Why are there so many homosexuals?

How many developed nations are there?

So very true.

So why on earth would we push transgender or homosexual acts at developing brains? It is child abuse.

1 Like

You can easily look up the stats if you’re not afraid of them challenging your narrative.

Very true, the brain is not fully matured (something about the prefrontal cortex) until the young person is around age 25. I’m sorry, this may step on some toes, and I fully realize that the Church permits marriage much younger, but I really don’t think anyone should get married until they are at least 21, or better yet, 25 or afterwards. Especially with the demands of today’s world, there’s just not enough maturity there.

I realize there are exceptions, and I realize this is older than has been historically and traditionally considered the optimum age range for marriage. And as someone who is traditionalist on general principles (not just religion), I don’t blithely “blow off” accumulated wisdom and knowledge from time immemorial to the present day. But I humbly submit that this is one area — maturity measured by brain development — that we simply didn’t know about until fairly recent times.

I’d also rethink the whole matter of older military officers and politicians sending young people into war at an age where they think they are immortal and often do not really comprehend what “dead” means. But then again, I’m pretty fond of Paul VI’s plea to the United Nations, “no more war, war never again”.

3 Likes

That seems to be current. It runs against God’s reproductive design. I submit in the past maturity and responsibility were present at a much younger age.

Yes, the reproductive design is there, but for reasons we don’t fully understand, brain development comes later. Perhaps nature intends that we reproduce before we’re fully mature enough to understand fully what we’re doing and what we’re getting ourselves in for. Perhaps it’s our task to be self-aware enough to know “I could do this, but I’m not mature enough yet”.

Mine is an extreme example, but I was 46 when my only son was born. I am able to bring a lifetime of learning and life experience to our present homeschooling adventure, and my son’s life is richer because of it. I retired a few years before people normally do, though with COVID-19 making homeschooling extremely desirable, coupled with duties to my elderly parents, if I had not retired four years ago, I would be retiring now. I am able to be a full-time father and a full-time teacher.

People, please do not wait until you are 46 to have children. Again, it’s an extreme example, a long story, but my case is “too far in the other direction”. Thankfully I’ve made up my mind to live until I’m 100 :slightly_smiling_face: :one: :zero: :zero:

Yeah, I saw that last night on How It’s Made!

2 Likes

It is to be anticipated that persons are drawn in the direction of their inclinations. This is not a deep observation nor an argument that something is good or acceptable or anything else.

Bear in mind that “mental illness” is a matter of definition. We don’t know whether the cause or underpinnings of homosexuality is psychological.

What is God’s reproductive design (in so far as age is concerned).

Age of puberty.

Ah. Do you mean the bodily capability to reproduce is a sign that marriage from this point is permissible? Or stronger than that - desirable upon or soon after puberty? I’m trying to understand why you say deferring marriage into the 20s runs counter to god’s reproductive design. @buffalo?

It is indeed obvious. People outside the Church (and, sad to say, many inside it) generally find a way to do what they want to do.
[/quote]

I’ve got to pull you up on this, HSD. It’s the other side of the coin that says that without God you can do what you want. People on ocassion often do what they want instead of perhaps what they should do (I’m going to play golf this morning as opposed to painting the window frames) but as regards morality, people generally do what they think is right. Or at least they know it’s wrong when they don’t.

So you don’t need to have a belief in God to hand in a lost wallet for example. Although some will risibly suggest that as an atheist there is nothing to stop you keeping the money (or killing the other atheist on the island as in Buff’s risible scenario). It’s not like Moses came down from the mountain with the commandments and everyone looked at each other, stunned, and said ‘Wha…? We’re not supposed to steal and kill?’ People generally tend to do the right thing anyway. It’s the exceptions that prove the rule.

So if someone enters into a gay relationship, they do so not believing that it’s wrong but they’re going to do it anyway (they’re going to ‘find a way to do what they want to do’). They do so because they see nothing wrong with it in the first instance.

Thank you for providing some much-needed nuance to a very broad statement on my part. Let me refine my comments to reflect what I actually meant to say.

People generally tend to do the right thing when it is not going to cause any great sacrifice on their part. However, when it is a “hard saying” —

  • “because your wife will probably die if the two of you have any more children, and her periods are notoriously irregular, the two of you will have to practice total abstinence until she passes the menopause, and she’s just in her mid-thirties right now”

  • “your husband left you for another woman, but there is no way the Church can find your marriage invalid, so you have to stay single until he dies, even though you have a large family to raise on your own”

  • “your sexual orientation means that you like men instead of women, but you cannot have sex without sinning mortally, so you have to stay celibate for life”

— the natural reaction is to say “oh, no, it can’t be so, isn’t there any way I won’t have to live like that?”. Did not even Our Lord beg that this cup might pass?

The orthodox teachings of the Church say “no, there’s not, you will have to consider that this is the cross Our Lord fashioned for you to bear from the beginning of time, you can either accept it and bring yourself (and possibly others) to great sanctity, or you can reject it, and lose His Grace for all eternity”.

There is no shortage of voices in this world that will tell them “you don’t have to live like that, it is no sin”. Non-Catholic Christians began believing that contraception is no sin… oh, about the time that somewhat reliable means of it came into existence, and there is always sterilization. Somehow, marriages evaporate no later than the moment that the civil judge lays down his gavel and dissolves the vinculi. Liberal churches such as the Episcopal church are able to tell a gay Catholic “come over here, we’ll marry you, you will have the Body and Blood of Christ, we welcome you”.

In short, the message of the world is “can’t live by Catholic teachings? — then find a religion that you can live by”.

I would be interested to know whether there are any non-Catholics who, when confronted with circumstances where accepting the sinfulness of something means that they have to live the rest of their lives with grave inconvenience, accept this state of affairs, or find some way not to have to “take up that cross”. Orthodox Jewish women whose husbands will not give them a get (rabbinical divorce), thus making them “chained wives”, are the only examples I can think of.

That might well be the case for some people. But the way I see it is that one should approach the situation from a neutral position. That is, you are not aligned to a particular denomination (or even religion) but you feel something within you that is drawing you towards God. You are not looking for moral guidance as such but more looking for a means of getting closer to God.

What are your options? Well, there are three main religions from which you could choose and numerable denominations (especially within Christianity - which could be an interesting thread on its own). You are going to tend towards the religion which aligns most closely with your personal beliefs. You are hardly going to select the nearest church/mosque/synagogue because it’s the most convenient and ask them what you should then believe.

If you are certain that Jesus is the son of God then that at least narrows the field. And if you really believe that there is nothing wrong with gay marriage then it narrows yet again. What someone obviously wouldn’t do if they were in a long term gay relationship is look to find God via Catholicism.

Actually this scenario rarely pans out because most people are born into a religion and see no reason to change. Unless they feel that their beliefs that develop over the years are growing apart from those of the church. A church that in the vast majority of situations was not chosen by them in the first instance but which was an automatic result of where and when they were born. In which case they have never consciously decided that the Catholic church is correct in all matters.

I presume that you’d have no argument with someone who was brought up as an Episcopalian and turned to Catholicism because they disagreed with their church’s position on homosexuality. If so, then it should be a lot easier for you to understand someone moving in the opposite direction. Or taking that option as an initial step.

There is certainly such a thing as “picking the church that lines up most closely with what I believe in the first place” — many if not most people, in search of a religion, do precisely that — but there is also such a thing as becoming persuaded that a certain religion is true, regardless of whether I already “like” or “believe” XYZ, and becoming convicted that if I am to please God, I have to take what this church teaches, make it my own, and alter my life accordingly. I just have to throw up my hands and admit that “I was wrong all those years”. I absolutely can understand why someone would stand before Catholicism, Orthodoxy, fundamentalist Christianity, Judaism, Islam, or Mormonism, and saying “I’m convinced, this religion is the truth, it’s going to require some changes in my lifestyle, thinking, and attitude, but it’s either that, or live a lie by staying out of it”.

My point simply is, embracing Catholicism, when the demands it makes on some people (depending on their lifestyle and circumstances) force them to alter their lives radically, is a heroic step that many people would shrink from. Thinking “yes, I’m pretty well convinced it’s true, but lifelong celibacy (or singleness, or whatever demand is made) is just too much for me to do” is perfectly understandable, and it is entirely possible that someone “on the edge” like that would succumb to human weakness, find an easier religion that is “almost Catholicism” (such as Anglicanism), and try to squash that conviction.

I recall reading the article “Against Heterosexuality” a few years ago. The title is a misnomer; the author is not opposed to heterosexuality as a practice. His thesis is that the idea of sexual orientation as an identity or as a way of labeling persons is a rather recent social construct, not a real category of being.

1 Like

But you keep implying that people look for an ‘easier’ religion. But I don’t think that’s a valid view. Well, OK…it might well be for some people I will grant that. But surely most people who are genuine in their beliefs look for a religion that they think is true.

From my perspective, having known a couple of work colleagues who were strict Muslims, Islam seems a much tougher road to follow. So I could well imagine either of those two guys would consider someone selecting the Catholic church as looking for the easier option.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.