Why doesn't God heal homosexuals?

  • Thread starter Thread starter cookie-san
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Edward_H said:
SSA is inherently disordered. Opposite sex attraction is not.

Desiring what God designed to give us is not inherently evil. It’s a great good that needs to be acquired in a way that is also according to God’s plan for us.
Click to expand...
Do you claim that the way that most American men desire women is not disordered? Do you think that porn generally depicts loving, non-sodomitical, and non-exploitative sex? Where would one find such porn? I suspect it hardly exists.
 
I have NO doubt that this is so.

And there are studies that show a very high percentage of those factors are environmental and not simply “environmental” in the sense of what nutrients we receive!

The twin studies have blown “born this way” out of reasonable contention.

Some co-occurring factors too strong to ignore are, for male homos (as opposed to heteros) are:

-overly dominant mother
-absent or largely absent fathers
-early abuse (sexual)
-early exposure to porn
-bullying, leading to a ‘passivity’ response.

These aren’t flukes; they’re shaping forces with enduring effects.
 
Last edited:
Edward_H said:
These aren’t flukes; they’re shaping forces with enduring effects.
Click to expand...
But then, why do you resist stupidisasstupiddoes saying that SSA is not unique among sins? You claim that it IS unique among sins/temptations?

And if not, how could you possibly object to what he said above?
 
The answer for this is simple: there’s no need for it to be healed. The Pope recently apologized for the treatment gays have received from the church in the past as the church’s understanding on the matter hasn’t kept up with reality, I’m sorry to say. In the time of Christ, homosexuality wasn’t understood to be a natural part of the human condition. It was something that you did because it made you feel good while you were in a marriage that was most likely an arranged one. It wasn’t because you were in a marriage against your will as you, by how God made you, weren’t in love with your spouse and could never really be. Today we know homosexuality to be how a person’s mind is made and unlike pedophilia, isn’t of a harmful disorder that hurts others. However, since we’ve only understood this since the early 70’s and society has only just begun to come to grips with the matter in the last twenty years, the church is slowly beginning to change its tune as it’s no longer understood to just be a matter of debauchery as it was considered in ancient times. It’s understood to be a matter of honest love between two people. This isn’t to say that the church should accept gay marriage. After all, marriage is for procreation and such can’t happen between to gay people. But, to consider it to be the sinful relationship we have in the past, is to be in itself, disordered as it degrades a person for their natural and non-harming self. The Catechism, isn’t set in stone as has changed several times in the past. Most recently in the early 90’s to reflect the age in which the church exists. This may well be the next part to be modified.
 
Andy_82 said:
It was something that you did because it made you feel good…
Click to expand...
How does that differ from homosexual sex now?

Please understand that I am NOT talking about emotional or (appropriate) physical intimacy between men. I think those things can surely be good things that contribute to human flourishing. I am just wondering how SEX has any other purpose to a gay couple than making them feel good.
 
What does it mean to use the word unique? That’s a weasel word begging to be decomposed.

My earlier point about there’s a danger in over-classifying sins into one bucket must not have been understood.

Sin distances us from God.

Adultery is a grave sin, but it’s, logically less grave, than same sex, because the behavior itself is not against nature.

In Catholic Moral language, same sex is a sin 3 reasons. Its intention goes against nature, the “object of the moral act” itself is against nature, and the “circumstances” are immoral.

With adultery, the object of the act itself is not against nature. The intention most likely is, and the circumstances of the act are definitely sinful.
 
Last edited:
Edward_H said:
I have NO doubt that this is so.

And there are studies that show a very high percentage of those factors are environmental and not simply “environmental” in the sense of what nutrients we receive!

The twin studies have blown “born this way” out of reasonable contention.

Some co-occurring factors too strong to ignore are, for male homos (as opposed to heteros) are:

-overly dominant mother

-absent or largely absent fathers

-early abuse (sexual)

-early exposure to porn

-bullying, leading to a ‘passivity’ response.

These aren’t flukes; they’re shaping forces with enduring effects.
Click to expand...
Great so thanks for your considered answer because we agree. What i mean is that they are flukes from the perspective of the child. Children don’t choose to be bullied, exposed to porn, to have their father leave them or have an overly dominant mother. So what i’m saying is that ‘by fluke’ i was born into circumstances where most of those don’t apply to me. It’s beyond my reason for me to think that my sins are somehow less than someone who was born into more of them and has SSA. How can you depute that given how much we clearly agree upon?
 
Edward_H said:
Adultery is a grave sin, but it’s, logically less grave, than same sex, because the behavior itself is not against nature.
Click to expand...
This is completely false, and dangerous, thinking. It is not what the Church teaches.
 
Adultery WITH a person of the same sex may be more grave than adultery with a person of the opposite sex. But two single people of the same sex having sex is no more grave a sin than adultery.
 
Andy_82 said:
Well, let’s consider what ‘feeling good’ means: does sex in a loving relationship improve the relationship? It does and the church currently teaches that when practiced in a healthy, monogamous way that it is effective for bonding between a couple. Why should homosexuals be denied such a blessing because of an ancient prejudice wrought from a lack of understanding?
Click to expand...
You’re comparing apples and oranges. The sex acts involved are different. The fact that coitus has the capacity of improving relationships (which is sometimes, but not always, true) does not mean that oral sex or anal sex has the capacity of improving relationships. The Church has never taught this latter claim.
 
We cannot simply “give in” to circumstances.

The will and the reason must struggle to re-gain control over the passions and the appetites, however deformed they’ve become through early exposure, training (if you will).

Our reason must work through and acquire (in the conscience, the conscience after all is an operation of the intellect, not one of the heart or the emotions) and fully accept “moral criteria” offered to it by the Church as true and good, and then the person must begin “reconciliation” toward unity with those criteria now well placed in the conscience.

This “reconciliation” should NOT be thought of as wholly different to, or separate from the Sacrament of Reconciliation, since that sacrament itself was designed by God to provide “grand reconciliation”…not just reconciling us to the will of God, but also reconciling us with the Church and our brothers and sisters, BUT ALSO reconciling the person interiorly…between what they hold as true in the intellect, and what they decide to do (via the will), and what they allow their body and appetites to pursue.

Reconciliation in the great and grand scheme.
 
Last edited:
Prodigal_Son said:
Adultery is a grave sin, but it’s, logically less grave, than same sex, because the behavior itself is not against nature.

This is completely false, and dangerous, thinking. It is not what the Church teaches.
Click to expand...
Exactly what i’m getting at, for arguements sake assume i committed adultery; a mortal sin. How can that possibly be thought of as less than an SSA having sex with another male. It’s got to be the same. I never had SSA so it’s not great achievement for me to avoid it!!! it defies reason and logic. If i stay faithful to my wife then that’s good but frankly it’s not as impressive as an SSA person who doesn’t have sex, since i can at least enjoy sex with my wife. Which you know, is nice.
 
Last edited:
You’re actually doing that. By assuming that somehow different sex acts in a given context are superior to others you’re putting all involved acts into separate boxes. The sex acts are not different: the people involved in them are.
 
Andy_82 said:
You’re actually doing that. By assuming that somehow different sex acts in a given context are superior to others you’re putting all involved acts into separate boxes. The sex acts are not different: the people involved in them are.
Click to expand...
I have had experience of the relevant sex acts. They are VERY different.
 
Well that act of adultery is different from same sex becuase the act itself is not against the nature of the human. Under different circumstances (marriage) that act of intercourse is a great good.

Under no circumstances is SS a good.
 
Last edited:
Andy_82 said:
Considering your lack thereof, I beg to differ.
Click to expand...
Do you deny that there is a phenomenological difference in different sex acts? Do you deny that they are experienced differently? (This is quite apart from the question of whether they can be bonding experiences, in the relevant sense. I’m open to arguments that oral or anal sex can be bonding experiences.)
 
Edward_H said:
Well that act of adultery is different from same sex becuase the act itself is not against the nature of the human. Under different circumstances (marriage) that act of intercourse is a great good.

Under no circumstances is SS a good.
Click to expand...
Under no circumstances is rape good, but under some circumstances killing people is good. Nevertheless, raping one person is a lesser sin than killing thousands of innocent people.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top