Why the obsession with homsexuality?

[kozlosap]

First off, sincere apologies for calling you a man. I confused you with another poster.

But with regard to the substance of your response, you’re off with mark , my fair lady!

I don’t advocate that they keep their mouths shut or stay in the closet. I say God bless gay people, their strengths, their weaknesses, the gifts they share and the crosses they bear. Not one of my gay friends is particularly chaste, and I wish they were, but that is their decision to make. All I do is advocate for chastity, with love.

If they couldn’t vote, I would fight for their right to vote. If they couldn’t associate with each other, I would fight for that too. Or if they couldn’t practice religions that believe in gay marriage, I would fight for their right to practice that faith. But they have all the rights we do. Despite whatever you say, marriage is not a right. It is simply a legal designation, with a bundle of rights and responsibilities attached. I have never heard a persuasive argument to the contrary, but if you’re up for it, by all means please share. I like to keep an open mind, just in case I’ve missed something.

THANK YOU FOR THE “FAIR LADY”!:wink:I needed that this morning!!! When I’m writing about gay marriage, its always civil marriage, not sacramental marriage. Even old Charlie Manson had the “right” to be civally married in his California Prison home. There is no US vs THEM in this argument since we are all humans and for this discussion, Americans. I admire you for your openess and well thought out posts. I hope to learn from you!

 

[Havard]

THANK YOU FOR THE “FAIR LADY”!:wink:I needed that this morning!!! When I’m writing about gay marriage, its always civil marriage, not sacramental marriage. Even old Charlie Manson had the “right” to be civally married in his California Prison home. There is no US vs THEM in this argument since we are all humans and for this discussion, Americans. I admire you for your openess and well thought out posts. I hope to learn from you!

You are 100% right, there is not us vs. them. That is a very important point. Some Catholics have gotten too caught up in that. There is no question that we, as a Church, need to step up in terms of both communicating and living out through action the love we should have for gay people. Preaching chastity is important, but it’s only one bit of that. Before anything else, we should be welcoming. To the point that no one can ever doubt that we really mean it, that it is perpetual, and that is is unconditional.

I know you and I have different beliefs about the legal aspects of this, but I hope you at least know that my motivations. There is no second class human. Gay people are His children, and He loves all His children the same. As for learning, I’m not sure if you’re teasing , but thank you and I sincerely am grateful for the opportunity to learn from you. It’s evident from your posts is that you are a loving, just, and compassionate woman, and I’m glad you’re a part of CAF.

 

[edwest2]

You are 100% right, there is not us vs. them. That is a very important point. Some Catholics have gotten too caught up in that. There is no question that we, as a Church, need to step up in terms of both communicating and living out through action the love we should have for gay people. Preaching chastity is important, but it’s only one bit of that. Before anything else, we should be welcoming. To the point that no one can ever doubt that we really mean it, that it is perpetual, and that is is unconditional.

I know you and I have different beliefs about the legal aspects of this, but I hope you at least know that my motivations. There is no second class human. Gay people are His children, and He loves all His children the same. As for learning, I’m not sure if you’re teasing , but thank you and I sincerely am grateful for the opportunity to learn from you. It’s evident from your posts is that you are a loving, just, and compassionate woman, and I’m glad you’re a part of CAF.

In what ways can Catholics be welcoming that we weren’t before? LGBT persons could and did go to Church and participate in the life and work of the Church. But some LGBT persons are making demands that directly conflict with Church teaching. Should we reject them as fellow Catholics? Of course not. However, at least some LGBT persons are attempting to redefine the family. That desire is problematic for both. In the LGBT publication, the Advocate, one writer said that what Pope Francis considers a family is mythology. Apparently, a family can consist of any mix or match group of individuals.

We all struggle with sin, but given the opportunity, which is better? Giving in to the sin or avoiding it? We, all of us, are sinners, yes. But isn’t the goal to work to diminish or eliminate our particular set of sins? I have no problem with alcohol, but by the grace of God. Others do, for example.

I never shunned the LGBT persons I worked with in the 1970s and early 80’s. I never thought of them as second class persons. The use of human sexuality is out of control in most of the industrialized nations today, and it’s being reinforced constantly. We need to “affirm” these behaviors we’re told, and if you don’t believe me, believe what Church leaders have said and are saying.

amazon.com/Beyond-Diversity-Day-Curriculum-Sexualities-ebook/dp/B00EGJAU9W/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1429393247&sr=1-1&keywords=beyond+diversity+day

Diversity obviously means gay and lesbian.
“Normalizing” television means more LGBT characters, with non-white racial groups mixed in.
“Love has no gender” is the latest slogan to separate those who’ve abandoned a desire to deal with certain issues in their lives, and end the struggle we all live through daily.

We all must run the race, carry our Cross and yes, love others. But I’ve never thought of asking any patient I’ve dealt with or homeless person I’ve helped about their sexual orientation.

So no, Catholics aren’t obsessed with homosexuality but homosexual activists are doing everything they can to normalize gay marriage and other sexual behaviors.

The last time I saw a man I know, he looked and dressed as a woman. He told me he was going to marry his boyfriend. Fire and brimstone were not on my mind.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Rau]

THANK YOU FOR THE “FAIR LADY”!:wink:I needed that this morning!!! When I’m writing about gay marriage, its always civil marriage, not sacramental marriage. Even old Charlie Manson had the “right” to be civally married in his California Prison home. There is no US vs THEM in this argument since we are all humans and for this discussion, Americans. I admire you for your openess and well thought out posts. I hope to learn from you!

Personally, I don’t understand a fundamental difference between one kind of marriage and another. Of course there are ceremonial differences, and a difference arising from religious factors. But fundamentally, marriage is a sexual Union, it arises from sexual complementarity, it forms natural family units and it is the basis for expansion of the community through children.

Two men or two women can form other kinds of relationships, entailing a shared household. But evidently, this is not marriage.

 

[Thorolfr]

We all struggle with sin, but given the opportunity, which is better? Giving in to the sin or avoiding it? We, all of us, are sinners, yes. But isn’t the goal to work to diminish or eliminate our particular set of sins? I have no problem with alcohol, but by the grace of God. Others do, for example.

The problem, of course, is that most LGB people don’t consider their attractions disordered or acting on them to be a sin. So you and most LGB people are not talking with the same presupposition.

 

[Havard]

In what ways can Catholics be welcoming that we weren’t before? LGBT persons could and did go to Church and participate in the life and work of the Church. But some LGBT persons are making demands that directly conflict with Church teaching. Should we reject them as fellow Catholics? Of course not. However, at least some LGBT persons are attempting to redefine the family. That desire is problematic for both. In the LGBT publication, the Advocate, one writer said that what Pope Francis considers a family is mythology. Apparently, a family can consist of any mix or match group of individuals.

We all struggle with sin, but given the opportunity, which is better? Giving in to the sin or avoiding it? We, all of us, are sinners, yes. But isn’t the goal to work to diminish or eliminate our particular set of sins? I have no problem with alcohol, but by the grace of God. Others do, for example.

I never shunned the LGBT persons I worked with in the 1970s and early 80’s. I never thought of them as second class persons. The use of human sexuality is out of control in most of the industrialized nations today, and it’s being reinforced constantly. We need to “affirm” these behaviors we’re told, and if you don’t believe me, believe what Church leaders have said and are saying.

amazon.com/Beyond-Diversity-Day-Curriculum-Sexualities-ebook/dp/B00EGJAU9W/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1429393247&sr=1-1&keywords=beyond+diversity+day

Diversity obviously means gay and lesbian.
“Normalizing” television means more LGBT characters, with non-white racial groups mixed in.
“Love has no gender” is the latest slogan to separate those who’ve abandoned a desire to deal with certain issues in their lives, and end the struggle we all live through daily.

We all must run the race, carry our Cross and yes, love others. But I’ve never thought of asking any patient I’ve dealt with or homeless person I’ve helped about their sexual orientation.

So no, Catholics aren’t obsessed with homosexuality but homosexual activists are doing everything they can to normalize gay marriage and other sexual behaviors.

The last time I saw a man I know, he looked and dressed as a woman. He told me he was going to marry his boyfriend. Fire and brimstone were not on my mind.

Peace,
Ed

Ed, you sound great, in terms of what you do, but there is no doubt in my mind that the opportunities are manifold. From personal experience or CAF, I, and I bet you as well, have come across plenty of folks who see this as an “us vs. them” issue. It may be more or less common, depending on your area, but at the very least here on CAF you see self-described orthodox Catholics talking about gay people with open disdain. I doubt there’s one American bishop that would be comfortable with this kind of thinking, however, who knows how aware they are of it, and I think it will continue to go on if it’s not directly addressed. So I would like to see bishops and priests spend a bit of time every once in a while preaching on this.

 

[WonderAndAwe]

This forum seems to be obsessed with issues around homosexuality. Why?

Probably because it’s like bandits with sledgehammers and magical repulsion shields attacking a medieval village while shouting “We deserve to support OUR village!” where any time villagers try to drive them out the repulsion shields make it near impossible to land a blow versus massive ogres with incredible endurance who dance around the village green shaking everything and when the villagers manage to kill one, a new ogre is already starting up its little dance.

Sure the ogres mess up the village architecture and it feels like an earthquake is always imminent, but you keep working to making the buildings more durable and find a weapon that can fell ogres with relative ease and little collateral damage.
The bandits on the other hand, can’t seem to take a hit because their magic repulsion shields repel any dished-out damage no matter what, regardless if it’s ranged or melee, and some villagers are starting to agree with the things the bandits shout. “They just want the same stuf we have, we can easily let them have it. It’s only fair. Stop trying to stop them, bigots!” some villagers have started to reply, as the bandits smash your henhouse and plunder your vegetable patch for arugula.

Basically the myriad of non-SSM evils hurting marriage are the ogres and the Gay “Marriage” thing is the bandits.

Does that make sense or does my attempt at analogy fall flat?

 

[edwest2]

The problem, of course, is that most LGB people don’t consider their attractions disordered or acting on them to be a sin. So you and most LGB people are not talking with the same presupposition.

As I mentioned, some (or most?) LGBT people may not think acting on their sexual desires to be sinful, but I do believe most know what the Church’s position is. The Church, and God, will not force us to do anything. But remaining silent in the midst of this and not - at least - talking about it will mean we are ignoring spreading the truth as the Church teaches it. Sure, some may ignore, deny or reject that, but being passive Catholics is not good.

If you read the LGBT literature or visit various gay marriage web sites, religion is problem number one. We are not educated enough, so their message of ‘marriage equality’ is being spread vigorously to young and old. The presupposition is not consistent with human biology and being male and female.

Ed

 

[edwest2]

Ed, you sound great, in terms of what you do, but there is no doubt in my mind that the opportunities are manifold. From personal experience or CAF, I, and I bet you as well, have come across plenty of folks who see this as an “us vs. them” issue. It may be more or less common, depending on your area, but at the very least here on CAF you see self-described orthodox Catholics talking about gay people with open disdain. I doubt there’s one American bishop that would be comfortable with this kind of thinking, however, who knows how aware they are of it, and I think it will continue to go on if it’s not directly addressed. So I would like to see bishops and priests spend a bit of time every once in a while preaching on this.

Havard,

I lived through the entire time period where ‘gay pride’ and ‘gay rights’ became issues manifested by gay activists, not Catholics or Christians in general. A very careful reading of the step by step events shows them as step by step events. However, a very careful reading also shows the emotional content sometimes overshadowing the factual aspects. Right now, a technique called “perception management” is at play. We - or some of us - are accused of being:

Bigots
Homophobes
Filled with hate
Showing open disdain
Showing open disapproval

As I’ve said in just about every post I’ve written regarding this subject, I had no problems my LGBT coworkers in the 1970s and early 80’s when I worked at a major hospital which began “sexual reassignment surgery.” When one employee transitioned from a woman to a man, were there mass protests, calls for firing this person? No, of course not. At the time, the common thought was “Stay out of my bedroom” which translated as “respect my privacy.” That worked just fine until people started to flaunt what had been private starting relatively recently. I could care less if today, the person chosen for this important position is a lesbian or bisexual. A search of the open literature dating back about 100 years shows homosexual persons in government and in other roles.

But, for reasons that are becoming apparent, privacy had to be abandoned. I resent the fact that someone else’s private sexual business is shoved in my face. I’m sure my parents had sex but it wasn’t a topic for discussion. The obvious divide was designed that way. You can’t rally the troops with a half-hearted or low-key, “we’d like people to understand,” you have to rile people up. The evidence is there. I saw and heard it. Aside from reporting it, my thoughts about LGBT persons as persons have not changed. It does annoy me that such tactics are being used in worship of the god Change. Some people view this as “progress” as in “progressive,” but there’s every reason to believe that this is just step one.

Ed

 

[Havard]

Havard,

I lived through the entire time period where ‘gay pride’ and ‘gay rights’ became issues manifested by gay activists, not Catholics or Christians in general. A very careful reading of the step by step events shows them as step by step events. However, a very careful reading also shows the emotional content sometimes overshadowing the factual aspects. Right now, a technique called “perception management” is at play. We - or some of us - are accused of being:

Bigots
Homophobes
Filled with hate
Showing open disdain
Showing open disapproval

As I’ve said in just about every post I’ve written regarding this subject, I had no problems my LGBT coworkers in the 1970s and early 80’s when I worked at a major hospital which began “sexual reassignment surgery.” When one employee transitioned from a woman to a man, were there mass protests, calls for firing this person? No, of course not. At the time, the common thought was “Stay out of my bedroom” which translated as “respect my privacy.” That worked just fine until people started to flaunt what had been private starting relatively recently. I could care less if today, the person chosen for this important position is a lesbian or bisexual. A search of the open literature dating back about 100 years shows homosexual persons in government and in other roles.

But, for reasons that are becoming apparent, privacy had to be abandoned. I resent the fact that someone else’s private sexual business is shoved in my face. I’m sure my parents had sex but it wasn’t a topic for discussion. The obvious divide was designed that way. You can’t rally the troops with a half-hearted or low-key, “we’d like people to understand,” you have to rile people up. The evidence is there. I saw and heard it. Aside from reporting it, my thoughts about LGBT persons as persons have not changed. It does annoy me that such tactics are being used in worship of the god Change. Some people view this as “progress” as in “progressive,” but there’s every reason to believe that this is just step one.

Ed

I don’t doubt any of that. What I am saying is that our response should primarily be measured by it’s fidelity to Christianity, not by how well-adapted it is to these tactics. We can hate the sin all day long, loudly and clearly, but our love for the sinner has to be loud and clear too.

 

[Tigg]

Ed, you sound great, in terms of what you do, but there is no doubt in my mind that the opportunities are manifold. From personal experience or CAF, I, and I bet you as well, have come across plenty of folks who see this as an “us vs. them” issue. It may be more or less common, depending on your area, but at the very least here on CAF you see self-described orthodox Catholics talking about gay people with open disdain. I doubt there’s one American bishop that would be comfortable with this kind of thinking, however, who knows how aware they are of it, and I think it will continue to go on if it’s not directly addressed. So I would like to see bishops and priests spend a bit of time every once in a while preaching on this.

I believe there is an “us vs them” issue but it does not originate from disdain of their person. When we moved back home we had gay neighbors living next door to us and for years they were completely accepted and a part of back yard neighborhood gatherings. I had an openly gay co-worker in my department years ago who was just one of the group…he was funny and likeable and we all hung out together during breaks and lunch. I frequently asked for his help on certain reports when I was overwhelmed with deadlines.

The point is - the distinction of any of them being gay is not, in and of itself, a factor to most straight people. In my interacting with them I have yet to see anyone being shunned (at least in my little corner of the world.) The problem comes about when the gauntlet is thrown down and the declaration made that “I am gay” during ordinary social exchanges. The moment of friction comes when their need to assert their homosexuality overrides any companionship or camaraderie that is being established. I may secretly suspect that one is gay, but it makes no difference to the friendship unless they try to proselytize me into accepting “it,” not them, as the norm. And this does happen (just look at some of the comments on these threads.) What is this need to call attention to and validate a disorder rather than just be accepting of each other in our commonality? They deliberately set themselves outside by circle. I was introduced just recently to one over coffee and donuts. Before five minutes had passed, all of us sitting at the table knew she was a lesbian! The conversation which was general and friendly up to that point then became stilted. If I were an alcoholic or addict, I would consider it none of anyone’s business and while I would probably seek support from those I trusted, I would certainly not announce it to total strangers. With gays it is often thrown out for shock value (I admit there isn’t much of that anymore) or as a challenge of some sort. I am many things with many facets to my personality. No single one defines who I am but homosexuals delineate and emphasize their sexual orientation. I’ll ask again the question why, although I’ve already speculated as to the answer. Quite honestly, it doesn’t matter much to most of the rest of us.

I resent the fact that someone else’s private sexual business is shoved in my face.

Ed, in a nutshell, you’ve said it all and I thank you! At the very least it is inappropriate and at its worst, it violates the boundaries others are respectfully entitled to.

 

[Tigg]

I don’t doubt any of that. What I am saying is that our response should primarily be measured by it’s fidelity to Christianity, not by how well-adapted it is to these tactics. We can hate the sin all day long, loudly and clearly, but our love for the sinner has to be loud and clear too.

What Catholics do not know their bishops have written a letter of exhortation regarding the respect and dignity gays are entitled to. And what practicing grace-filled Christians would honestly be less than loving in their attitude? If anything, I’ve noticed a certain leniency toward them for fear of being labeled a bigot.

I just posted these thoughts on another thread, but will do so again. The Church teaches we are not to reduce them to their own interpretation of who they are. Their image and likeness of God comes from their total being - both body and soul. Why are the gays the ones who seem to forget this and why do they believe the lie that they are only defined by their sexual orientation?

 

[SMGS127]

I just posted these thoughts on another thread, but will do so again. The Church teaches we are not to reduce them to their own interpretation of who they are. Their image and likeness of God comes from their total being - both body and soul. Why are the gays the ones who seem to forget this and why do they believe the lie that they are only defined by their sexual orientation?

No gay person believes they are defined by their sexual orientation. Indeed, it is often the conservative Christians who seek to define us as “sodomites” or “homosexualists” with no redeeming qualities, who define us based on our sexual orientation. Attacking the words “gay” and “lesbian” is merely a projection for conservatives to avoid the plank in their eye.

 

[edwest2]

I believe there is an “us vs them” issue but it does not originate from disdain of their person. When we moved back home we had gay neighbors living next door to us and for years they were completely accepted and a part of back yard neighborhood gatherings. I had an openly gay co-worker in my department years ago who was just one of the group…he was funny and likeable and we all hung out together during breaks and lunch. I frequently asked for his help on certain reports when I was overwhelmed with deadlines.

The point is - the distinction of any of them being gay is not, in and of itself, a factor to most straight people. In my interacting with them I have yet to see anyone being shunned (at least in my little corner of the world.) The problem comes about when the gauntlet is thrown down and the declaration made that “I am gay” during ordinary social exchanges. The moment of friction comes when their need to assert their homosexuality overrides any companionship or camaraderie that is being established. I may secretly suspect that one is gay, but it makes no difference to the friendship unless they try to proselytize me into accepting “it,” not them, as the norm. And this does happen (just look at some of the comments on these threads.) What is this need to call attention to and validate a disorder rather than just be accepting of each other in our commonality? They deliberately set themselves outside by circle. I was introduced just recently to one over coffee and donuts. Before five minutes had passed, all of us sitting at the table knew she was a lesbian! The conversation which was general and friendly up to that point then became stilted. If I were an alcoholic or addict, I would consider it none of anyone’s business and while I would probably seek support from those I trusted, I would certainly not announce it to total strangers. With gays it is often thrown out for shock value (I admit there isn’t much of that anymore) or as a challenge of some sort. I am many things with many facets to my personality. No single one defines who I am but homosexuals delineate and emphasize their sexual orientation. I’ll ask again the question why, although I’ve already speculated as to the answer. Quite honestly, it doesn’t matter much to most of the rest of us.

Ed, in a nutshell, you’ve said it all and I thank you! At the very least it is inappropriate and at its worst, it violates the boundaries others are respectfully entitled to.

You’re welcome. Homosexual persons have decided to openly parade their intimate sexual behaviors in front of people. Privacy is required, not “If you don’t agree then the name calling starts.” They why question is a good one.

Ed

 

[kozlosap]

No gay person believes they are defined by their sexual orientation. Indeed, it is often the conservative Christians who seek to define us as “sodomites” or “homosexualists” with no redeeming qualities, who define us based on our sexual orientation. Attacking the words “gay” and “lesbian” is merely a projection for conservatives to avoid the plank in their eye.

:thumbsup:EXACTLY as I would have phrased this!

 

[kozlosap]

You are 100% right, there is not us vs. them. That is a very important point. Some Catholics have gotten too caught up in that. There is no question that we, as a Church, need to step up in terms of both communicating and living out through action the love we should have for gay people. Preaching chastity is important, but it’s only one bit of that. Before anything else, we should be welcoming. To the point that no one can ever doubt that we really mean it, that it is perpetual, and that is is unconditional.

I know you and I have different beliefs about the legal aspects of this, but I hope you at least know that my motivations. There is no second class human. Gay people are His children, and He loves all His children the same. As for learning, I’m not sure if you’re teasing , but thank you and I sincerely am grateful for the opportunity to learn from you. It’s evident from your posts is that you are a loving, just, and compassionate woman, and I’m glad you’re a part of CAF.

Merci Havard! I’ve been referred to as a CC(CAFETETIA CATHOLIC) and even an heretic here at CAF, but I have also learned so much from posters that disagree with my progressive POV, but take the time to explain their positions and their own histories. EdWest is one of the most respectful and well written/researched members of this forum and I value his insights , just as I value yours , Havard! Once again , thank you so much for what you said in your last post! God Bless You and your family. April in the City of the Sacraments!I

 

[adawgj]

I honestly don’t know why. In my opinion the Church should stay out of the state and the state out of the Church.

 

[Rau]

I honestly don’t know why. In my opinion the Church should stay out of the state and the state out of the Church.

Let me test that proposition? Should the Church express an opinion on euthanasia or on abortion, in places where those things are legal or to be made legal?

 

[Rau]

No gay person believes they are defined by their sexual orientation. Indeed, it is often the conservative Christians who seek to define us as “sodomites” or “homosexualists” with no redeeming qualities, who define us based on our sexual orientation. Attacking the words “gay” and “lesbian” is merely a projection for conservatives to avoid the plank in their eye.

I’m not sure why the words “conservative” or “Christian” need to be used in that sentence. “Some people” or “non-gays” would seem to suffice, for it is not only the class that you identify who are guilty of that error.

 

[ManOnFire]

This forum seems to be obsessed with issues around homosexuality. Why?

Curious people want to know what to Believe. Why is that a problem? It shouldn’t be.

People have been asking these 2 questions for decades:

1. Is homosexuality “a problem” or “not a problem?”
2. Can/Should anything be done to change sexual preference?

Let’s forget religious morality for the moment, because that’s part of question #2.

Regarding question #1, the old school answer was that it was “a problem” and people are “born that way” presumably due to Fear of being Different, and the new school answer is “not a problem,” presumably because the old school was finally accepting people as “born that way.” Gay gene theory was promoted in the media in the 80s to attempt to explain it. This was the only logical explanation pre-research, so it made sense to believe it and slowly and finally accept it. Then, research was performed to find a cause and a potential cure for this “problem,” but the Human Genome Project failed to find a gene for sexuality, and identical twins studies showed a low twins correlation for those who have identical genomes, so the modern logical mind shouldn’t believe the claim “born that way” until there is evidence or proof. Ironically, this is similar and equal to the modern atheist who won’t believe in God until there’s evidence or proof, lol. Demand for evidence or proof isn’t bigotry for atheists who don’t believe in God, so it can’t be bigotry for those who want similar and equal treatment about the issue of homosexuality. Research from the Journal of Sexual Archives polled a large population at a gay pride parade and found 49% of males and 30-something % of females reported being molested by a same gender older acquaintance. This is huge because it says homosexuality can be created by child molestation. Now consider that a large percentage of the board at the American Psychiatric Association were atheist progressives. Logically, progressives worry about world overpopulation. Well, they would naturally see homosexuality as “not a problem” since the world is becoming overpopulated and they naturally disregard the religious morality question as bunk since they would demand proof of God before considering it. Logically, they would see homosexuality as a partial cure for overpopulation, to be embraced and promoted. Anyone over age 40 can see society’s transition of homosexuality being promoted from “a problem” to “not a problem,” but this was largely based on the old schoolers gradual acceptance that homosexuality is hereditary, yet, ironically, less and less modern research supports this hypothesis as more research is performed.
My homosexual friend is convinced that HIV was invented to slow homosexuality. Should I call him a wacky conspiracy theorist? What if it’s true? Plenty of people are blaming the effeminization of men on substances like BPA plastic cups and water bottles, hormones in milk, GMOs, overbearing mothers, etc. Should we call them wacky conspiracy theorists? What if it’s true? Some blame substances released by atheist agents of the government who want population control. Should we call them wacky conspiracy theorists? What if it’s true? More importantly, who’s researching these? If anybody? And why or why not?

Regarding question #2, if non-molested homosexuality is:
A. developmental, not hereditary, and the person doesn’t want to change, then no conversion therapy should work since the individual believes it’s “not a problem” or
B. developmental, not hereditary, and the person does want to change, then conversion therapy could work since the individual believes it’s “a problem” or
C. being caused by some substance in food, water, etc. then conversion therapy would probably not work, or
D. Deemed by the atheist progressives in power as a means of population control, developmental, not hereditary, then it will only be promoted more, as the superior lifestyle, or
E. Generally, for those who don’t believe in God, homosexuality should not be changed, even if it’s possible to change. Generally, religious people believe it should be changed.

I believe we should love and accept all people, but with all the multifactorial ambiguity of emotions versus research, different interpretations of morality between the religious and atheists, the Perception Shapers in the media, academia, and government, what is a principled, caring, rational person supposed to Believe?