Irrefutable Proof against being born gay?

[michaeldaniels]

I don't believe it is "conclusive" or "irrefutable" unless it is infallible...

Originally Posted by camerong

"Gay" refers to feeling deep-seated attractions towards the same sex. The Catechism conclusively proves that this is not a choice, at least for a significant number of people. "Being gay" does not refer to having sex with people of the same sex.

You may well be right that we should stop referring to some people as gay and others as not. If, however, you insist that those who claim to be gay are merely choosing to find themselves attracted to other people of the same sex, and could just as easily chose to find themselves attracted to members of the opposite sex, you are both sadly mistaken and speaking in stark contrast to the Catholic Church.

After contraception, the Catholic declaration that one does not chose to have same sex attractions must be the least followed Catholic tenet.

[Newbie2]

Originally Posted by thistle

Nobody is born gay. People want to believe it to justify their sinful ways by saying they cannot help being like that.
There is ZERO evidence for a gay gene.
People become homosexual through one or more of upbringing, environment, choice.

Originally Posted by thistle

Who said it was a choice. Not me.

I said it was one or more of upbringing, environment and choice. It can be one of these, two of these or all three contributing.

One thing for certain, though, is that nobody is born gay. That's wishful thinking by those who want to justify their sinful ways without taking responsibility.

I assume you're meaning of "nobody is born gay" meaning that they are not born on an unstoppable track toward homosexual activity.

Certainly there are those who have had a same-sex attraction since they were old enough to be attracted to someone else in one way or another.

We have to be careful to define "gay" as meaning homosexually active, attracted to members of the same sex, or both in such a discussion as this. To my mind one can call oneself "gay", whether or not they are sexually active.

[Advocatus Fidei]

Originally Posted by Newbie2

I assume you're meaning of "nobody is born gay" meaning that they are not born on an unstoppable track toward homosexual activity.

Certainly there are those who have had a same-sex attraction since they were old enough to be attracted to someone else in one way or another.

We have to be careful to define "gay" as meaning homosexually active, attracted to members of the same sex, or both in such a discussion as this. To my mind one can call oneself "gay", whether or not they are sexually active.

The reasons above are exactly why we shouldn't use the word gay at all, it does not have a precise definition and so leads to confusion.

There are people who suffer from SSAD who should be treat just like anyone else who has a mental disease, with compassion and care, and attempts to cure them of their illness.

Then there are sodomites who have fell into the error of believing their actions are not wrong, and what most people really object to, try and tyrannise everyone else into adopting the same opinion.

[warpspeedpetey]

Originally Posted by camerong

"Gay" refers to feeling deep-seated attractions towards the same sex.

i have deep seated attractions to women with freckles. lets make up a word for that, ill call it freckleism.

The Catechism conclusively proves that this is not a choice, at least for a significant number of people. "Being gay" does not refer to having sex with people of the same sex.

being gay isnt the problem, homosexual ativites are.

btw, the CCC doesnt prove the science. infallibility only deals with matters of faith and morals

You may well be right that we should stop referring to some people as gay and others as not. If, however, you insist that those who claim to be gay are merely choosing to find themselves attracted to other people of the same sex, and could just as easily chose to find themselves attracted to members of the opposite sex, you are both sadly mistaken and speaking in stark contrast to the Catholic Church.

After contraception, the Catholic declaration that one does not chose to have same sex attractions must be the least followed Catholic tenet.

the CCC isnt a science manual, and it doesnt say that people are definitley born gay, just that they might be doesnt it? and that we should treat them just like others. i dont have a problem with that. all people should be well treated.

that isnt a cause for special rights, or to ignore what G-d has to say on the matter.

i have a problem with the idea that being gay is anything but a choice.

am i a born freckleist? of course not.

[baltobetsy]

Originally Posted by djeter

Causes of Homosexuality: A Christian Appraisal of the Data

Andrew J. Sodergren, M.S., a scholar at the John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family has written a paper discussing some of the recent scientific findings on the causes of homosexuality in the context of a Christian anthropology. After reviewing the major findings in the empirical literature, the discussion focuses on how such an anthropology can account for these findings without compromising the traditional Christian ethical teaching that homosexual acts are intrinsically immoral and the homosexual inclination is objectively disordered. Of particular importance here are notions of original sin, fallen nature, the sexual difference, and the virtue of chastity.

You can find it here:

http://payingattentiontothesky.com/c...l-of-the-data/

If you know of a better statement on the issue would you let me know?

dj

Thank you, dj, for posting this. It was a scholarly, well-written, well-documented point of light in the midst of a lot of foot stamping and unsupported insistence.

For those who do not usually follow links, I say, get yourself a cup of coffee and check this one out. It's long and intense, but well worth it.

Betsy

[camerong]

Originally Posted by warpspeedpetey

being gay isnt the problem, homosexual ativites are.

And that's all that really needs to be said on this topic.

[warpspeedpetey]

Originally Posted by camerong

And that's all that really needs to be said on this topic.

true. but something else comes to mind when reflecting on our conversation. namely the question


what identifies a gay man as gay, if not homosexual activity?

when we say 'gay' what qualities except homosexual activity are we using to identify him as gay?

i think most qualities other than that we could apply to anyone.

[Voice of Reason]

Originally Posted by warpspeedpetey

how are choice and bigotry related here?

are you saying that if we dont accept the choice of homosexual behavior, we must be bigots? what about pedophiles, we restict that. does that make us bigots? what about bestiality, does a rejection of that makes us bigots? polyandry and polygamy are restricte, does that make us bigots?

Neither children, nor animals can give proper consent. Not only are children and animals not physically ready for sex, they are not psychologically ready for it either - the child, for it's lack of life-experience, the animal for it's lack of human-experience. You understand the potential for harm and psychological damage in the child; you can at least imagine the potential for true and fulfiling love in a homosexual relationship. Is there any reason other than "MY GOD SAID SO" that homosexuality is wrong? If not, you're a bigot. Easy.

[warpspeedpetey]

Originally Posted by Voice of Reason

Is there any reason other than "MY GOD SAID SO" that homosexuality is wrong? If not, you're a bigot. Easy.

we need no other reason than that G-d said so. we arent responsible to anyone else other than G-d.

it seems your saying that people who act and believe in accord with their faith, are bigots.

thats a pretty bigotted against religion.

[camerong]

Originally Posted by Voice of Reason

Is there any reason other than "MY GOD SAID SO" that homosexuality is wrong? If not, you're a bigot. Easy.

Give me a break. So we need to find non-religious reasons to justify everything our religion says?

Besides, Catholics maintain that the immorality of homosexual sex can be derived from the natural law. There is no natural reason for people of the same sex to interact sexually. Sure, it happens in nature, but so do all kinds of birth defects and such.

I think the onus should be on you--what arguments do you have that homosexuality is not a disorder? Because it doesn't hurt anyone? Imagine an 18 year-old who looks like she's 12 (such women exist). If such a woman had a sexual relationship with a pedophile, who was only attracted to her because she looks like a 12 year old, would this be natural, simply because no one is being hurt by it?

The only thing that separates homosexuality from any number of other disorders is that people with the same disorder can get together and fulfill one another in sexual and emotional ways. If, for example, there was only 1 homosexual in the entire world, you would surely concede it was a disorder, no?

[PassingThru]

Originally Posted by warpspeedpetey

i have a problem with the idea that being gay is anything but a choice.

Awesome quote here.

So, honest question. Can you go back and let us know when you made your "choice" to be straight? Really.

I can remember way back in grade school when I started to, lets say, "notice" women. Now, I had no idea why I was interested. I didn't really know what it was that I was even interested in. I do distinctly remember shapes. Something about the shapes and curves were very pleasing, to say the least. I didn't have the foggiest idea why my little brain liked them so much, but it sure did. Now, what I absolutely DO know, is that I didn't decide one morning "women with curves will now please me". I didn't even know what I was thinking.

If warpspeed or others can actually walk us through their decision to like women (or vice-versa), I am all ears.

(BTW, I have NO IDEA what actually causes homosexuality. I do know that your chances of homosexuality are relatively equal between almost any group imaginable. ie Broken homes, conservative, liberal, big families, sisters/brothers, single parents all seem to have similar levels of gay/straight kids. As to why? I have no idea)

[camerong]

Originally Posted by warpspeedpetey

true. but something else comes to mind when reflecting on our conversation. namely the question


what identifies a gay man as gay, if not homosexual activity?

when we say 'gay' what qualities except homosexual activity are we using to identify him as gay?

i think most qualities other than that we could apply to anyone.

A gay man is someone who feels a deep-seated sexual attraction towards men, and cannot bring himself to feel sexually attracted to females. This feeling is unquestionably not a sin. Acting on that feeling, of course, is a sin. But we need to be very careful when classifying people as sinful because they feel the penchant to a certain kind of sin. It is probably true that the vast majority of gay people live a life of sexual sin, but some gay Catholics live a celibate life and are free from sexual sin. It is insulting and harmful to carry on discussions as to whether such people (celibate gay Catholics) chose to feel attracted towards other men. Now, as I said before, perhaps the term "gay" is too secularized and implicitly means an acceptable lifestyle. If that is the case, then we should (as some Catholics have) refer to such people as having same-sex attractions. This, unfortunately, runs the risk of perpetuating the misunderstanding that such people chose to be this way. A good number of celibate "gay" Catholics would do anything to feel attracted to women.

I suspect the OP, along with many Catholics and non-Catholics alike, see homosexuals as inherently sinful, even when celibate. This is a plainly wrong view, and we must fervently oppose it.

[Havard]

Originally Posted by Voice of Reason

Neither children, nor animals can give proper consent. Not only are children and animals not physically ready for sex, they are not psychologically ready for it either - the child, for it's lack of life-experience, the animal for it's lack of human-experience. You understand the potential for harm and psychological damage in the child; you can at least imagine the potential for true and fulfiling love in a homosexual relationship. Is there any reason other than "MY GOD SAID SO" that homosexuality is wrong? If not, you're a bigot. Easy.

Did you mean sodomy? You said homosexuality, it's been repeatedly established in this thread that SSA is not a sin.

Clearly there are many sub-schools of natural law that operate independently of religious interpretation. One does not need faith in a divine being to come to the conclusion that sodomy may not be in line with natural law.

[warpspeedpetey]

Originally Posted by PassingThru

Awesome quote here.

So, honest question. Can you go back and let us know when you made your "choice" to be straight? Really.

I can remember way back in grade school when I started to, lets say, "notice" women. Now, I had no idea why I was interested. I didn't really know what it was that I was even interested in. I do distinctly remember shapes. Something about the shapes and curves were very pleasing, to say the least. I didn't have the foggiest idea why my little brain liked them so much, but it sure did. Now, what I absolutely DO know, is that I didn't decide one morning "women with curves will now please me". I didn't even know what I was thinking.

If warpspeed or others can actually walk us through their decision to like women (or vice-versa), I am all ears.

(BTW, I have NO IDEA what actually causes homosexuality. I do know that your chances of homosexuality are relatively equal between almost any group imaginable. ie Broken homes, conservative, liberal, big families, sisters/brothers, single parents all seem to have similar levels of gay/straight kids. As to why? I have no idea)

not a problem.

when i still treated women like objects, i made the decision to be 'straight' every time i laid down with one.

youre under the mistaken impression that there is something called "gay". or "straight" there is not. there are just people making choices.

there is no "gay" aside from the homosexual act. you cant be born gay, anymore than a woman is born attracted to tall men, or blonde men.

[PassingThru]

Originally Posted by warpspeedpetey

not a problem.

when i still treated women like objects, i made the decision to be 'straight' every time i laid down with one.

youre under the mistaken impression that there is something called "gay". or "straight" there is not. there are just people making choices.

there is no "gay" aside from the homosexual act. you cant be born gay, anymore than a woman is born attracted to tall men, or blonde men.

Hmmm. I have no idea what that means. So, you are saying you don't have any labels for your sexual feelings, and you made a decision every time you had sex with a woman that at that particular time, you would be attracted to a woman?

I am trying very hard to avoid all the labels. You keep mentioning choices. So, at some point, you made this choice. All you will say is you make a choice each time you slept with a woman? Why a woman?

Sorry, but your answer thus far is a bit of a cop-out.