Why does homosexuality exist?

[BobObob]

Paul in his letter to the Romans makes it sound like homosexuality is a punishment from God for those who have committed idolatry. Worship idols and God will turn you into a homosexual. I once heard a Baptist preacher claim that homosexuality is a sign that God has given up on a person, written them off forever.

Studying the text of Romans in the original language, and the context (age, location, culture) in which it was written, it becomes clear that Paul is talking about same-sex sexual behavior, not same-sex attraction.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

Why does it exist in the first place? I know there are various ideas as to how it originates from a particular family structure to the idea of a gay gene (which is inconclusive). Even from a purely, biological evolutionary perspective homosexuality doesn’t make sense because humans are supposed to propagate the species and if everyone would be gay there would be no more human race. And if you look at Natural Law which says things should be used according to their purpose; (i.e., Gay sex is inserting a reproductive organ into a digestive tract, which hardly seems to follow any natural or biological law.)

As a result, a large number of diseases are associated with anal intercourse, many of which are rare or even unknown in the heterosexual population such as: anal cancer, Chlamydia trachomatis, Cryptosporidium, Giardia lamblia, Herpes simplex virus, HIV, Human papilloma virus, Isospora belli, Microsporidia, Gonorrhoea, Syphilis, Hepatitis B and C and others. Which tells you in itself this is an unnatural act, and not for what the body is supposed to be used for.

Not trying to be rude to anyone on here but I’m just curious.

I don’t know the answer off hand. Even when I was a kid, there was another kid two doors away who was effeminate from the beginning. Whether it had something to do with his rather strong father, or the fact all his siblings were femaile, or an over protective mother, I don’t know.

My old Protestant pastor once said to me “Homosexuals are made, not born”. That had been his experience as a pastor. On the other hand, I know a Catholic I respect (celibate I might add) who told me “It’s built in! There’s nothing you can do about it!” He was involved with a Catholic mission for homosexuals, and was one himself. He had a breakdown over it.

I am inclined to think that there is a watershed event in the life of most of them, where another homosexual makes the first moves.

I also remember a testimony given by a former homosexual some years ago when I still attended a Presbyterian Church. There’s a morals crusader in New South Wales called Fred Nile, and he’s not liked by the homosexual community. But he also does what he can to help if they want to change.

I remember the former homosexual testifying that at his second suicide attempt (and he was serious, and was just about ready to go), Christ materialised in the far corner of the room, moved towards him and somehow merged. From that time on he never even had to struggle with the impulse, had married a Christian woman who accepted his past, and had a couple of young sons (they’d be in their early thirties by now I think). It was a while ago.

Yet in his own words, he been involved in “everything going”, and used to stand on street corners in Kings Cross (the red light district of Sydney) talking with other homosexuals about how they’d kill Fred Nile. He’d gone from one extreme to the other.

That was his testimony.

 

[Vimy_Ridge]

Studying the text of Romans in the original language, and the context (age, location, culture) in which it was written, it becomes clear that Paul is talking about same-sex sexual behavior, not same-sex attraction.

There would be no same-sex behavior *without *same-sex attraction. But in all honesty I don’t really believe that God turns people gay because of idolatry. No one knows what causes homosexuality but if I had to guess I would say it is most likely the absence of a proper father figure, at least for boys that is. For example I know a family with two sons who now live as transexuals and one has told me that their father was not around when they were young, he worked in another country. They were extremely spoiled and babied by their mother, who would also let them play with her make-up and clothes. I was told that had their father been around they may have turned out different. But then again maybe it is genetic, I don’t really know.

 

[BobObob]

BobObob;6706545:

Studying the text of Romans in the original language, and the context (age, location, culture) in which it was written, it becomes clear that Paul is talking about same-sex sexual behavio

r, not same-sex attraction.

There would be no same-sex behavior *without *same-sex attraction.

That’s not really true. One can engage in homo-erotic behavior without having SSA. Many in ancient Greece (who influenced the Romans, to which the book of Romans was primarily addressed to) practiced sodomy, yet didn’t all have SSA. All young Sambia males practice ritual sodomy, yet very few Sambia are homosexual.

psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doiLanding&uid=1985-20058-001

 

[Vimy_Ridge]

That’s not really true. One can engage in homo-erotic behavior without having SSA. Many in ancient Greece (who influenced the Romans, to which the book of Romans was primarily addressed to) practiced sodomy, yet didn’t all have SSA. All young Sambia males practice ritual sodomy, yet very few Sambia are homosexual.

psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doiLanding&uid=1985-20058-001

I see your point. Many people engage in homosexual acts out of coercion, boredom, rebellion and a lack of access to the opposite sex which they would prefer yet this does not make them a homosexual. I agree with Catholic teaching that a real homosexual is someone who has a predominant interest in the same sex and that this is a mental disorder.

 

[Benadam]

Studying the text of Romans in the original language, and the context (age, location, culture) in which it was written, it becomes clear that Paul is talking about same-sex sexual behavior, not same-sex attraction.

Paul seems to point out that same sex attraction is the cause of the behaviour.

• 27 And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men *

 

[BobObob]

BobObob;6706545:

Studying the text of Romans in the original language, and the context (age, location, culture) in which it was written, it becomes clear that Paul is talking about same-sex sexual behavio

r, not same-sex attraction.

Paul seems to point out that same sex attraction is the cause of the behaviour.

• 27 And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men*

“Lust” is much different from sexual attraction. One may be attracted to a beautiful lady without lusting after her.

CCC 2351 “Lust is disordered desire for inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.”

I studied Latin for two years in college, and that has helped me understand that the word “cupiditas” that translates into the word “desire” in the English translation of the CCC, means an active willing to have something, or cupidity, rather than an attraction.

vatican.va/archive/catechism_lt/p3s2c2a6_lt.htm#ARTICULUS 6* SEXTUM PRAECEPTUM

For more on the meaning of “cupiditas” see the following:

wellsphere.com/relationships-sex-article/the-psychology-of-nbsp-evil/866367

 

[Benadam]

“Lust” is much different from sexual attraction. One may be attracted to a beautiful lady without lusting after her.

CCC 2351 “Lust is disordered desire for inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.”

I studied Latin for two years in college, and that has helped me understand that the word “cupiditas” that translates into the word “desire” in the English translation of the CCC, means an active willing to have something, or cupidity, rather than an attraction.

vatican.va/archive/catechism_lt/p3s2c2a6_lt.htm#ARTICULUS 6* SEXTUM PRAECEPTUM

For more on the meaning of “cupiditas” see the following:

wellsphere.com/relationships-sex-article/the-psychology-of-nbsp-evil/866367

I’m not sure I understand your point. Given the definition of lust it follows that Paul is speaking of men who are sexually attracted to other men.

 

[BobObob]

I’m not sure I understand your point. Given the definition of lust it follows that Paul is speaking of men who are sexually attracted to other men.

Earlier you said:

Paul seems to point out that same sex attraction is the cause of the behaviour.

My point with post 27 is to refute this idea that same-sex attraction is always the cause of this behavior, and (as some would strongly imply) is a sin per se to experience.

 

[Benadam]

Earlier you said:

My point with post 27 is to refute this idea that same-sex attraction is always the cause of this behavior, and (as some would strongly imply) is a sin per se to experience.

ah, like when two people of the same sex are just very good friends.

 

[BobObob]

BobObob;6710402:

Earlier you said:

My point with post 27 is to refute this idea that same-sex attraction is always the cause of this behavior, and (as some would strongly imply) is a sin per

se to experience.

ah, like when two people of the same sex are just very good friends.

A brotherly or sisterly attraction toward another of the same sex wouldn’t usually cause this behavior, but even erotic attractions toward others of the same-sex do no always lead to what Paul refers to in Rom 1. One who has erotic attractions toward others of the same sex does not necessarily fall under the types of people Paul is referring to in Rom 1.

 

[budgie2]

Why does it exist in the first place? I know there are various ideas as to how it originates from a particular family structure to the idea of a gay gene (which is inconclusive). Even from a purely, biological evolutionary perspective homosexuality doesn’t make sense because humans are supposed to propagate the species and if everyone would be gay there would be no more human race. And if you look at Natural Law which says things should be used according to their purpose; (i.e., Gay sex is inserting a reproductive organ into a digestive tract, which hardly seems to follow any natural or biological law.)

As a result, a large number of diseases are associated with anal intercourse, many of which are rare or even unknown in the heterosexual population such as: anal cancer, Chlamydia trachomatis, Cryptosporidium, Giardia lamblia, Herpes simplex virus, HIV, Human papilloma virus, Isospora belli, Microsporidia, Gonorrhoea, Syphilis, Hepatitis B and C and others. Which tells you in itself this is an unnatural act, and not for what the body is supposed to be used for.

Not trying to be rude to anyone on here but I’m just curious.

I don’t agree with homosexuality, but some men and women are turned gay by abortion culture. They see sex with the opposite sex as a savage act and some feminists believe a man’s penis is like a weapon, for example Germaine Greer. Being homosexual means they can sleep around or have casual sex without actually harming an unborn baby and homosexuals aren’t the worst in that type of social group. Some homos are quite nice but from bad backgrounds.

Others may be born gay. It’s not for us to judge anybody. If you’re a practising Catholic it’s a sin to be gay. But if your whole choice of the opposite sex is women who have had abortions then men can be turned gay.

 

[Benadam]

A brotherly or sisterly attraction toward another of the same sex wouldn’t usually cause this behavior, but even erotic attractions toward others of the same-sex do no always lead to what Paul refers to in Rom 1. One who has erotic attractions toward others of the same sex does not necessarily fall under the types of people Paul is referring to in Rom 1.

I think Paul was teaching that the condition and the behaviour it causes is the result of a culture degenerating into idolatry rather than the behaviour resulting from the personal sins of individuals.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

I don’t agree with homosexuality, but some men and women are turned gay by abortion culture.

Eh?

They see sex with the opposite sex as a savage act and some feminists believe a man’s penis is like a weapon, for example Germaine Greer.

And some evangelicals leave the same impression with the presentation of why fornication is bad focusing on how it will hurt the girl/woman and how boys/men are sexually predatory ( boys/men who have sex with girls/woman (respectively!) are using the girl/woman and got to have sex with her through manipulation) instead of the right way of presenting purity as a virtue to be pursued in order to please God. At least, that’s the message I got.

Then again, later working for a civil rights state agency during the Anita Hill fiasco didn’t help either…

Being homosexual means they can sleep around or have casual sex without actually harming an unborn baby and homosexuals aren’t the worst in that type of social group.

I know a lot of SSA people, including some who are gay and I can tell you that I’ve never heard of this. Where did you get this notion?

Some homos are quite nice but from bad backgrounds.

Gee, thanks. I really appreciate the appellation “homo” as it is so dignifying and charitable a thing to call someone.

Others may be born gay. It’s not for us to judge anybody. If you’re a practising Catholic it’s a sin to be gay.

How contrary. Some are born with X, we shouldn’t judge but X is a sin.

Actually, you’ll have to define your words. First, if you define gay as a homosexual person (as defined in the CCC) who is actively engaged in the subculture of people who call themselves gay and practice homosexual sex, then yes. It is a sin to be gay, but no one is born that way.

Frankly, I don’t believe a person is born with same-sex attractions. I do believe that people are born with a temperament that predisposes one to homosexuality, but it doesn’t guarantee it. Other factors have to come into play in a perfect storm scenario for the child. That happened to me.

What is NOT a sin is to have same-sex attractions and not act on them in any way, except in ways that are healthy and healing. For example, it’s a sin to have “gay sex” as well as ogle a person of the same-sex. It is not a sin to encounter a person of the same sex who is attractive and become platonic friends with them (especially if they are straight) because of the healing that takes place through such friendships. Believe it or not, it’s possible.

But if your whole choice of the opposite sex is women who have had abortions then men can be turned gay.

Do you have any evidence for this opinion?

 

[BobObob]

I think Paul was teaching that the condition and the behaviour it causes is the result of a culture degenerating into idolatry rather than the behaviour resulting from the personal sins of individuals.

Paul never mentioned same-sex attractions, and thus he neither taught that same-sex attraction, nor sodomy (which SSA may or may not lead to, and may be done without SSA) was the result of idolatry.

He did talk about lusting after others of the same-sex though, but that’s much different…