Thread: Gay Marriages/Life

No need to apologise... my Spanish is unintellible

Originally Posted by Zootalaws

I agree - with all of your post.

Actually, I think it's the other way around.

And I would hazard a guess most the Bishops in the Vatican are led to believe homosexuality is genetically inherited.

Homosexuality

Homosexuality

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Simplified
« prev : next »
Catholic Tradition (2357)

Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience sexual attraction to others of the same sex. Although homosexuality has taken many forms, its psychological source remains largely unexplained. Catholic Tradition (based on biblical texts) has always taught that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered" (Congregation for Doctrine of Faith). They are against the natural law, are closed to the gift of life, and do not proceed from a genuine sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
Called to Chastity (2358-2359)

The number of persons with homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They did not choose their condition and they must be accepted with respect. All unjust discrimination must be avoided. They are called to do God's will and to unite their sacrifices to the Lord's sacrifice on the cross.

Homosexual persons are called to chastity and to a self-mastery to gain inner freedom. If supported by disinterested friendship, prayer, and the sacraments they can approach Christian perfection.

The underlined italics my emphasis.

It has been argued in this thread that religion merely teaches homosexuals have a choice in being homosexuals. The published teachings of the Catholic Church contradict that.

The Catholic Church for example, does not teach it is wrong to be heterosexual, and the science of biology finds the issue of promiscuous males siring 10, 30, 50 or more children with several women (or young teenage girls) to be an amoral issue. However, the Catholic Church does not care if the science of biology finds biological, genetic roots, causes, or explanations for heterosexual male promiscuity. The Catholic Church maintains all males (and females) engaged in sex before marriage or engaged in adultery are guilty of sin.

Or one might look at my case with the Wisconsin girl of 17 years of age. The Catholic Church viewed it as sin. Biology viewed as an amoral issue. And the state (not the Church) tried and sentenced me to jail.

Ergo my point was and has been that there are different ways of approaching questions to life.

The question of the 24 year old guy that "cheats" on his girlfriend and impregnates 3 different women. The science of biology finds this to be an amoral issue. Political feminist moralize it. The Catholic Church moralizes it. At most the science of biology views that 24 year old guy as more "fit" than me because he sired children and I have sired none. The name of the game in biology, evolution, is the flow of genes into populations and to pass on your genes.

Don't believe me? Ask an athiest like garza.

Yet, no one is politically active to free men and women from the "tyranny" of Catholic oppression that demands men be responsible to the women they impregnate.

Originally Posted by alanmt

It is my reasoned opinion that homosexuality is moral whether inherent or a choice. It is the possible involuntary nature of it which poses a religious conundrum for fundamentalist Christians, Catholics, and Mormons, by calling into question the justness and loving nature of God and his doctrine. That is why those people argue so strenuously that it is a choice. The alternative is either that God is cruel or they are wrong, neither of which they can stomach.

Yes, I think this distills the morality problem in terms of the religious viewpoint, and it is why it is important to many religious people that homosexuality be seen as nothing more than a conscious choice. Of course, there is little reason to view is as solely a 'choice,' separated from any kind of biological imperative. I suspect that as scientific inquiry progresses, it will become more and more clear that such things are dictated by biochemistry, beginning at the genetic level.

On the subject of being born gay or becoming gay, I believe both are possible. I have always considered myself gay, and not once even thought of myself as straight. But I do know people who, especially in High School, were considered 'bi-cirous', where they were most likely straight, but willing to try out being with someone of the same sex, sort of like a phase or a fad. But of course, sometimes people who go through the phase or fad part of it end up liking it better. It could be argued that they were always gay, and society put them in a straight mindset, then they explored and found their true nature. Or they could have been straight and eventually found being bi/curious a more interesting path.

Where being gay is something that could be considered genetic, becoming gay may be either a supressed genetic thing, or it may be a pyschological thing, where the person may have convinced themselves, be it subconscious or not, to be gay or bi, because they find it a more interesting lifestyle, maybe some fetish, maybe many other things. To say it is either one or the other, to me, denotes a somewhat closed mindedness. It is quite plausibly both.

Meh. Give it time.

Originally Posted by Writ-with-Hand

Actually, I think it's the other way around.

I don't know why you are writing that in response to my post - it was neither to you nor do you actually reference anything I did post - but nice work.

I suggest you address it to Steerpike, who is undoubtably the intended recipient, I am done with your babble.

Originally Posted by Niklas

On the subject of being born gay or becoming gay, I believe both are possible. I have always considered myself gay, and not once even thought of myself as straight. But I do know people who, especially in High School, were considered 'bi-cirous'

I consider myself bike-curious. I really want to ride an MV Agusta F4... sigh...

as a french speaker I have to say that I find the made word bi-curious as strange.
I grew up with the word curious as someone wanting to learn and see new things but never of a sexual nature so when I first heard it I thought it was weird.
I never equated curiosity with sex but with things.
in the same breath I personally do not believe tha humans are curious about sex because it is what it is, where is the curiosity in that? but more like you are born with the tendency to go both ways meaning be attracted to both man and women.
I think that people are born with that gene of either being straight, both or whatever.

Originally Posted by Nacian

I think that people are born with that gene of either being straight, both or whatever.

May well be too complex to be a single gene. What you often have is the interplay of a number of genes involved in complex traits. Men and women have genetic differences that impact hormone production, brain chemistry, and other traits relating to sexuality. But of course genetically we're much more alike than dissimilar, and in many cases it comes down to what genes are turned on, when they are turned on, &c. So it makes sense to me that you'd see a spectrum because gene expression and biochemistry is going to vary among individuals. That would explain purely heterosexual individuals on either end of the spectrum, and biosexual individuals somewhere in between in terms of their biochemistry.

Sorry, Nacian. I don;t know where I got the idea you were a native Spanish-language speaker. Pardonne-moi. (no comments about my accent will be entertained!!!)

Originally Posted by Zootalaws

I don't know why you are writing that in response to my post - it was neither to you nor do you actually reference anything I did post - but nice work.

I suggest you address it to Steerpike, who is undoubtably the intended recipient, I am done with your babble.

You know why I was writing it to you. And both you and Steerpike were proven wrong by the published teachings of the Catholic Church.

Contrary to what you and Steerpike think I have little religious investment in the issue of homosexuality. If I could break my views up on this issue of homosexuality in this thread I would probably figure it roughly 50% honestly not finding any scientific genetic causes persuasive. About 40% is my caution not to stray into biological determinism which I have a poor view of. About 10% might be a mix of religious influence and other things (some anecdotal).

You and Steerpike - like many today that read and listen to media reports - tend to have a mid 20th century biological determinist view.




Science tends to stray from speaking of absolutes especially outside of scientific laws. Most the non-scientific community also frequently mistake hypothesis for scientific theory. It has been "theorized" that lesbianism (genetic inheritance, passing those genes on in a population) is easier to explain (due to the theory of evolution) because lesbians can be raped. Therefore, it was reasoned, lesbians would be more prevalent than male homosexuals. Most would think this a scientific theory but really it was more an hypothesis. The problem is... according to some statistical study done, male homosexuality occurs at a far higher rate than lesbianism. So, it does not help that hypothesis.

I was taught in biology that the biology student or scientist should always phrase things like, "It is likely..." or "It is unlikely..." and not to speak of what is fact when something has yet been proven. In other words... do not claim your hypothesis or that of another is fact.

Ergo... I have tried to entertain the possibility (through my diction and statements) that homosexuality is genetically inherited. I highly doubt it but I acknowledge the possibility. On the other hand you and Steerpike both speak of homosexuality being genetically inherited as fact, furthermore, you two misrepresent the position of your religious opposition.


I'll post excerpts from a philosophy of biology book I have authored by Ph.D.'s more learned than I am. It will help provide some insight where I come from (note: I have engaged in homosexual behavior, male prostitution, for crack cocaine, ergo I speak as no saint or religious zealot of the Catholic Church but seek to understand the position they come from, as well as that of biology)

p.4

Biology cannot settle ethical issues because it speaks to matters of fact, not value. According to this view, inferences from purely factual claims to moral ones commit the naturalistic fallacy.

...early in the twentieth century, morality was connected to evolution via the supposed need to maintain the evolutionary pressures that have adapted humans to their environment. The result was a case for eugenics -- policies intended to maintain or improve human fitness through selective breeding. The eugenicists put forward purely biological claims about the effects of the relaxation of natural selection on humans in technologically advanced societies. These claims were supposedly, in themselves, factual. But conjoined with standard moral ideas about the importance of human welfare, the resulting eugenic case seemed compelling to people of every moral persuasion, from socialists to liberal capitalists to fascists. Before the Second World War almost every advanced society had made some legal provisions for eugenics (Kevles 1986). Only its enthusiastic adoption by the Nazis brought eugenics into disrepute.

All the way into the 1970's I believe, some Southern U.S. states were still forcibly sterilizing U.S. women (court ordered) deemed "feeble minded" so as to not bear children (a child inherits half its genes from each parent) and produce more feeble minded people. Liberals around the world scoffed at the Catholic Church and mocked it superstitious and backwards because it lobbied against forced sterilization.


p. 98 Homosexality

So it is universally accepted that all biological traits develop as a result of the interaction of genetic and nongenetic factors. But perhaps some traits depend more on genes and less on the environment. It is now common to read that homosexuality, for example, is "substantially genetic," or that schizophrenia may be "partly genetic." Often actual figures are cited. One study might suggest that homosexuality is 30% genetic, another that schizophrenia is 10% genetic. These figures are produced by a statistical technique called analysis of variance or ANOVA. To perform an analysis of variance, we need a population of individuals that differ with respects to the trait will also differ with respect to some genes. The more often this is true, the more of the variance in the trait can be correlated with that variation in the genes. If every individual with the trait has certain genes and every individual without the trait lacks those genes, then the proportion of the variance accounted for by those genes is 100% If possession of the trait is random with respect to possession of those genes, the the proportion of variance accounted for by those genes is 0%

In many people's minds, the discovery that a trait is "substantially genetic" means that it is substantially genetically determined. The more "genes for" complex human behaviors are reported in the media, the more genetic determinism seems true. But this interpretation is simply wrong. Measuring the amount of variance accounted for by genetic factors does not measure the degree to which a trait is genetically caused or genetically determined....

One well-known example that illustrates this distinction is the disorder called phenylketonuria (PKU), which causes mental retardation... Under standard conditions, possession of the PKU mutation accounts for 100% of the variance between those who suffer PKU retardation and those who do not. However, PKU can be effectively treated by feeding people with the PKU mutation a special diet low in phenylalanine

1. Whether or not transsexualism is a "sin" or "weird" it is easier than homosexuality to surmise as likely a psychological issue (one would have to take some courses on evolution to understand why I say that). And "feeling like a woman" may pass in religious mystical rhetoric but does not cut it in the sciences.

2. No one has stated it but before they do let me point out the theory of evolution is not about "The species improving, and only passing on desirable traits." You can artificially select for traits and it is done in agriculture all the time. The Nazi's and Americans and Brits attempted the same to varying degrees through the eugenics movement.

3. Religion can accept and teach the heritability of homosexuality and still maintain it a sinful "lifestyle." One can reject the notion of its heritability and promote homosexuality as a morally neutral behavior. And it can be proven one day that homosexuality is genetically inherited and not many years afterward artifical selection (e.g., abortion) become a widespread practice discriminating against those carrying "gay genes." And the phenomenon in India of aborting girl children only evidences human societies can practice selection of this sort.

4. When it comes to transsexuals I really don't care if they get married. Marriages to women or men recognized by law. My only beef is with the inevitable whining by liberal women to come. They do this with the biological disposition of men to favor female beauty, complaining about turning women into sex objects, yet find the Muslim scarf for women, and modesty of dress promoted with in the Islam world, to be oppressive. Basically, they demand men change their biological wiring. Restrain themselves in a way they would not ask of homosexual males or "shemales." Furthermore, they are condescending towards heterosexual males that vow celibacy - deriding it as "unnatural" - as opposed to "shemales" altering their bodies in ways as severe as Michael Jackson or the whitening of Sammy Sosa.


Source: Sex and Death: An Introduction to Philosophy of Biology by Kim Sterelny and Paul E. Griffiths, copyrighted 1999.

Amazon.com: Sex and Death: An Introduction to Philosophy of Biology (Science and Its Conceptual Foundations series) (9780226773049): Kim Sterelny, Paul E. Griffiths: Books

Originally Posted by Writ-with-Hand

You know why I was writing it to you.

Actually, I don't. I also don't understand how you could misinterpret "I am done with your babble."

Because the west is predominantly ruled by christianity, and separation or religion and state is nothing more than a thinly veiled illusion that everyone can see past but the majority is prefectly contempt with, a so called numbers tyrany.

Originally Posted by Zootalaws

Sorry, Nacian. I don;t know where I got the idea you were a native Spanish-language speaker. Pardonne-moi. (no comments about my accent will be entertained!!!)

not to worry I speak spanish to as I lived and worked in Spain for a couple of years so you were not too far out.