Homosexuals And Our Attitude Towards Them

[Adrestia]

[quote name='socalscout' post='1585055' date='Jun 27 2008, 03:50 PM']Yes to say homosexuality is a defect does imply that God makes defects which is wrong so therefore homosexuality cannot be called a "defect" At least not a birth defect. right?[/quote]I disagree.

That being said, it's not a "birth defect" like spina bifida... I'm not sure how that fits into this discussion.

[Galloglasses]

Some people here believe that Homosexuals are born with 'homosexual Tendencies' Others believe that is wrong because it means that God is creating a person who is more likely to commit a sin that is labelled abomination by Scripture. Thats were this Defect controversy is coming into play.

I do not believe in 'tendencies' That is nonsense to me. An alcoholic is not an alcoholic because his brain chemistry is more susceptible to the addictions of Alcohol from birth. (In most cases anyway, in Alcoholism, unlike Homosexuality, there is plausibility that because one or both of the parents were alcoholics there may be chemicle imbalances in a person's brain chemistry that COULD lead to higher susceptibility of alcoholism. In homosexuality, this is not the case, so it cannot be argued.)

I do not believe God made us with these tendencies, or indeed any homosexual today. I DO believe he creates people with a stronger sex drive. Or other related traits. And as you all know, a good thing pointed in the wrong direction creates alot of sin. So I believe that Homosexuality is more of a temptation then a 'tendency' A homosexual person, for one reason or another, succumbs to this temptation. I think its reasonable to assume that this is not God's fault.

Now before you go striking me down about not being solely scientific. I am not trying to be. [i]I'm trying to reason[/i], which does not mean I consider Science alone. I considered brain chemistry. (scientifically speaking, if there is going to be a natural tendency in a person to be homosexual, its likely to be there). Homosexuality cannot be transfered from parent to child, while Alcoholism, in some cases, can. (Ironically, in other cases, a child who comes from an alcoholic family line can either be alcoholic and extremely susceptible to alcohol, or develope a tolerence for it usually reserved for Irish Dock Workers), So I rule that out. Then I reason the obviousness that the Bible condemns homosexual practice, (Practice dang it, do not respond here telling me i'm condemning the homosexuals themselves. If I had a penny for every time...), so it makes no logical sense that God would create 'tendencies' in a, by now, Homosexual person that he or she was likely to become a homosexual, when He Himself has called homosexual practice abomination.

So in Conclusion, I believe that Homosexuality is a choice, more of a temptation really, a lifestyle. I do not buy into the born gay crud, the tendency arguement, more or less, is compromising with the born gay arguement.

At the topic on hand, I would still condemn homosexuality but still treat homosexuals themselves the same as I would any other person. I'd do the same for anyone else. For example, I despise Communism, but if say, a Communist and a Homosexual was in the que to see the doctor with me, and the Communist asked me for a cigarette, I'd give it to him, if the homosexual asked me for a light I'd give it to them. Hating an idea is not the same as hating a person. Altough the line tends to blur sometimes. Also, for the record, I have two Bi Friends, one's an Athiest, the other's simple Bi-Curious semi-Agnostic, Ex-Catholic. So you can't say I have no experience communicating with people of these sexualities.

Edited June 28, 2008 by Galloglasses

[corban711]

there will never be a valid reason to berate or mistreat a person suffering from same-sex attraction. and there really is no excuse to do so. we have the same responsibility to love and treat them with dignity and respect as we do with anyone else.


btw...i do agree that there is some misunderstandings on both sides about what really is mistreatment...like the example given above where they said that one person will say that homosexuals can't get married and the homosexual person replies..why do you hate us? that can be true at times. however, seeing how people with same sex attraction are talked about by people at church or witnessing mistreatment/jokes at work...it is very sad to see that many people with ssa are very poorly treated because of that. we are called to love

[Kirisutodo333]

So...are we talking about SSA or Homosexuals (those who practice homosexuality)?

This topic seems to get confused a lot of times with one or the other.

More people than you know actually have SSA (this by the way does not mean that they cannot function as heterosexuals). Some people who have SSA can also be attracted to the opposite sex. SSA is a very broad scope.

Homosexuals are people who act out on their SSA and choose to live the homosexual lifestyle. They should be loved and respected by the Christian person...they as a person should be treated with neighborly love...but their lifestyle should be condemned in all ways.

Homosexuality deals with engaging with homosexual acts and living the homosexual lifestyle and of course this "lifestyle" should be condemned in every possible way. The "lifestyle" not the "person" should be condemned by the Christian.

Unfortunately, every homosexual person that I have ever come across see it as a grave insult to have their lifestyle condemned and treat it as a personal attack on their character. We try to keep it separated. They don't.

Paz

Kiris

[Kirisutodo333]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1585309' date='Jun 27 2008, 10:07 PM']My post will be short and sweet.
It looks to me like:
Any person can have homosexual 'tendencies'.
This doesn't make them a bad person.
They are wrong, however, if they act on it.
Ergo, one could say that homosexual 'tendencies' are really just another particular, especially challenging vocation to the single life.

I wonder how many practicing, orthodox Catholics have these 'tendencies'...? It seems to me that as long as they don't act on it, they have every bit as much of a chance as being moral as anyone else does.[/quote]

I wonder what these tendencies encapsulate? Are they urges? Are they impulses? Are they thoughts of sexual acts? We can bring this into moral theology and ask whether the mere urge or thought of same sex is morally wrong. It's one thing to act on an action, but one can argue that is morally wrong to have the thought of the action. It's a complicated and gray area.

Paz

Kiris

[XIX]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1585061' date='Jun 27 2008, 06:05 PM']the solution is to NOT CALL THEM HOMOSEXUALS. It is a terrible injustice that a certain group of people in our society has been labelled with such a narrowminded term in and of itself. There are two categories of humans in our society: males and females.[/quote]
So am I degrading myself if I call myself a distance runner? Or if a drug addict calls himself an addict? Or if a woman calls herself a wife? Or a sister? Or a conservative? Should people stop calling themselves "accountants" because it's a terrible injustice that a certain group of people is labeled with such a narrow minded term?

What if I call myself an American? A caucasian? A libertarian? A Phatmasser?

Why is "homosexual" the only adjective that people expect others not to identify themselves as?

[Galloglasses]

Because it isn't PC. =U

[Adrestia]

[quote name='Kirisutodo333' post='1585624' date='Jun 28 2008, 12:25 PM']Unfortunately, every homosexual person that I have ever come across see it as a grave insult to have their lifestyle condemned and treat it as a personal attack on their character. We try to keep it separated. They don't.[/quote]"We" meaning you? "They" meaning the gay people you encounter? Maybe your approach puts them on the defensive.

That has not been my experience. I have many gay friends who know exactly how I feel about their lifestyle choice. They respect me while disagreeing with my beliefs. I respect them while disagreeing with their beliefs. My Catholicism is not ever hidden around them or their other gay friends, yet they keep inviting me over.

[Aloysius]

the term "homosexual" is a very problematic way of identifying someone. so is the term "heterosexual" for that matter. I realize my post was ridiculously long, but there's a big reason as to why using that term as an identification is terrible. on the sexuality side of things, you are either male or you are female.

and no, it's not about political correctness. in fact, my ridiculously long post on why they shouldn't be called homosexuals is probably one of the most politically incorrect things you'd ever hear.

if you can't see the clear difference between this terminology used to identify people and the other ones you listed, I don't know what to say... but it's really clear to me. one identifies a person based upon sexual fetishes, while others merely describe certain aspects of them. and you better believe it's an identity problem and no one should base their identity off of it.

[Galloglasses]

By certain characteristics, you mean people who are described as Metrosexuals? (Straight People who really seem Homosexual at first, but aren't)

Edited June 28, 2008 by Galloglasses

[JustJ]

[quote name='jmjtina' post='1585034' date='Jun 27 2008, 04:12 PM']Are you implying that it is genetic?[/quote]
I wouldn't necessarily say it's genetic, but I'd definitely say it's not a choice.
[quote name='Galloglasses' post='1585566' date='Jun 28 2008, 11:54 AM']Some people here believe that Homosexuals are born with 'homosexual Tendencies' Others believe that is wrong because it means that God is creating a person who is more likely to commit a sin that is labelled abomination by Scripture. Thats were this Defect controversy is coming into play.[/quote]
I was pretty qwerty when I was 3, for the record.

I love how some of these definitions can have straight guys be homosexuals.

[Veridicus]

It seems like this topic has been beaten to death again and again and again. Christians are called to be charitable to everyone at all times. Sometimes during discussion semantics leads individuals to respond in ways that are uncharitable which is regrettable.

Calling SSA a 'defect' is probably not the best term to use. It [i]is [/i]definitely disordered. As many people in this thread have mentioned, ALL of us suffer from spiritual/emotional/sexual/chemical/biological disorders of some sort. It is part of sharing a broken human nature. God does not 'make us bad' because that would be against His nature. My understanding is that we are created in the image and likeness of God but because our bodies exist in a broken, fallen world we acquire our 'defects' or 'disorders' (through Original Sin). Sometimes at birth, sometimes in development, sometimes in childhood, sometimes in adulthood. This is something inherent to living in a broken world; we are created good but are stained by bad. Trying to separate SSA from this general understanding of 'why we're bad' is simply illogical. There is no reason to separate any other disorder from this logic in my opinion; Does God make people with spina bifida? Does God make people with schitzophrenia? Does God make people with Type I Diabetes? Does God make people with phenylketonuria? Answering any of these questions affirmitively contradicts His nature. We are created good, but we are stained by bad...God allows bad to happen, He doesn't will or cause it. SSA should be recognized in the same manner.

With regard to SSA having genetic basis, someone has already mentioned that geneticists and scientists have doubts that there exists a 'gay gene.' I echo their sentiment; as I have explained in other threads at Phatmass (I just graduated w/ my Biology Degree btw and will be starting medical school in about a month), gene persistence in a population of organisms implies a reproductive advantage of some sort. I.E. bigger chimps gather more food and therefore have more energy to devote to mating and so have more offspring. If chimps get too big then their food requirements would be too great to sustain themselves and they would no longer have the energy available to devote to breeding. Regardless of the selective pressure, however, there needs to be a reproductive advantage either way. If there existed a strictly 'SSA gene' then those individuals would have a very profound reproductive DISADVANTAGE because their sexual energies would be wasted in the sense that their act would produce no offspring to carry their 'SSA gene' to the next generation and so forth. It just doesn't make genetic sense in my honest opinion (and I've completed several genetics courses). People may argue about allelic drift, etc., but the reality is that we are finding that many even genetic-based diseases often have many epigenetic factors that result in disease.

In my humble opinion, I would say that the same 'genetics' that makes a heterosexual straight are what make a homosexual gay. There IS a genetic basis for forming sexual attractions and developing sexual impulses...these attractions and impulses ensure that individuals engage in sexual activity which in turn ensures offspring with the persistence of genes in the population for that individual (speaking from a completely biological perspective of course). My guess is that people with SSA develop a disordered sexual attraction sometime between birth and around age 5 or so. So by the time they are 8 or 9 or 10 and have their earliest attractions to other children, they pretty much have ALWAYS felt SSA and so they may as well have been 'born gay.' I refuse to believe that they pop out of the womb with SSA though. By my own logic I am forced to admit that I don't think anyone is 'born with a sexual preference.' That is not to say that heterosexuality isn't the proper development by biological, philosophical, and spiritual standards, however. Sexual attraction is something that develops upon the genetic and chemical basis pre-extant in us during early development. Like the rest of our personality and behaviors.

I am really trying to be charitable but honest and forthright with my opinions. Sorry if I stepped on any toes.

Peace,

Todd W.

Edited June 29, 2008 by Veridicus

[Kirisutodo333]

[quote name='Veridicus' post='1585896' date='Jun 28 2008, 10:35 PM']It seems like this topic has been beaten to death again and again and again. Christians are called to be charitable to everyone at all times. Sometimes during discussion semantics leads individuals to respond in ways that are uncharitable which is regrettable.

Calling SSA a 'defect' is probably not the best term to use. It [i]is [/i]definitely disordered. As many people in this thread have mentioned, ALL of us suffer from spiritual/emotional/sexual/chemical/biological disorders of some sort. It is part of sharing a broken human nature. God does not 'make us bad' because that would be against His nature. My understanding is that we are created in the image and likeness of God but because our bodies exist in a broken, fallen world we acquire our 'defects' or 'disorders' (through Original Sin). Sometimes at birth, sometimes in development, sometimes in childhood, sometimes in adulthood. This is something inherent to living in a broken world; we are created good but are stained by bad. Trying to separate SSA from this general understanding of 'why we're bad' is simply illogical. There is no reason to separate any other disorder from this logic in my opinion; Does God make people with spina bifida? Does God make people with schitzophrenia? Does God make people with Type I Diabetes? Does God make people with phenylketonuria? Answering any of these questions affirmitively contradicts His nature. We are created good, but we are stained by bad...God allows bad to happen, He doesn't will or cause it. SSA should be recognized in the same manner.

With regard to SSA having genetic basis, someone has already mentioned that geneticists and scientists have doubts that there exists a 'gay gene.' I echo their sentiment; as I have explained in other threads at Phatmass (I just graduated w/ my Biology Degree btw and will be starting medical school in about a month), gene persistence in a population of organisms implies a reproductive advantage of some sort. I.E. bigger chimps gather more food and therefore have more energy to devote to mating and so have more offspring. If chimps get too big then their food requirements would be too great to sustain themselves and they would no longer have the energy available to devote to breeding. Regardless of the selective pressure, however, there needs to be a reproductive advantage either way. If there existed a strictly 'SSA gene' then those individuals would have a very profound reproductive DISADVANTAGE because their sexual energies would be wasted in the sense that their act would produce no offspring to carry their 'SSA gene' to the next generation and so forth. It just doesn't make genetic sense in my honest opinion (and I've completed several genetics courses). People may argue about allelic drift, etc., but the reality is that we are finding that many even genetic-based diseases often have many epigenetic factors that result in disease.

In my humble opinion, I would say that the same 'genetics' that makes a heterosexual straight are what make a homosexual gay. [b]There IS a genetic basis for forming sexual attractions and developing sexual impulses...these attractions and impulses ensure that individuals engage in sexual activity which in turn ensures offspring with the persistence of genes in the population for that individual (speaking from a completely biological perspective of course). [/b] My guess is that people with SSA develop a disordered sexual attraction sometime between birth and around age 5 or so. So by the time they are 8 or 9 or 10 and have their earliest attractions to other children, they pretty much have ALWAYS felt SSA and so they may as well have been 'born gay.' I refuse to believe that they pop out of the womb with SSA though. By my own logic I am forced to admit that I don't think anyone is 'born with a sexual preference.' That is not to say that heterosexuality isn't the proper development by biological, philosophical, and spiritual standards, however. Sexual attraction is something that develops upon the genetic and chemical basis pre-extant in us during early development. Like the rest of our personality and behaviors.

I am really trying to be charitable but honest and forthright with my opinions. Sorry if I stepped on any toes.

Peace,

Todd W.[/quote]

This kind of stuff (in bold) is what scares me the most. There always has to be some scientific explanation to everything. Oh no! Being gay is really something that happens in your brain. What about believing in God? Is that something that is just genetically bred in us? You do realize that there are present experiments in the scientific world to prove that people with a certain gene have a disposition to believing in a higher power. Oh yes, with science, everything can be solved, including that nonsensical idea of a supernatural deity. First comes the homosexual gene, then the religious one. There always has to be some type of scientific explanation and this is sad. For the people who live homosexual lifestyles I would like to say "man up" to your sins and stop blaming them on a gene. "Oh I was born this way, it's okay!" What about the person who is born with a disposition for molesting young girls. Is that okay? Will it be okay if they find a gene that is responsible for child molestation?

[Kirisutodo333]

[quote]"We" meaning you? "They" meaning the gay people you encounter? Maybe your approach puts them on the defensive.[/quote]

Right. I forgot. I am the only one feeling like this.

Nope. My approaches are fine. Don't you think I took that into consideration?

[quote]That has not been my experience. I have many gay friends who know exactly how I feel about their lifestyle choice. They respect me while disagreeing with my beliefs. I respect them while disagreeing with their beliefs. My Catholicism is not ever hidden around them or their other gay friends, yet they keep inviting me over.[/quote]

What a wonderful and peachy relationship you have with your gay friends. I commend you for that. By the way you talk it seems like the majority of the gays in the world are just so happily satisfied with Christians.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='Kirisutodo333' post='1586599' date='Jun 29 2008, 05:26 PM']This kind of stuff (in bold) is what scares me the most. There always has to be some scientific explanation to everything. Oh no! Being gay is really something that happens in your brain. What about believing in God? Is that something that is just genetically bred in us? You do realize that there are present experiments in the scientific world to prove that people with a certain gene have a disposition to believing in a higher power. Oh yes, with science, everything can be solved, including that nonsensical idea of a supernatural deity. First comes the homosexual gene, then the religious one. There always has to be some type of scientific explanation and this is sad. For the people who live homosexual lifestyles I would like to say "man up" to your sins and stop blaming them on a gene. "Oh I was born this way, it's okay!" What about the person who is born with a disposition for molesting young girls. Is that okay? Will it be okay if they find a gene that is responsible for child molestation?[/quote]


Please re-read my post in its entirety. I have this hazy suspicion that you have completely mis-taken my point... What you bolded is not scary. I simply said there is a biological basis for the CAPACITY to form sexuality in general. As in we are sexual beings...hence we have genitalia and sex hormones coursing through our blood. Plus I am not saying that there "always has to be a scientific explanation to everything." If you look up my other posts on phatmass you'll very clearly observe my views on the modern scientific perspective... I was just offering another point of view.

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=81762&st=100&start=100"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s...0&start=100[/url]

Edited June 29, 2008 by Veridicus