The "born Gay" Hoax

[Scofizzle]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1502110' date='Apr 17 2008, 08:06 PM']The thing is, maybe to you, choosing to be homosexual would be "icky" and "unnatural." But what about those who are homosexual and the idea of choosing to be heterosexual is icky and feels unnatural to them? You aren't considering feelings. Choices and feelings are not the same thing. For the most part, feelings tend to govern our choices -- i.e. we choose what is good for us, avoid what is bad.[/quote]


Feeling are unimportant ind ealing with morality. Feelings are fleeting and can change at a whim. The point is that no matter how we feel about something that does not change the objective morality of a particular subject.

example: I may feel that people who commit premeditated murder deserve the death penalty. I could believe that to the core of my being (i don't but just an example). My feelings don't change the fact that the death penalty is an obejectively evil thing because it ignores the dignity of the human person.

[Farsight one]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1502254' date='Apr 17 2008, 10:39 PM']You need to learn some basic theology.
God is ALL GOOD.
Evil and disorder are privations, something lacking a due good, which ought to be present.
Sin is that which is opposed to God.

God does not create disordered inclinations towards that which is sinful (opposed to God).
This is true whether we are speaking of homosexuality or anything else.[/quote]
You didn't actually answer my question.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Scofizzle' post='1502671' date='Apr 18 2008, 11:22 AM']Feeling are unimportant ind ealing with morality. Feelings are fleeting and can change at a whim. The point is that no matter how we feel about something that does not change the objective morality of a particular subject.

example: I may feel that people who commit premeditated murder deserve the death penalty. I could believe that to the core of my being (i don't but just an example). My feelings don't change the fact that the death penalty is an obejectively evil thing because it ignores the dignity of the human person.[/quote]
I'm not disagreeing but if you fail to include feelings into the equation, you are leaving out a huge part of the human condition. I agree that feelings don't change what you define as solid truth, but feelings DO influence the degree someone believes in a "truth" or behaves. You have to take that into account.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1502254' date='Apr 17 2008, 08:39 PM']You need to learn some basic theology.
God is ALL GOOD.
Evil and disorder are privations, something lacking a due good, which ought to be present.
Sin is that which is opposed to God.

God does not create disordered inclinations towards that which is sinful (opposed to God).
This is true whether we are speaking of homosexuality or anything else.[/quote]
What about predisposition that impairs one's ability to distingish good from bad or impairs free will, which then may lead to an action that would normally be a sin?

Just thought I'd throw that in there, I'm curious. I know that if one can't excersize their will, then it's not necessarily a sin.

[carrdero]

[quote]Scofizze writes: God gives us the free will to make the choice. We have the opportunity to choose homosexuality. Just because we have the ability to choose does not mean that our choices will be objectively good, or not offensive to God.[/quote]
Then why would God offer the option of free will and the ability to enact on homosexuality if He is only opening Himself to the possibility to become offended, discouraged or disappointed? If God knew a human in the womb before it’s physical existence than this Supreme BEing must have also been privy to the knowledge that homosexuality does exist and have also known that this entity would have the option (the possibility, the desire and preferrence) to express homosexuality tendencies and to encourage homosexual relationships.

Are you implying that our lives are dedicated (and accountable) to the amount of faith (and hope) that God (a BEing of Truth) expresses in us to do “right” or “good”? If it is love (and the free will that extends from this love) that this relationship (between God and human) is based upon, don’t you think that GOD woud be happy and understanding of our decision to choose and love a life partner no matter what gender, race, creed or color?
[quote]Scofizzle writes: I can choose to shoot and kill someone else for no particular reason. This choice I have made will certainly offend God and an evil act.[/quote]

And yet you offer another example of human behavior that is also not evidenced as offendable or punishable by GOD. Do you think that God is holding you back from pulling the trigger?

Why do some people continue to make broad illegal analogies for homosexuality?

Edited April 19, 2008 by carrdero

[Socrates]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1502391' date='Apr 17 2008, 10:55 PM']Compare that with the quote from Benedict you posted earlier, where he stated that homosexual inclination was a disorder, not a sin. You're above definitions seem to say that evil=disorder=sin.[/quote]
There are two kinds of evil, material and moral. A disorder is a material evil (though not morally evil if not chosen or acted on), and in the case of homosexuality is an inclination toward a moral evil (sin). As Card. Ratzinger stated, "[b]it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil[/b]."

Homosexual desires are a form of concupiscence, a weakness and tendency toward evil that is a result of the Fall.

To say that homosexual tendencies are a creation of God would be to imply that they are in themselves good (which Ratzinger has made clear they are not), or that God creates tendencies to evil (which is opposed to God). That would make God a "house divided against Himself," which is absurd.

[Socrates]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1502760' date='Apr 18 2008, 03:16 PM']What about predisposition that impairs one's ability to distingish good from bad or impairs free will, which then may lead to an action that would normally be a sin?

Just thought I'd throw that in there, I'm curious. I know that if one can't excersize their will, then it's not necessarily a sin.[/quote]
If one truly is not in control of one's actions, then he is not culpable. That is basic Catholic theology. For example, if one is forced to do things with a gun against his head, then he is not culpable for those actions.

Simply being tempted in itself does not remove culpability for sin, though (and this includes homosexual temptations).

[Scofizzle]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1503161' date='Apr 19 2008, 01:48 AM']Then why would God offer the option of free will and the ability to enact on homosexuality if He is only opening Himself to the possibility to become offended, discouraged or disappointed? If God knew a human in the womb before it’s physical existence than this Supreme BEing must have also been privy to the knowledge that homosexuality does exist and have also known that this entity would have the option (the possibility, the desire and preferrence) to express homosexuality tendencies and to encourage homosexual relationships.[/quote]

God is not offering the ability to act on homosexuality. He has given us the gift of sexuality, and man has preverted it, because of evil. He easily could have programmed us to never act on any sexual urge that is not good and holy, but then we would not have free will. We would have restricted will. God may have known we would fall from his grace, but still loved us enough to give us free will. Meaning we could do whatevr we choose no matter if it offends him or not. God does not make choices for us. We have to make our own choices or we are not free. If there is no free will can we really love God, if we are not free to make that choice?

[quote name='carrdero' post='1503161' date='Apr 19 2008, 01:48 AM']Are you implying that our lives are dedicated (and accountable) to the amount of faith (and hope) that God (a BEing of Truth) expresses in us to do “right” or “good”? If it is love (and the free will that extends from this love) that this relationship (between God and human) is based upon, don’t you think that GOD woud be happy and understanding of our decision to choose and love a life partner no matter what gender, race, creed or color?[/quote]

No. Our relationship with God is not based on how much faith he has in us to "right". If that were the case all of our relationships with God would be perfect all the time. God has infinite faith in us to do the right thing. This is why we have so many chances. We consistently screw up and by God's grace he allows He allows us to come back to Him.

[quote name='carrdero' post='1503161' date='Apr 19 2008, 01:48 AM']And yet you offer another example of human behavior that is also not evidenced as offendable or punishable by GOD. Do you think that God is holding you back from pulling the trigger?[/quote]

God is not keeping me from pulling the trigger. I have the freedom to shoot or not. And if I decide to kill that person it would most definately would offend God. See Commandment #5.



[quote name='carrdero' post='1503161' date='Apr 19 2008, 01:48 AM']Why do some people continue to make broad illegal analogies for homosexuality?[/quote]

The legality of the argument was not meant to even be of concern. The analogy was to show a contrast between good and evil, not legal and illegal. So please don't accuse me me doing something I have'nt.

[Farsight one]

Socrates - Do you believe that genetic predispositions towards alcoholism and such don't actually exist?

[Socrates]

[quote name='Farsight one' post='1504465' date='Apr 20 2008, 04:40 PM']Socrates - Do you believe that genetic predispositions towards alcoholism and such don't actually exist?[/quote]
Genetics may well play a role in alcoholism, yet I would also consider that to be a disorder, and part of concupiscence.
I would never say that God created alcoholism.

I don't think homosexuality is genetically predetermined, though genetics may possibly play a role in making some people more susceptible to this disorder than others.
In any case, I find the statement "God makes some people gay" problematic on several levels.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='CrossCuT' post='1502247' date='Apr 17 2008, 11:36 PM'][size=1]Homosexuality is a mental disorder. I cant see any other way around it.
[/size][/quote]
I wouldn't call it a "mental" disorder, but a "behavioral" one. If you get a chance, check out that article "Homosexuality and Hope"... there is a lot of valid research to show that it is could be more of a symtom of other disorders.

God Bless,
ironmonk

[rkwright]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1504350' date='Apr 20 2008, 02:53 PM']There are two kinds of evil, material and moral. A disorder is a material evil (though not morally evil if not chosen or acted on), and in the case of homosexuality is an inclination toward a moral evil (sin). As Card. Ratzinger stated, "[b]it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil[/b]."

Homosexual desires are a form of concupiscence, a weakness and tendency toward evil that is a result of the Fall.

To say that homosexual tendencies are a creation of God would be to imply that they are in themselves good (which Ratzinger has made clear they are not), or that God creates tendencies to evil (which is opposed to God). That would make God a "house divided against Himself," which is absurd.[/quote]

Do you have a source for 2 type of evil? Specifically material evils, I've never heard of these before. What other things would be a material evil?

I would have always just considered homosexual tendencies a part of concupiscence.

[Socrates]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1504708' date='Apr 20 2008, 08:16 PM']Do you have a source for 2 type of evil? Specifically material evils, I've never heard of these before. What other things would be a material evil?

I would have always just considered homosexual tendencies a part of concupiscence.[/quote]
It's traditional Catholic teaching, I believe found in St. Thomas Aquinas.

Concupiscence, death, disease, etc. - all would be considered material evil. And evil simply means something that is not good. Moral evil refers to sin - evil that is willfully chosen.

[rkwright]

I did a quick search. It seems that material evil is roughly equivalent to the fallen material world we live in? You could say that the effects of original sin are both moral (we are damned because of it) and material (we have weakness\fallen creatures).

Similarly homosexual tendencies, while not damning themselves, may be a product of the fallen nature. And just as we say God did not create us in our fallen nature, God does not create the homosexual tendencies.

Correct? This seems in line with with Ratzinger's quotes.

[rkwright]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1504718' date='Apr 20 2008, 08:20 PM']It's traditional Catholic teaching, I believe found in St. Thomas Aquinas.

Concupiscence, death, disease, etc. - all would be considered material evil. And evil simply means something that is not good. Moral evil refers to sin - evil that is willfully chosen.[/quote]

It may be that the term has fallen out of use. I've heard all these things as 'products of the fall' or 'part of our fallen nature' - but never material evils. But it makes sense either way.