those things. So we can now agree that homosexual behavior is deviant. Progress!

:clapping:

 

[Jules_Verne]

Also, as I stated before, in the time of Galileo, geocentrism was a sacred doctrine of the Church. It was upheld by multiple Bible passages. To refute this with heliocentrism could (and for some, did) result in death by burning. I refuted earlier claims that the problem was extrapolating theology from heliocentrism, that is incorrect. Simply stating that heliocentrism was a fact was itself a heresy that could be punished by death. Then, with Galileo, the reigns were tightened to the point that even discussing the merits of heliocentrism was considered heresy without even saying it was factually true! And this belief persisted for *hundreds * of years after the heliocentric theory was first popularized in Europe by Copernicus.

We all know now the Church was wrong. For centuries, across many many different Popes and colleges of cardinals, the Church was consistantly wrong. The earth does move around the sun, despite Bible passages that say otherwise. The Church burned to death good and pious men on the basis of this wrong belief, and ruined the lives of others like Galileo and his supporters.

Why can the Church be wrong on this matter and not on homosexuality? How can some people here say they will believe anything the Church hierarchy tells them just because the Church says it’s true, when historically the Church has burned scientists and doctors simply for coming up with medicinal or scientific theories that ultimately were proved correct?

And please don’t misunderstanding me in thinking I claim the Church has always been at odds with science in all cases. There have been many, many scholars whose important scientific work was lauded and even funded by the Church. Many cardinals, friars, priests, etc throughout history have themselves been prominant scientists or naturalists who contributed much to our scientific understanding (just look at Gregor Mendel!). But the Church can, and has been wrong, with innocent people dying terrible deaths as a result. Thus I cannot understand how someone can say that they implictely trust Church authority. Even if the authorities are being sincere in their beliefs that this or that thing is wrong (as opposed to them conspiring to withold truth due to malice), they can be wrong. We know this, because they have been in the past. Many, many times.

 

[Moore11]

Also, as I stated before, in the time of Galileo, geocentrism was a sacred doctrine of the Church. It was upheld by multiple Bible passages. To refute this with heliocentrism could (and for some, did) result in death by burning. I refuted earlier claims that the problem was extrapolating theology from heliocentrism, that is incorrect. Simply stating that heliocentrism was a fact was itself a heresy that could be punished by death. Then, with Galileo, the reigns were tightened to the point that even discussing the merits of heliocentrism was considered heresy without even saying it was factually true! And this belief persisted for *hundreds * of years after the heliocentric theory was first popularized in Europe by Copernicus.

We all know now the Church was wrong. For centuries, across many many different Popes and colleges of cardinals, the Church was consistantly wrong. The earth does move around the sun, despite Bible passages that say otherwise. The Church burned to death good and pious men on the basis of this wrong belief, and ruined the lives of others like Galileo and his supporters.

Why can the Church be wrong on this matter and not on homosexuality? How can some people here say they will believe anything the Church hierarchy tells them just because the Church says it’s true, when historically the Church has burned scientists and doctors simply for coming up with medicinal or scientific theories that ultimately were proved correct?

By that logic maybe the Church is wrong on Murder too. I mean, they were wrong on heliocentric thought (they were not) We cannot just assume everything goes because we think the Church was wrong about something else.
One of the things I have noted about addicts is almost every addict makes the argument that “it isn’t as bad as alcohol and that is legal” or “Hey, cocaine is more natural than meth” They do this to try to justify a bad behavior. And I see some parallels here. You argue that it isn’t as bad as other things and why don’t we go after other people but that does not change the fact that it is still wrong.

Could you answer the question about your religious background so we can have a productive conversation. Because if we don’t then you assume that i am a religious zealot and I assume you are a homosexual advancing an agenda. Nothing will get accomplished and the thread will be closed. So, lets put the cards on the table.

And speaking of the thread, do you have any thoughts on homosexuality being a genetic situation?

 

[Jules_Verne]

I am shocked at the lack of moral direction here. Bubble wrap and other things are not equivalent to homosexuality. I have no idea why you are just throwing up all these little bullet points that make no sense.

Because I am applying the logic you use for why homosexuality is wrong to other things. You aren’t saying “homosexuality is wrong AND it serves no purpose” You are saying a reason that homosexuality is wrong is because** it serves no purpose. The fact that your arguments against homosexuality are as weak as they are is, frankly, not my problem. You keep using arguments like “deviant” and “it serves no purpose” and “it goes against the procreative purposes of sex.” But you are saying these are not just neutral attributes of homosexual behavior which is wrong for other reasons, no, you are listing these things as reasons for why homosexuality is wrong.**

If it’s wrong *because *it serves no purpose, than *anything *that serves no purpose is wrong. If it is wrong *and *it serves no purpose, but the fact that it has no purpose has no bearing on its wrongness, than the fact that it has no purpose is a completely irrelevent and you should not have brought that up in the first place.

You then balk at me saying that other situations to which these arguments are equally applicable by saying “but that’s nothing like homosexuality!”

I agree, popping bubble wrap is nothing like homosexuality. But they both serve no purpose. You gave “having no purose” as an argument against homosexuality. I am deconstructing the merits of your arguments.

As long as you keep giving arguments against homosexuality that can be applied to a million other things which I am sure you do not consider wrong or sinful, I will keep asking you why such arguments are in any way applicable to homosexuals when you do not find these arguments applicable to other aspects of life.

Dangerous and unhealthy:
You claim to work in the medical field. You should know what I am talking about. It is damaging to one’s body. It lends itself to the spread of bacteria and can cause damage to the digestive tract which is very very fragile. I dont want to get any more graphic than that on these boards. But you need to think honestly about the real act.

Urinary tract infections are an extremely common infection that results from traditional heterosexual sex acts. STDs that can be deadly can be spread by traditional heterosexual sex acts. I hate to break it to you, but bacteria can, and does, get spread by normative, heterosexual sex. All the time.

Eating meat and junk food is far, far more dangerous to your digestive tract that sodomy.
People commit sodomy all the time. It does not have to be dangerous to the digestive tract. I know it may be an unpalatable thing to think about, but it is also a far more common sex act among heterosexuals than I think you realize. And of course, as this does not apply to lesbians at all, you can’t apply this “dangerous” argument to fully half the population of homosexuals.

Are you a Christian? It would help to know what frame of reference you are coming from. If it is a secular atheistic view then theological arguments wont do much. And we need to focus on more “secular” arguments against it. We need to have some sort of moral framework in common to have a discussion, even if it starts with, eating babies is wrong.

I was raised a Catholic and in fact used to teach catechism, but now consider myself “not religious,” though not atheistic either. For reference, I am a straight, married woman.

 

[Moore11]

I am shocked at the lack of moral direction here. Bubble wrap and other things are not equivalent to homosexuality. I have no idea why you are just throwing up all these little bullet points that make no sense.

Because I am applying the logic you use for why homosexuality is wrong to other things. You aren’t saying “homosexuality is wrong AND it serves no purpose” You are saying a reason that homosexuality is wrong is because** it serves no purpose. The fact that your arguments against homosexuality are as weak as they are is, frankly, not my problem. You keep using arguments like “deviant” and “it serves no purpose” and “it goes against the procreative purposes of sex.” But you are saying these are not just neutral attributes of homosexual behavior which is wrong for other reasons, no, you are listing these things as reasons for why homosexuality is wrong.**

If it’s wrong *because *it serves no purpose, than *anything *that serves no purpose is wrong. If it is wrong *and *it serves no purpose, than the fact that it has no purpose is a completely irrelevent and you should not have brought that up in the first place.

You then balk at me saying that other situations to which these arguments are equally applicable by saying “but that’s nothing like homosexuality!”

I agree, popping bubble wrap is nothing like homosexuality. But they both serve no purpose. You gave “having no purose” as an argument against homosexuality. I am deconstructing the merits of your arguments.

As long as you keep giving arguments against homosexuality that can be applied to a million other things which I am sure you do not consider wrong or sinful, I will keep asking you why such arguments are in any way applicable to homosexuals when you do not find these arguments applicable to other aspects of life.

Dangerous and unhealthy:
You claim to work in the medical field. You should know what I am talking about. It is damaging to one’s body. It lends itself to the spread of bacteria and can cause damage to the digestive tract which is very very fragile. I dont want to get any more graphic than that on these boards. But you need to think honestly about the real act.

Urinary tract infections are an extremely common infection that results from traditional heterosexual sex acts. STDs that can be deadly can be spread by traditional heterosexual sex acts. I hate to break it to you, but bacteria can, and does, get spread by normative, heterosexual sex. All the time.

Eating meat and junk food is far, far more dangerous to your digestive tract that sodomy.
People commit sodomy all the time. It does not have to be dangerous to the digestive tract. I know it may be an unpalatable thing to think about, but it is also a far more common sex act among heterosexuals than I think you realize. If you don’t want to engage in that or think it’s sinful, of course I respect that. But your idea that it is just so much more inherently dangerous than “regular” sex is simply not factually correct.

Are you a Christian? It would help to know what frame of reference you are coming from. If it is a secular atheistic view then theological arguments wont do much. And we need to focus on more “secular” arguments against it. We need to have some sort of moral framework in common to have a discussion, even if it starts with, eating babies is wrong.

I was raised a Catholic and in fact used to teach catechism, but now consider myself “not religious,” though not atheistic either. For reference, I am a straight, married woman.

If your assertion is that eating junk food is more dangerous than homosexual sex you will need to provide documentation for that. It isnt true. they membrane in the digestive tract is damaged greatly and can lead to internal infections to say nothing of the muscle involved losing its ability to function. UTI’s are a different issue. But it could be noted that male UTIs are very common for one partner in the homosexual reationship. But that is a red herring argument anyway.

since you taught this I am sure you are familiar with CCC # 2358
In your accusations of bigotry perhaps this could be something you could think about.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

Also from Cardinal Ratzinger: an interesting article.
ewtnnews.com/catholic-news/Vatican.php?id=5480

Perhaps, it is time to come home?

 

[Jules_Verne]

By that logic maybe the Church is wrong on Murder too. I mean, they were wrong on heliocentric thought (they were not) We cannot just assume everything goes because we think the Church was wrong about something else.
One of the things I have noted about addicts is almost every addict makes the argument that “it isn’t as bad as alcohol and that is legal” or “Hey, cocaine is more natural than meth” They do this to try to justify a bad behavior. And I see some parallels here. You argue that it isn’t as bad as other things and why don’t we go after other people but that does not change the fact that it is still wrong.

Could you answer the question about your religious background so we can have a productive conversation. Because if we don’t then you assume that i am a religious zealot and I assume you are a homosexual advancing an agenda. Nothing will get accomplished and the thread will be closed. So, lets put the cards on the table.

And speaking of the thread, do you have any thoughts on homosexuality being a genetic situation?

By that logic maybe the Church is wrong on Murder too

i honestly find this the single most frustrating argument when dealing with Christian conservatives. They consistantly assume that if you disagree with their claim, then you are, by default, claiming that the *opposite *is true.

Why do you do guys do this so constantly? It’s just such poor logic.

Just because the Church *can *be wrong does not mean they are *always *wrong. The fact that I disagree with “blindly believing the church is always right” does not mean that I am claiming the opposite is true. In fact, having been raised Catholic and having gone to Catholic school, I believe that *most * things I was taught by the church both in terms of moral and science were true. Even though I am no longer a practicing Catholic, and even though I am deeply offended and disappointed by the Church’s stance on certain issues, I still agree with a majority of positions the church takes on moral issues and appreciate the guidance and assistance they provide to people regarding such issues.

We cannot just assume everything goes because we think the Church was wrong about something else.

I agree, but several posters in this thread stated, erroneously, that the Church is never wrong and that they will always believe what the Church says just because the Church said it. Some posters here have even lied about Galileo to try and deny the Church’s fallibility in that sense (I’m not claiming they knowingly lied, they could have been lied to by others and just blindly believed it). I certainly do not agree that because the Church was wrong about some things, they are wrong about everything. But I do believe that the fact that they have been terribly, terrbly wrong (to the point they burned innocent people alive) does tell me that it is folly to blindly accept anything they say without trying to think for myself if it is right or wrong. I’m a skeptic, I look at any information on any subject and apply logic and reason to it. If the argument cannot stand up to reasonable inquiry, than I will not hold with that argument just because someone I like or respect made it.

You argue that it isn’t as bad as other things and why don’t we go after other people but that does not change the fact that it is still wrong.

You misunderstand me. I do not think homosexuality or homosexual acts are in any way wrong or immoral. I do not think they are moral, either. I think they are morally neutral, like eating a sandwich. I am not claiming homosexuality is “not as bad as other things” because I do not think it is bad at all to begin with.

Now, are homosexuals capable of dangerous acts, like having unprotected sex with multiple partners? Sure they are, and those acts themselves are bad and dangerous. But they are not exclusive to homosexuals - again, we see them in octegenarians in nursing homes - and therefor to me are not an argument against homosexuality, only the specific acts themselves.

Furthermore, an act that *can *be dangerous is not automatically bad either. Riding in a car, swimming in the ocean, normal heterosexual sex with my husband, hiking up Mt. Washington…all of these things have an element of danger, but I do not consider them bad. I consider them parts of life that carry with them acceptable risks.

 

[Jules_Verne]

And as far as the “is homosexuality genetic?”

I think it is likely genetic, because it is common to see homosexuality in close relatives even when these relatives were raised apart from eachother and so could not influence one another. So for instance, if one is gay, they are more likely to have a gay sibling even i adopted out and raised separately. This indicates to me a possible genetic component to homosexuality.

I think it is most likely that genes can make one more likely to be homosexual, but that they won’t necessarily cause a person definitely to be homosexual. For instance, I work in cancer, and there are certain genes which make a person more likely to get a certain kind of cancer. but it is still possible to have the gene and never actually get cancer.

As to whether homosexuality is a choice; I think it is for some people. Sexual research pioneered by Kinsey and continued since his time has pretty consistantly shown that sexual orientation is a sliding scale, where at one end you have 100% gay, on another end you have 100% straight, and then purely bisexual is in the middle. I think some people are completely staight and could not be attracted to or fall in love with a person of the same sex even if they wanted to for some reason. I think some people are gay and could not be attracted to/love an opposite sex person no matter how much they want to. Then there are people who fall in between, maybe they’re typically attracted to one sex, but have had instances of attraction to another sex. Or maybe they are purely bisexual and like men just as much as women.

So whether it is a “choice” to be gay or straight I think depends on the person. For some people, they really can chose because they are attracted to both sexes. For others, nope, I think that they are just gay or straight and they simply don’t have the ability to be anything else.

Anyways, I don’t think it matters if its a choice or not. If homosexuality were 100% a choice I would still have no problem with it. Oh, your holy book says its a sin? That’s nice. Then you certainly have the right to follow the rules of your holy book and I will respect your adherence to those rules. But don’t expect me or anyone else to care to the point that we feel compelled to follow them also.

My Hindu friends think eating meat is about the worst thing you can do. I care as much about what your religion says is wrong in terms of homosexuals as you do that certain Hindu sects think meat eating is wrong. I respect your right to practice your religion and not commit homosexual acts, or any other acts that violate your beliefs. I do not think less of you for your religious adherence.

I also do not feel any obligation to enforce your personal religious morals on society, and I think it makes as much sense for you to expect people who don’t believe in your religion to feel guilty about breaking religious rules as for a Hindu to make you feel guilty about eating meat.

Now, if you’re talking about enforcing heterosexuality within your religion, where you tell members of your own faith that to be considered a true member of the faith, you must act a certain way, then that’s different. That is your right as a religious group to exclude people based on behaviors you find untennable to your faith. But once you start telling some agnostic that they have to follow Christian doctrine even though they are not Christian, then that’s where you move from religious belief into oppression.

 

[Jules_Verne]

Regarding Cardnial Ratzinger: Please do not ever, ever list that man as an authority on morality, at least not to me. He repeatedly covered up cases of sexual abuse, neglecting to to report cases of abuse to police and instead having the cases handled “internally,” without giving the case to the authorities even when the claims of abuse where substantiated as true.

A man who protects child molestors, who puts the Church’s reputation ahead of his flock, is not a man I can understand any moral person referring as a moral guide.

Moore, despite our differences and my personal belief that you are misguided, you strike me as a fundamentally good and moral person seeking to do the right thing. How can you possible list a person who personally covered up child sexual abuse as a moral authority on any matter and expect to be taken seriously?

 

[Allen2Saint]

Jules,

I commend your tenacity. I don’t know your faith background, but you are far more patient and logical than I am. Go to. A fellow health care worker with a heart and a brain.

In response to my various detractors, I’ve received very few civil, reasonable responses to my posts and have responded with reason when I am approached that way. I don’t know if its the culture of this board, cause its certainly not the style and tone of any Catholics I’ve ever known, but I’ve heard very few referrals to information or, gasp, consideration for my point of view, which is driven by the compassion I was taught from the get go.

What does come immediately are accusations of dishonesty, ignorance, being a mouthpiece for the mythical “gay lobby” or “lamestream media” or drawing inflammatory comparisons between gay sex and murder. I think its known I’m a hospital chaplain, so one might see how I’d get angry at that kind of talk.

Why do I continue to post here? As a matter of fact, I won’t, but it has been an interesting education.

 

[Moore11]

Regarding Cardnial Ratzinger: Please do not ever, ever list that man as an authority on morality, at least not to me. He repeatedly covered up cases of sexual abuse, neglecting to to report cases of abuse to police and instead having the cases handled “internally,” without giving the case to the authorities even when the claims of abuse where substantiated as true.

A man who protects child molestors, who puts the Church’s reputation ahead of his flock, is not a man I can understand any moral person referring as a moral guide.

Moore, despite our differences and my personal belief that you are misguided, you strike me as a fundamentally good and moral person seeking to do the right thing. How can you possible list a person who personally covered up child sexual abuse as a moral authority on any matter and expect to be taken seriously?

Your hatred for the Church and the Pope has been exposed and tainted your motives. I think you need to ask yourself this question:
If child molestation offends you and it can be said that it is a simple sexual deviancy. I wonder why you dont link the idea of homosexual behavior to this as it is common for some homosexuals to be pedophiles as well. (Yes, heterosexuals too.)
When you discard the Church, God, and the Bible because of the misguided views you have you have no authority to condemn any form of morality. Homosexuality is against nature, Against religion, Against God. Your arguments against that cannot be applied fairly and consistently with other moral situations as just demonstrated by your emotional response to (percieved) pedophilia and coverups.
By what authority do you claim pedophilia is immoral?

As for how you view me. That is nice. I appreciate it but your assertion of coverups and moral outrage at Christ’s vicar on earth is odd. Lets just set aside this man for a moment. There have been good popes and bad popes but the infallibility of the office and the Church have always been preserved. Never has this been proven false. I think if you look objectively and logically at the situation you would see how misinformed you are. You dont like His Holiness BXVI. Fine, there are over 200 other Popes who have consistently held to this moral Truth. If you wish to discount logic based on emotion I cannot continue.

I think there is something more here. Your preoccupation with heliocentricity, molestation, and homosexuality suggest you have some situation making this subject very emotional and important to you. I will pray for you that you can find peace and understanding. I also wish to say that whatever your situation, whatever your views, God loves you and I as a Christian do to. I would lay down my life for my fellow man (or woman) and would do it gladly for you as well. We are to take up our Cross and follow Him, who died for others so that we all may live. Know that I mean that genuinely and not in a “I’ll pray for you” snotty sort of way.

I think it was Archbishop Fulton Sheen who said.

There are not more than 100 people in the world who truly hate the Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they perceive to be the Catholic Church.

I think that is the most true thing to have ever been posted on this thread and especially in the current context of our argument.
Every single Catholic is responsible for the problem noted by Sheen. We are all culpable and I hope you can see that there are some of us who are trying like mad to combat the lies of the Devil about God’s children and Church.

 

[buffalo]

Regarding Cardnial Ratzinger: Please do not ever, ever list that man as an authority on morality, at least not to me. He repeatedly covered up cases of sexual abuse, neglecting to to report cases of abuse to police and instead having the cases handled “internally,” without giving the case to the authorities even when the claims of abuse where substantiated as true.

A man who protects child molestors, who puts the Church’s reputation ahead of his flock, is not a man I can understand any moral person referring as a moral guide.

Source?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Jules Verne,

I am a bit amazed on two counts:

1.) with three lengthy rant-type posts (and I know, more follow) without a single reference but a lot of opinion, you have managed to weave a patter of advocacy combined with dysinformation. What you are advocating is truly dangerous. It is true that heterosexual can get HIV/AIDS - along with a multitude of other Sexually Transmitted Disease (a good number being identified as incurable). It is also true that sexually promiscuous individuals lead a very risky life. Jumping into bed with anyone and everyone really does lead to many problems, and

2.) you have not really stayed on topic specific to a ‘Gay Gene’. Surely you have an opinion on this …

Here is a CDC link: cdc.gov/Features/HIVAIDSAwareness/ and there are many others once you get to this. Basically what is being said is that homosexual behavior is risky, dangerous, and with the increased morbidity and mortality data to back it up. And, please note, this is all current data. Put another way, homosexual behavior shortens lives, produces infectious and debilitating diseases and does significant physical damage to the anus and rectum of both males and females [use of various ‘sex toys and techniques’]. netdoctor.co.uk/sexandrelationships/analsex.htm

So, please, continue to maintain your sense of shock at the dangerous amunt of ignorance going on about homosexual behavior - but, this try outrage on a mirror first. Then try looking at objective medical references.

Naturally, this response only addresses the physical aspects of homosexual behavior. While almost anyone can be sodomized, it would appear that sodomy is not the technique of choice for heterosexuals for the majority:. Here are some medically based links:

factsaboutyouth.com/posts/male-homosexual-behavior/

narth.com/docs/healthrisks.html

There is another aspect - and that would involve that such gravely disordered behavior is contrary to the Will of God, as expressed in natural law (and yes, flying is perfectly natural if you are in a plane - but flapping your arms just … well … falls short! ) Scripture and the consistent teachings of the Catholic Church (the “C” in CAF stands for Catholic). Being homosexual or having a same sex attraction is not a sin. Willfully engaging in erotic fantasy or in homosexual behavior is objectively sinful. Of course finding out that everything people have been saying can come in one of two time periods: just in time or too late. Take your pick, the message is there.

God bless

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.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Allen2Saint,

There you go again, embracing ‘self-proclaimed victimhood’ again with a distorted and inaccurate presentation - when in reality, many have responded in a charitable manner - but have simply rejected what you advocate.

Civil responses are sometimes difficult to characterize - they are not overtly hostile, contemptous or disdainful or humiliating. These are more characteristics of un-civil responses. But, please do not expect agreement.

You have been repeatedly asked about providing references to a ‘Gay Gene’ you think is responsible for homosexual behavior - and you have repeatedly failed to do so. But, let’s not leave a stoen unturned … do you have one yet? If so, pleae provide it. You have been repeatedly asked about free will being the operative aspect of behavior - and, this seems to fall flat, too. Ultimately, given the fact that a person can process information, and make an informed decision, they areusually responsible for what they chose. To claim that we are at the mercy of biology and genetics and free will is simply not free enough - flys in the face of all law (civil, criminal and the 10 Commandments).

My suggestion is to remain on the list - and, of course you can lurk - but, remain in an effort to see what is really going on and why homosexual behavior is contrary to human biology and the Laws of God. I am guessing that since you are a hospital chaplain, such presentations can be helpful.

God bless

Jules,

I commend your tenacity. I don’t know your faith background, but you are far more patient and logical than I am. Go to. A fellow health care worker with a heart and a brain.

In response to my various detractors, I’ve received very few civil, reasonable responses to my posts and have responded with reason when I am approached that way. I don’t know if its the culture of this board, cause its certainly not the style and tone of any Catholics I’ve ever known, but I’ve heard very few referrals to information or, gasp, consideration for my point of view, which is driven by the compassion I was taught from the get go.

What does come immediately are accusations of dishonesty, ignorance, being a mouthpiece for the mythical “gay lobby” or “lamestream media” or drawing inflammatory comparisons between gay sex and murder. I think its known I’m a hospital chaplain, so one might see how I’d get angry at that kind of talk.

Why do I continue to post here? As a matter of fact, I won’t, but it has been an interesting education.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Moore11,

A thoughtful and genuinely touching post. I enjoyed reading it.

God bless

Your hatred for the Church and the Pope has been exposed and tainted your motives. I think you need to ask yourself this question:
If child molestation offends you and it can be said that it is a simple sexual deviancy. I wonder why you dont link the idea of homosexual behavior to this as it is common for some homosexuals to be pedophiles as well. (Yes, heterosexuals too.)
When you discard the Church, God, and the Bible because of the misguided views you have you have no authority to condemn any form of morality. Homosexuality is against nature, Against religion, Against God. Your arguments against that cannot be applied fairly and consistently with other moral situations as just demonstrated by your emotional response to (percieved) pedophilia and coverups.
By what authority do you claim pedophilia is immoral?

As for how you view me. That is nice. I appreciate it but your assertion of coverups and moral outrage at Christ’s vicar on earth is odd. Lets just set aside this man for a moment. There have been good popes and bad popes but the infallibility of the office and the Church have always been preserved. Never has this been proven false. I think if you look objectively and logically at the situation you would see how misinformed you are. You dont like His Holiness BXVI. Fine, there are over 200 other Popes who have consistently held to this moral Truth. If you wish to discount logic based on emotion I cannot continue.

I think there is something more here. Your preoccupation with heliocentricity, molestation, and homosexuality suggest you have some situation making this subject very emotional and important to you. I will pray for you that you can find peace and understanding. I also wish to say that whatever your situation, whatever your views, God loves you and I as a Christian do to. I would lay down my life for my fellow man (or woman) and would do it gladly for you as well. We are to take up our Cross and follow Him, who died for others so that we all may live. Know that I mean that genuinely and not in a “I’ll pray for you” snotty sort of way.

I think it was Archbishop Fulton Sheen who said.

I think that is the most true thing to have ever been posted on this thread and especially in the current context of our argument.
Every single Catholic is responsible for the problem noted by Sheen. We are all culpable and I hope you can see that there are some of us who are trying like mad to combat the lies of the Devil about God’s children and Church.

 

[Jules_Verne]

QUOTE=Moore11;9334345]Your hatred for the Church and the Pope has been exposed and tainted your motives…

I had thought you were an honest person, yet look at your lies and hypocricy.
You folks have pages and pages and pages on this forum discussing homosexuality, yet whenn someone who disagrees with your view presents an opposite viewpoint, all of a sudden they are emotionally fragile and obsessed wit the topic. Yet other posters here who have written dozens and dozens of posts on this subject are simply discussing a topic opf interest to them. This is a clear ad hominem attack designed to undermine me because you can’t beat me using facts and logic. Do you even know what a logical falacy is? Because every argument you pose is littered with them.

Do you know what I am emotionally invested in? Reason and logic instead of blind obedience to authority. That is why I am filling this thread with FACTS.

Isn’t it interesting that you say not one word against people here who have stated things that are flat out factually incorrect, including yourself. Someone gives a false account of the history of heliocentrism. I state the factual histrorical account. Another person gives false information regarding AIDS. I provided hard verifiable facts against AIDS. You claim sodomy is a particularly and inhrently dangerous practice compared to heterosexual and traditional sex, which is wrong. Yet you do not chastise yourself or any other poster who agrees with you when they post DEMONSTRABLY false information. You do not say they are arguing from emotion.

You say I am not using logic, when you are the one guilty of this. For instance, I said the Church has been proven to be wrong. You stated this means I think the Church is never right. How is this logical? You stated that homosexuality is wrong because it is against nature…yet somehow airplanes, cheetos, and chemotherapy is okay.

You say I hate the church and the pope because I have very specific complaints and concrete examples of when they have done something wrong. Yet you say that homosexuals are doing things that are wrong - in fact you guys make entire threads about them - and you are very insistent that you don’t hate homosexuals just because you strongly disagree with them.

I state I do not think the
Pope is a moral authority I respect, due to the fact that while a Cardinal in Germany he became aware of molestation charges, upon investigation found them to be substantiated, yet did not inform the police. You state that because I do not respect him as a moral authority, I hate him. Yet you state that anyone who does no follow the church has no moral authority. Since you yourself equate not respecting an individual moral authority with hatred (I personally do not do so and certainly don’t hate someone just because I don’t respect their opinion) this would mean you hate not only me but all non Catholic

You say history proves Papal infallability despite the fact that the Chuch and popes were wrong about heliocentrism. You point that I keep bringing this up. You’re right, I do, because the fact that geocentrism was considered part of Catholic dogma to the point that heliocentrism was considered heresy literally proves that popes are not infallable. You are demonstrating extreme cognitive dissodence by saying that you admit that popes and the Church were wrong about this for centuries, yet then still claim infallability. Infallability MEANS you can never be wrong. As with “deviance” you can’t even properly define simple words, like a child!

I am more intellient than you and you cannot counter arguments I make. Unable to match wits with me, you resort desperately to “if you disagree with me. You hate me” and even more outrageous, “the fact that you care enough about something enough to talk about it means you are crazy and I will pray for you!” So what, is every person who has ever written a book or made a documentary crazy because they are interested in a subject enough to talk about it at length, not to mention mention every other member of this forum including you?

your “i’ll pray for you” comment was clearly nothing more than a catty, passive aggressive attempt to laud your moral superiority. If you cared one bit for me you would not lie about me or hold me to standards you don’t apply towards members of your own faith, particularly yourself.

As for your comments conflating a cosentual adult sexual relationship with child rape…you disgust me. I have been sexually assaulted, sir, and the fact that you think what happened to me is no worse than two people in love having mutually agreed upon sex shows your complete lack of consideration towards rape victims. You should be ashamed of yourself. Do you know what its like to be held down with a man on top of you, being forced to do something you desperately do not want? It is terrifying, it is an assault on my body and my person. It is forcing me to engage in an act I desperately do not want and which can endanger me in an act I did not chose to accept the risk for (as who knows what diseases a rapist can have). But to you, its no big deal. Its the same as two lesbians having wonderfully satisfying sex which they both enjoy with a person they love.

Good day to you. I truly hope you are never sexually assaulted yourself. I truly hope you are never given the chance to see just how disgusting a person you are for completely discounting the physical and emotional harm raping another person causes and calling rape a lifestyle choice. How does an unwilling rape victim chose to be part of the rape lifestyle?

And that last bit I admit is an emotional response, because … like yourself disgust me.

 

[davidv]

Moore11;9334345:

Your hatred for the Church and the Pope has been exposed and tainted your motives…

I had thought you were an honest person, yet look at your lies and hypocricy.
You folks have pages and pages and pages on this forum discussing homosexuality, yet whenn someone who disagrees with your view presents an opposite viewpoint, all of a sudden they are emotionally fragile and obsessed wit the topic. Yet other posters here who have written dozens and dozens of posts on this subject are simply discussing a topic opf interest to them. This is a clear ad hominem attack designed to undermine me because you can’t beat me using facts and logic. Do you even know what a logical falacy is? Because every argument you pose is littered with them.

Do you know what I am emotionally invested in? Reason and logic instead of blind obedience to authority. That is why I am filling this thread with FACTS.

Isn’t it interesting that you say not one word against people here who have stated things that are flat out factually incorrect, including yourself. Someone gives a false account of the history of heliocentrism. I state the factual histrorical account. Another person gives false information regarding AIDS. I provided hard verifiable facts against AIDS. You claim sodomy is a particularly and inhrently dangerous practice compared to heterosexual and traditional sex, which is wrong. Yet you do not chastise yourself or any other poster who agrees with you when they post DEMONSTRABLY false information. You do not say they are arguing from emotion.

You say I am not using logic, when you are the one guilty of this. For instance, I said the Church has been proven to be wrong. You stated this means I think the Church is never right. How is this logical? You stated that homosexuality is wrong because it is against nature…yet somehow airplanes, cheetos, and chemotherapy is okay.

You say I hate the church and the pope because I have very specific complaints and concrete examples of when they have done something wrong. Yet you say that homosexuals are doing things that are wrong - in fact you guys make entire threads about them - and you are very insistent that you don’t hate homosexuals just because you strongly disagree with them.

I state I do not think the
Pope is a moral authority I respect, due to the fact that while a Cardinal in Germany he became aware of molestation charges, upon investigation found them to be substantiated, yet did not inform the police. You state that because I do not respect him as a moral authority, I hate him. Yet you state that anyone who does no follow the church has no moral authority. Since you yourself equate not respecting an individual moral authority with hatred (I personally do not do so and certainly don’t hate someone just because I don’t respect their opinion) this would mean you hate not only me but all non Catholic

You say history proves Papal infallability despite the fact that the Chuch and popes were wrong about heliocentrism. You point that I keep bringing this up. You’re right, I do, because the fact that geocentrism was considered part of Catholic dogma to the point that heliocentrism was considered heresy literally proves that popes are not infallable. You are demonstrating extreme cognitive dissodence by saying that you admit that popes and the Church were wrong about this for centuries, yet then still claim infallability. Infallability MEANS you can never be wrong. As with “deviance” you can’t even properly define simple words, like a child!

I am more intellient than you and you cannot counter arguments I make. Unable to match wits with me, you resort desperately to “if you disagree with me. You hate me” and even more outrageous, “the fact that you care enough about something enough to talk about it means you are crazy and I will pray for you!” So what, is every person who has ever written a book or made a documentary crazy because they are interested in a subject enough to talk about it at length, not to mention mention every other member of this forum including you?

your “i’ll pray for you” comment was clearly nothing more than a catty, passive aggressive attempt to laud your moral superiority. If you cared one bit for me you would not lie about me or hold me to standards you don’t apply towards members of your own faith, particularly yourself.

As for your comments conflating a cosentual adult sexual relationship with child rape…you disgust me. I have been sexually assaulted, sir, and the fact that you think what happened to me is no worse than two people in love having mutually agreed upon sex shows your complete lack of consideration towards rape victims. You should be ashamed of yourself. Do you know what its like to be held down with a man on top of you, being forced to do something you desperately do not want? It is terrifying, it is an assault on my body and my person. It is forcing me to engage in an act I desperately do not want and which can endanger me in an act I did not chose to accept the risk for (as who knows what diseases a rapist can have). But to you, its no big deal. Its the same as two lesbians having wonderfully satisfying sex which they both enjoy with a person they love.

Good day to you. I truly hope you are never sexually assaulted yourself. I truly hope you are never given the chance to see just how disgusting a person you are for completely discounting the physical and emotional harm raping another person causes and calling rape a lifestyle choice. How does an unwilling rape victim chose to be part of the rape lifestyle?

And that last bit I admit is an emotional response, because morally bankrupt rape apologists like yourself disgust me.

Emphasis mine. Surely you don’t consider name calling legitimate argument, do you?

 

[Moore11]

QUOTE=Moore11;9334345]Your hatred for the Church and the Pope has been exposed and tainted your motives…

I had thought you were an honest person, yet look at your lies and hypocricy.
You folks have pages and pages and pages on this forum discussing homosexuality, yet whenn someone who disagrees with your view presents an opposite viewpoint, all of a sudden they are emotionally fragile and obsessed wit the topic. Yet other posters here who have written dozens and dozens of posts on this subject are simply discussing a topic opf interest to them. This is a clear ad hominem attack designed to undermine me because you can’t beat me using facts and logic. Do you even know what a logical falacy is? Because every argument you pose is littered with them.

Do you know what I am emotionally invested in? Reason and logic instead of blind obedience to authority. That is why I am filling this thread with FACTS.

Isn’t it interesting that you say not one word against people here who have stated things that are flat out factually incorrect, including yourself. Someone gives a false account of the history of heliocentrism. I state the factual histrorical account. Another person gives false information regarding AIDS. I provided hard verifiable facts against AIDS. You claim sodomy is a particularly and inhrently dangerous practice compared to heterosexual and traditional sex, which is wrong. Yet you do not chastise yourself or any other poster who agrees with you when they post DEMONSTRABLY false information. You do not say they are arguing from emotion.

You say I am not using logic, when you are the one guilty of this. For instance, I said the Church has been proven to be wrong. You stated this means I think the Church is never right. How is this logical? You stated that homosexuality is wrong because it is against nature…yet somehow airplanes, cheetos, and chemotherapy is okay.

You say I hate the church and the pope because I have very specific complaints and concrete examples of when they have done something wrong. Yet you say that homosexuals are doing things that are wrong - in fact you guys make entire threads about them - and you are very insistent that you don’t hate homosexuals just because you strongly disagree with them.

I state I do not think the
Pope is a moral authority I respect, due to the fact that while a Cardinal in Germany he became aware of molestation charges, upon investigation found them to be substantiated, yet did not inform the police. You state that because I do not respect him as a moral authority, I hate him. Yet you state that anyone who does no follow the church has no moral authority. Since you yourself equate not respecting an individual moral authority with hatred (I personally do not do so and certainly don’t hate someone just because I don’t respect their opinion) this would mean you hate not only me but all non Catholic

You say history proves Papal infallability despite the fact that the Chuch and popes were wrong about heliocentrism. You point that I keep bringing this up. You’re right, I do, because the fact that geocentrism was considered part of Catholic dogma to the point that heliocentrism was considered heresy literally proves that popes are not infallable. You are demonstrating extreme cognitive dissodence by saying that you admit that popes and the Church were wrong about this for centuries, yet then still claim infallability. Infallability MEANS you can never be wrong. As with “deviance” you can’t even properly define simple words, like a child!

I am more intellient than you and you cannot counter arguments I make. Unable to match wits with me, you resort desperately to “if you disagree with me. You hate me” and even more outrageous, “the fact that you care enough about something enough to talk about it means you are crazy and I will pray for you!” So what, is every person who has ever written a book or made a documentary crazy because they are interested in a subject enough to talk about it at length, not to mention mention every other member of this forum including you?

your “i’ll pray for you” comment was clearly nothing more than a catty, passive aggressive attempt to laud your moral superiority. If you cared one bit for me you would not lie about me or hold me to standards you don’t apply towards members of your own faith, particularly yourself.

As for your comments conflating a cosentual adult sexual relationship with child rape…you disgust me. I have been sexually assaulted, sir, and the fact that you think what happened to me is no worse than two people in love having mutually agreed upon sex shows your complete lack of consideration towards rape victims. You should be ashamed of yourself. Do you know what its like to be held down with a man on top of you, being forced to do something you desperately do not want? It is terrifying, it is an assault on my body and my person. It is forcing me to engage in an act I desperately do not want and which can endanger me in an act I did not chose to accept the risk for (as who knows what diseases a rapist can have). But to you, its no big deal. Its the same as two lesbians having wonderfully satisfying sex which they both enjoy with a person they love.

Good day to you. I truly hope you are never sexually assaulted yourself. I truly hope you are never given the chance to see just how disgusting a person you are for completely discounting the physical and emotional harm raping another person causes and calling rape a lifestyle choice. How does an unwilling rape victim chose to be part of the rape lifestyle?

And that last bit I admit is an emotional response, because morally bankrupt rape apologists like yourself disgust me.

 

[Moore11]

I’m sorry Jules.
I cannot engage with you any more. I hope the best for you.