Why doesn't God heal homosexuals?

  • Thread starter Thread starter cookie-san
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Best not be intimately attracted to other women if you are married! That would be a sin and God have mercy if your wife finds out. I am specifically referring to intimate attraction. Not Charismatic, friendly or acknowledging that someone is very handsome or pretty.
 
Last edited:
tifischer said:
Best not be intimately attracted to other women if you are married! That would be a sin and God have mercy if your wife finds out.
Click to expand...
Huh? What is being “intimately attracted”? How could one choose such a thing?

I’m talking about meeting another woman and finding her charming and beautiful and amazing, and wanting romance with her. Every healthy husband has that experience, and it isn’t chosen. We choose what we DO after we’re attracted.
 
I am referring to sexual intimacy with another person of course is a sin if you are not married to that person and married to another person. Offer such feelings to God for the sacrament of your marraige and I would go to reconciliation and talk to a priest about it.
 
Last edited:
tifischer said:
I am referring to sexual intimacy with another person of course is a sin if you are not married to that person and married to another person. Offer such feelings to God for the sacrament of your marraige and I would go to reconciliation and talk to a priest about it.
Click to expand...
In addition to the above please understand that God can make that not happen. Have great faith and trust in him.
 
tifischer said:
No I am saying

Baily & Pillard had a weak correlation that could be attributed to environment but they did not further investigate.
Eckert ED, Bouchard TJ, Bohlen J, Heston LL.

performed a more accurate study to account for environment.

Either way its a no…even without the second article the stats are not significant…in genetic studies anything under 70% is considered to be heavily influenced by environment…meaning even if you have the gene for example depression (mental illness) it does not mean you will suffer from depression…depending on your environment.
Click to expand...
Sorry but you keep trying to move the goal posts back to whats is primary; Diamond & Rosky say in black and white terms that Bailey says there is a genetic component. Since you don’t disagree with them (i.e. they are not misquoting Bailey) then why won’t you acknowledge that Bailey says there is a genetic component, which is not as important as the environmental factors? Either you recognise the genetic factor or Diamond & Rosky are misrepresenting Bailey, you can’t have it both ways.

Answer that properly and we can discuss the second study.
 
The thought is also a sin just not as a grave sin as the action…according to Jesus Matthew 5:28
 
tifischer said:
I am referring to sexual intimacy with another person of course is a sin if you are not married to that person and married to another person. Offer such feelings to God for the sacrament of your marraige and I would go to reconciliation and talk to a priest about it.
Click to expand...
Are you familiar with the difference between attraction and intimacy?

If not, please do not give people advice about sexuality on these forums.
 
Last edited:
That’s utter nonsense.

So you’re saying that if a person gives in to misuse of alcohol (sin)…and when they’re drunk they beat their wife…then beating their wife is not a sin?

Ridiculous.

Back to the drawing board.
 
Because you are disregarding that a MORE extensive study says that there is NO genetic component…what the other study saw was environmental and DID NOT do further genetic studies to rule out twin personality identity correlation (an environmental factor unique to twins).

I have studied these types of studies to know that identical twin studies less than 70% correlation are heavily influenced by environment and mean that even if you did have a gene say for depression it DOES NOT mean you will suffer from depression because of your environment.

And FYI I have no reason to argue otherwise…if it was a genetic component then science could identify the protein that is deficient, excess, or mutated and create a medicine to counteract that gene’s effect.
 
Last edited:
Edward_H said:
So you’re saying that if a person gives in to misuse of alcohol (sin)…and when they’re drunk they beat their wife…then beating their wife is not a sin?
Click to expand...
BEATING YOUR WIFE IS AN ACTION. Finding another man sexually attractive is not an action.

If your use of pornography is so extreme that it CAUSES you to later have sex with a man (which is utterly impossible, in my view), then both actions are sinful.
 
tifischer said:
Because you are disregarding that a MORE extensive study says that there is NO genetic component…what the other study saw was environmental and DID NOT do further genetic studies to rule out twin personality identity correlation (an environmental factor unique to twins).

I have studied these types of studies to know that identical twin studies less than 70% correlation are heavily influenced by environment and mean that even if you did have a gene say for depression it DOES NOT mean you will suffer from depression because of your environment.
Click to expand...
Again i am not ignoring the second study, I am coming to it. I’ll remind you that you introduced both studies and i’m dealing with them in the order you presented them. Writing in capital letters does not make your case any more convincing. So again, who is correct, Diamond & Rosky who said Bailey has a genetic component or you who says Bailey doesn’t have any genetic component at all?
 
Neither person who relies on an incomplete study were correct. The Bailey study did not further investigate. People use to say the Earth was flat because they did not further investigate…they were all wrong.
 
Last edited:
Using porn is a sin.

Nursing along attractions that are by nature disordered is a sin.

Letting one’s imagination go on in directions that are disordered is a sin.

end of story.

Your misunderstanding lies in the actual realities of “finding another man sexually attractive”.

That “finding” is in reality more than a passing glance and drawing a conclusion. It’s looking, it’s delving, it’s lusting, it’s remembering.

So examine your use of the word “finding”.
 
tifischer said:
Neither are correct. They did not further investigate. People use to say the Earth was flat because they did not further investigate…they were all wrong.
Click to expand...
I’ll repeat the quote for you: “sexual orientation is somewhat—but not mostly—genetic”

So that is a misrepresentation of Bailey, yes or no?
 
cookie-san said:
Or perhaps I missed a miraculous cure somewhere?
Click to expand...
There are many accounts of healing that do seem to get lost in the sauce.


There are many factors in this. Sometimes homosexual behavior is not connected to homosexual orientation. The reverse is also true, that homosexual orientation is not necessarily connected to behavior. The Church summons all those who are not called to marriage to be chaste/celibate. Homosexually oriented people can embrace the gift of celibacy to find much healing.
 
Edward_H said:
Using porn is a sin.

Nursing along attractions that are by nature disordered is a sin.

Letting one’s imagination go on in directions that are disordered is a sin.
Click to expand...
Agree, agree, and agree.

That does not mean that finding someone attractive is a sin.
Edward_H said:
That “finding” is in reality more than a passing glance and drawing a conclusion. It’s looking, it’s delving, it’s lusting, it’s remembering.
Click to expand...
I agree that delving and lusting is a sin, 100%. “Looking” is not a sin, no more than a straight man looking at a beautiful woman is a sin. But it could be the near occasion of sin.
 
Anyhow not mostly something does not say much…sounds like someone was hesitant. If something is 0% x it still is not mostly x. Based on the data he had he interpreted as he did…however, he should have further investigated…If all anyone ever saw was Kansas, people might think the world is flat.
 
Last edited:
Actually, it could be a sin.

Looking intending to please oneself even in the glance can be a sin.
If a hetero male who knows he has “custody of the eyes” problems…allows himself to “reacquire a target” female then that “act” (that act of volition) can be a sin.
 
Last edited:
Please don’t state these things as fact. State then as opinions. That is what they are.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top