Wrong to Support LGBT?

  • Thread starter Thread starter xdz
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
phil19034 said:
Fr Martin also goes around saying on Twitter that gay people are created by God that way - which is NOT true. God does not create people gay, blind, deaf; He doesn’t give them cancer, diabetes, Down Syndrome, etc.

All of these things are a result of environmental factors inside or/and outside the womb - caused by the Fall.

Fr Martin should know this, but he’s more dedicated to his liberal ideology than to orthodox Catholic theology.
Click to expand...
You seem to know more about the origins of sexual orientation than most scientists do. So, does Catholic theology have something to say about environmental factors inside or outside the womb that Fr. Martin should have known about? That sounds more like a scientific issue than a theological one.

On the issue of environmental factors, since evolution is at least partly driven by environmental factors, quite a lot about is no doubt at least partly environmental in origin. The fact that I’m able to digest milk as an adult is something that didn’t exist in human populations before about 10,000 years ago. Before that, no one past infancy could digest the milk sugar called lactose and the fact that many of us can now digest milk is due to a genetic mutation. And the fact that I’m white is also something that is undoubtedly due to a genetic mutation since my distant ancestors who came out of Africa would have had a much darker complexion. Even my blue eyes are the result of a genetic mutation that is only about 10,000 years old. It’s believed by scientists that at one time, everyone had brown eyes. Mutations can, of course, be caused by environmental factors. But some of them also just happen spontaneously because of a transcription error. Considering how often our DNA is copied in each of our cells, it’s amazing that more errors don’t occur more often.

Mutations in human DNA can occur spontaneously and some of those are advantageous to us and others undoubtedly cause or at least predispose some of us to disease. Can we really say that these mutations are all a result of the Fall? Are the mutations that allow some of us to digest milk or that gives some of us blue eyes a result of the Fall or is it only the ones that cause disease that are a result of the Fall?

And as for homosexuality, most scientists seem to think that it is a result of both genetic and environmental causes. And the genetic mutations that might predispose some of us in that direction could have just occurred spontaneously in one of our ancestors. But ultimately, no one really knows yet what causes some of us to be gay and some to be straight and some to be bisexual. Sexuality is very complicated and our brains are very complicated and scientists are only now just at the beginning of being able to understand how our brains work.
 
Last edited:
Could be he’s blinded to his own egregious error. Regardless, many are being led astray. The FB comments are ample proof of that.
I predict that, barring sorely needed correction and discipline, the boldness will increase.
 
Last edited:
VanitasVanitatum said:
I would change disordered to something like not morally ordered or something like that. Means the same thing but the extra word adds context clues for those who are unfamiliar.
Click to expand...
No, please provide an exact phrase.

Also, if you say “not morally ordered,” then doesn’t that imply (or one could believe it implies) that same sex attraction is immoral (which it isn’t)?
 
prayerrider said:
All we need to do is explain what “disordered” means in context then, yes?
Anyway, the change being pushed by an unnamed celebrity Catholic author and others is to “differently ordered.” And that, opens the box.
Click to expand...
Changing it to “differently ordered” would be a huge mistake and introduce even more confusion
 
Last edited:
We do know about some things better than those that came before us. We do know, for example, that women are not intellectually inferior to men as Thomas Aquinas claims. As one author says:
Aquinas asserts that females are inherently subordinate to males and that this “subjection existed even before sin.” Female subordination, for Aquinas, is not a result of the fall, but part of the created order. Such female subordination, he argues, is actually “for their own benefit and good.”

Following Aristotelian logic, Thomas adds that without female subordination, “good order would have been lacking in the human family if some were not governed by others wiser than themselves. So by such a subjection woman is naturally subject to man, because in man the discretion of reason predominates.
Click to expand...
Or, according to another author:
In several passages in the Summa Theologiae and elsewhere, Thomas Aquinas asserts that the inferiority of women lies not just in bodily strength but in force of intellect. To top this off, he maintains that feminine intellectual inferiority actually contributes to the order and beauty of the universe.

To begin to understand his position, we must ask why Aquinas thinks women intellectually inferior in the first place. Scripture is likely his first guide. St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11:10 that “man was not created for the sake of woman, but woman was created for the sake of man.” This passage echoes Genesis 2:18,19: “It is not good that the man should be alone. I will give him a helpmate.” Aquinas reasons from these scriptural passages that when one thing exists for the sake of another, it is inferior to that other. Other passages indicate more clearly that the intelligence is the seat of woman’s divinely ordained inferiority. When in 1 Corinthians 11:3 St. Paul says that “man is the head of woman,” and in Ephesians 5:22 that “a husband is the head of his wife,” Aquinas takes it as evident that if men are meant to rule, it can only be by virtue of intellectual superiority.
Click to expand...
 
Thorolfr said:
So, does Catholic theology have something to say about environmental factors inside or outside the womb that Fr. Martin should have known about? That sounds more like a scientific issue than a theological one.
Click to expand...
Catholic Theology says that God made man in His image.

If God deliberately made some people gay, that would fly in the face of Catholic theology.

Like you said, homosexuality is most likely a result of some combination of environment and genetic predisposition.

But that genetic predisposition was not created by God. Just like God didn’t give people a predisposition to cancer.

I believe that genetic mutations are not part of God’s Active will, but His permissive will.

I believe mutation happens due to environmental factors, inside or outside the womb and inside or outside the cell.

But I don’t believe they are direct actions by God.
 
phil19034 said:
I believe mutation happens due to environmental factors, inside or outside the womb and inside or outside the cell.

But I don’t believe they are direct actions by God.
Click to expand...
Without mutations, there would be no evolution or change in humans or other species. Without genetic mutations, we would only have one color or eyes. And Instead of having horses and zebras and donkeys, we’d have only one species in what is now the Equidae or horse family. And instead of having lions and tigers and leopards and jaguars and various kinds of house cats, we’d only have one species in the Felidae or cat family. It seems that God’s creation would be rather dull without genetic mutations to make it into the amazingly diverse creation that it is.

So, are you saying that someone can’t claim that their blue eyes are the way that God created them?
 
Who among the book critics here has actually read Building A Bridge? It’s not as controversial as you make it out to be. Many gays were disappointed that it didn’t push their agenda.
 
Last edited:
Thorolfr said:
So, are you saying that someone can’t claim that their blue eyes are the way that God created them?
Click to expand...
Not exactly.

I have brown eyes. However, we do NOT know for sure that blue eyes was a mutation. That’s a theory, not a fact. It’s POSSIBLE that some of the recessive genes are the original.

It’s also very possible that God created Adam or Eve with blue eyes and the other with Bb eyes so they could have brown eyed and blue eyed kids.

However, the fall introduced disease, death, and sin to ALL of creation - not just humans.

Before the fall, it’s probable that evolution wasn’t necessary in the Garden of Eden.

But after the fall, when all creation was kicked out of Eden and animals started eating each other, variation became necessary for the animals.

My GUESS, is that God built us with the ability to adapt (after all, we are built in His image), but if we would have remained in Eden, it wouldn’t have been necessary to use.

So, to answer you question: I do not think God created mutations. I think all mutations (good or bad) are the result of the Fall. However, I think think it’s possible that God also created different gene sequences to insure physical differences in children. Without different gene sequences, all siblings would look alike.

God Bless
 
Beryllos said:
Who among the book critics here has actually read Building A Bridge? It’s not as controversial as you make it out to be. Many gays were disappointed that it didn’t push their agenda.
Click to expand...
The book is less of the issue. It’s what he says on Twitter, interviews, and in his magazine that’s really the issue.
 
First and foremost, it is not up to us to judge others in any matter. That is left to God.
We should support our brothers and sisters in this life. Hate the sin, but love the sinner.
I would say support anyone who is being denied life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Our purpose in life here on earth is to praise and give glory to God, and to love one another as brothers and sisters.
It is our challenge to do this in all that we say and do.
 
Thorolfr said:
You seem to know more about the origins of sexual orientation than most scientists do. So, does Catholic theology have something to say about environmental factors inside or outside the womb that Fr. Martin should have known about?
Click to expand...
The Catechism specifically says “Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained.” (#2357) .
 
Never heard of that kind of Doritos, lol. I am not talking of a kind of crisps you can get in UK. It’s a cheese Niknaks and is not allowed to be imported to UK because it is similar in brand to a types of chips already available here also called Niknaks (which is disgusting) , also my daft country hasn’t paid it’s export tax cos it’s too corrupt to do such things so we can hardly ever get our products, though this is not about that. But you can only bring products over privately not for resale, it’s a nuisance.
 
Out of curiosity, does someone who is in a state of grace have the ability to judge someone who is not? Or is the act of judging necessarily precluded from good Christians?
 
We can always judge actions. We can judge policies. We can judge ideas. We can never judge the state of anyone’s soul.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top