Dilemma of Being ****sexual

[IncitingRiots]

What, you think people choose to be gay or straight?

[Trinity]

Originally Posted by IncitingRiots

What, you think people choose to be gay or straight?

This is a cultural question. People raised in a Judeo-Christian context are juggling with this notion of choosing. However, in the pagan Roman Empire it was a question of preference. They were not choosing. There was no abnormality for the romans, and even for the greeks. And no guilt.

We are our culture.

Trinity

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by IncitingRiots

What, you think people choose to be gay or straight?

I am just asking for your evidence. What differences are there in physical make-up at the time of birth? Can you verify evidence that will tell the parents that their child is gay? It is for the most part, ***umed by most parents that the child is normal and hence born a female or male will be heterosexual, and is treated in such a manner. If you can pinpoint evidence that a child is going to be gay, the parents should rearrange the child's clothing fashion, room appearance, and such to make them lead a healthy gay lifestyle. As is, no such evidence has been provided by you that children are born gay.

Until such time, I view the propensity of the gay lifestyle to be one where their psyche has been injured or neglected, and in some cases... undisciplined or overly disciplined. I base this on my own experience being molested by another guy and my going to Alternatives, a sister ministry located in San Diego based off of Exodus International that extends its ministry to people within dysfunctional families. I believe Catholic Courage also bases their ministry to the ****sexual with a similiar approach.

[IncitingRiots]

If you are asking for evidence of a gay gene, none exists. That doesn't mean, however, that no evidence will be found. The fact remains that most people who are gay are born that way all of my gay friends have told me that they didn't choose to be gay, nor was there any molestation or anything else in their life that made them gay. It was simply the way they were born.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by IncitingRiots

If you are asking for evidence of a gay gene, none exists. That doesn't mean, however, that no evidence will be found. The fact remains that most people who are gay are born that way all of my gay friends have told me that they didn't choose to be gay, nor was there any molestation or anything else in their life that made them gay. It was simply the way they were born.

Indeed. No gay gene has been found. Neither has a "straight gene" been found.

Nonetheless, the evidence still points to at least some genetic component involved in determining sexual preference and identification.

The old Nature vs. Nurture argument...I don't find it particularly useful - the fact is that according to all the evidence, at least for some people, sexual orientation appears to be at least partly innate.

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by asdf

Indeed. No gay gene has been found. Neither has a "straight gene" been found.

Nonetheless, the evidence still points to at least some genetic component involved in determining sexual preference and identification.

The old Nature vs. Nurture argument...I don't find it particularly useful - the fact is that according to all the evidence, at least for some people, sexual orientation appears to be at least partly innate.

Asdf, please produce such evidence rather than ***uming it is fact.

Inciting Riots, molestation is one of the ways, but not the only way that ****sexuality is introduced. There are many aspects that in most cases is a gradual raping or wearing down of the conscience, most of it is related to what parents teach or teach too much, or provide a gap by an absense of teaching. Television is one medium where we are taught that ****sexuality is acceptable. Parents who are abusive or overly strict provide a natural reaction and rebellion. Or parents are complacent and themselves teach that they are alright with it. In many cases, I would say that the living examples of the parents in their private lives is full of hypocricy, which most families may not share with their friends. Also, it is a natural tendency for people who go through trauma to suppress the event. I would not take such experience and sayings so lightly at face value; the human psyche is quite complex.

[IncitingRiots]

Wow you took alot of time to essentially say nothing at all.

I was raised to believe that ****sexuality is acceptable, yet I didn't turn out gay. I spent quite a bit of time around gay family members, yet I didn't turn out gay. I watched alot of television, yet I didn't turn out gay. Maybe the reason I am straight is because I was "molested" by a 14 y/o female baby sitter when I was 10. I put molested in quotes because even though that is how society would view it, I remember enjoying my time with that girl.

Maybe the reason I am not gay is because I wasn't born that way.

[Columcille]

Well, it explains a lot to me what you just relayed. You'll get a lot of self-praise from people who think like you, but on a board like this... I think you just ruined your credibility. I tell you what... you are motivating me enough to do some serous prayer for you.

[IncitingRiots]

Originally Posted by Columcille

Well, it explains a lot to me what you just relayed. You'll get a lot of self-praise from people who think like you, but on a board like this... I think you just ruined your credibility. I tell you what... you are motivating me enough to do some serous prayer for you.

Well, then I guess it is a good thing that I don't care whether or not you think I am credible. Pray all you want, you will only be wasting your time.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by Columcille

Asdf, please produce such evidence rather than ***uming it is fact.

You have just as much access to the evidence as I do.

There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. The main reasons cited include genetic and environmental factors, likely in combination.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has stated that "sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences".

The American Psychological ***ociation has stated that "there are probably many reasons for a person's sexual orientation and the reasons may be different for different people". It stated that, for most people, sexual orientation is determined at an early age.

The American Psychiatric ***ociation has stated that, "to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for ****sexuality. Similarly, no specific psychosocial or family dynamic cause for ****sexuality has been identified, including histories of childhood sexual abuse".
-Wikipedia (sources there)

From there, also see the evidence for Environmental (nurture) and Biology (nature).

[Columcille]

Asdf,
the quotes you gave only substantiate their lack of evidence. I have a bible and Tradition, and in terms of experience with an affiliate of Exodus International, and in terms of a rationale ideal and experience that is shared in the purpose of reproductive organs... I should say that a workable quadrilateral exists that God is against ****sexuality.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by Columcille

Asdf,
the quotes you gave only substantiate their lack of evidence. I have a bible and Tradition, and in terms of experience with an affiliate of Exodus International, and in terms of a rationale ideal and experience that is shared in the purpose of reproductive organs... I should say that a workable quadrilateral exists that God is against ****sexuality.

We weren't talking about whether "God is against" ****sexuality - don't change the subject on us here. We were discussing the factors which determine sexual orientation.

If you want to pull the Scripture card, you could cite Romans 1 and convincingly say that the cause of ****sexuality is idolatry. (Of course, that hypothesis is pretty untenable, given the mul***ude of people who realize they are gay long before they have any opportunity to explicitly reject God.)

I have a lot of respect for the fact that Exodus worked for you. However, you're an absolute outlier. The scientific consensus is that reparative therapy is potentially harmful, and its efficacy has not been proved.

[Columcille]

The going success rate of alcohol rehabilitation is not that great either, yet that doesn't stop the court from making it mandatory does it now?

If you view ****sexuality as an addiction of a thwarted fleshly state, it is a real addiction like alcoholism. Gambling, lust, and drug abuse are perhaps the biggies. Gambling's anonymous, Sex anonymous, and NA and AA spell out serious addictions. BTW, did you watch the interview with the serial killer, Ted Bundy with James Dobson? You can watch it online. http://www.focusonthefamily.com/popu...AMILYTYPE=null

[asdf]

Originally Posted by Columcille

The going success rate of alcohol rehabilitation is not that great either, yet that doesn't stop the court from making it mandatory does it now?

Well played. And of course my next move is to point out that no medical organization regards ****sexuality as a mental disorder, and that treating it as such is potentially harmful.

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by asdf

Well played. And of course my next move is to point out that no medical organization regards ****sexuality as a mental disorder, and that treating it as such is potentially harmful.

As far as I recall, medical organizations haven't advanced in finding the root cause of ****sexuality... specifically identifying it with genetics. It has always been considered a disorder up until 1973, and then it was removed not because of medical research, but by political pressure--don't you love the free love uninhibited sexual revolution of the 60s? When medicine is ruled by politics rather than science, it just goes to show you that tolerance leads to condoning and condoning into acceptable practice. The only people who say it is potentially harmful are themselves that condone such practices. I do not see this applied to the alcoholic or the gambler, simply because the effects of their addiction are more severe to those around them.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by Columcille

As far as I recall, medical organizations haven't advanced in finding the root cause of ****sexuality... specifically identifying it with genetics.

We talked about that above: "There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. The main reasons cited include genetic and environmental factors, likely in combination."

It has always been considered a disorder up until 1973, and then it was removed not because of medical research, but by political pressure--don't you love the free love uninhibited sexual revolution of the 60s?

What evidence do you have that politics and "the free love uninhibited sexual revolution of the 60s" are to blame for the removal of ****sexuality as a mental disorder from DSM-II?

The only people who say it is potentially harmful are themselves that condone such practices.

Where "it" in this sentence, based on the previous post, is "treating ****sexuality as a mental illness".

Sorry, this view is not compatible with modern science or the experience of the gay and lesbian people I know.

I do not see this applied to the alcoholic or the gambler, simply because the effects of their addiction are more severe to those around them.

Indeed - because ****sexuality is not an addiction. It's an inclination.

[Columcille]

look under "mental" in the ****sexual wikipedia entry. It discusses it being removed in 1973 because political activism. This you will read in the DSM link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnos...al_orientation

PS, if modern science has located a gene identifying ****sexuals, let me know... otherwise, it means absolutely nothing to call it modern.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by Columcille

look under "mental" in the ****sexual wikipedia entry. It discusses it being removed in 1973 because political activism. This you will read in the DSM link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnos...al_orientation

Thanks for the link. That apparently means something different to you than it does to me. I see protests "as well as the emergence of new data from researchers" - not, as you said, "it was removed not because of medical research, but by political pressure".

PS, if modern science has located a gene identifying ****sexuals, let me know... otherwise, it means absolutely nothing to call it modern.

Likewise, let me know when science finds the gene that identifies heterosexuals. Or the gene that identifies vegetarians. Or the gene that identifies Republicans. Or the gene that identifies Catholics.

[Trinity]

Originally Posted by asdf

Likewise, let me know when science finds the gene that identifies heterosexuals. Or the gene that identifies vegetarians. Or the gene that identifies Republicans. Or the gene that identifies Catholics.

Scientists know nothing about the genes that make a small minority of the population left-handed. Rather, people self-report that they do not choose to be left-handed or right-handed.

I am an heterosexual left-handed.

Trinity

[asdf]

Originally Posted by Trinity

Scientists know nothing about the genes that make a small minority of the population left-handed. Rather, people self-report that they do not choose to be left-handed or right-handed.

I am an heterosexual left-handed.

Trinity

That's another great example. Thanks, Trinity!

I'm in the majority on both counts: I'm a heterosexual righty.

[Trinity]

Originally Posted by asdf

That's another great example. Thanks, Trinity!

I'm in the majority on both counts: I'm a heterosexual righty.

The brain is a very mysterious organ, and this organ has not revealed his secrets yet. We know practically nothing on how the brain is working.

Trinity

[Columcille]

Precisely Trinity. Now, let us see you come out as a Catholic endorsing ****sexual acts as a viable Catholic lifestyle.

Apparently, asdf seems to be getting different vib from you than from me in regards to ****sexuality as a healthy lifestyle to be approved by the Christian community. However, I know when I was becoming Catholic that yourself along with many other Catholic posters here have a distain for "Cafeteria Catholicism." Picking and choosing what is politically expediant rather than relying on the authority of Scipture and Tradition. Right now, although you claim to be Catholic and speak it truthfully, I question your priorities. It is alright by me that you may view global warming as the biggest moral problem in our day and age, but I would not be rubbing elbows with the ****sexual community or those that are supportive of its lifestyle to be thrust into Church politics.

[Trinity]

Originally Posted by Columcille

Precisely Trinity. Now, let us see you come out as a Catholic endorsing ****sexual acts as a viable Catholic lifestyle.

Apparently, asdf seems to be getting different vib from you than from me in regards to ****sexuality as a healthy lifestyle to be approved by the Christian community. However, I know when I was becoming Catholic that yourself along with many other Catholic posters here have a distain for "Cafeteria Catholicism." Picking and choosing what is politically expediant rather than relying on the authority of Scipture and Tradition. Right now, although you claim to be Catholic and speak it truthfully, I question your priorities. It is alright by me that you may view global warming as the biggest moral problem in our day and age, but I would not be rubbing elbows with the ****sexual community or those that are supportive of its lifestyle to be thrust into Church politics.

I do not applaud those people who are ****sexuals, however I do not reject those who are eating pork.

I think we should look at this condition without prejudice because this condition has been always present inside our own Church (and any other churches, even with the Mormons) from all centuries.

"Benedict of Nursia, who died in 547, first gained fame as a hermit, then founded a number of monasteries at Monte C***ino and its environs. He was the man who provided the written bylaws for monks, setting the behavioral standards for monastic living. The Rules of Benedict gave him a place in history. (1.) These rules made it clear that sexual behavior, and more specifically ****sexual behavior, was a large problem in monastic life. Benedict addressed the problem head-on. A separate bed was mandated for each monk. Further, all monks were required to sleep together in one room, fully clothed and girdled, without weapons; and a light must be kept burning all night. The beds of the older members must be interspersed with those of the younger. For those monks who did experience ****sexual urges, such rules must have felt something like Chinese water torture."

(1.) The Holy Rule of St. Benedict, trans. Boniface Verbeyen (Atcheson, KS: St. Benedict’s Abbey, 1949), pp. 480–543.

Trinity

[Columcille]

Trinity, you are stating what is obvious to me. However, the goals and sentiment of Asdf are not the same as you and me on this subject... at least in regards to what Catholicism teaches on the subject. This you have to get clear in your mind.

Chapter 22:
How the Monks are to sleep

All the monks shall sleep in separate beds. All shall receive bedding, allotted by the abbot, appropriate to their environment. If possible they should all sleep in one room. However, if there are too many for this, they will be grouped in tens or twenties, a senior in charge of each group. Let a candle burn throughout the night. They will sleep in their robes, belted but with no knives, thus preventing injury inslumber. The monks then will always be prepared to rise at the signal and hurry to the Divine Office. But they must make haste with gravity and modesty. the younger brothers should not be next to each other. Rather their beds should be interspersed with those of their elders. When they arise for the Divine Office, they ought to encourage each other, for the sleepy make many excuses.
(The Rule of Saint Benedict. Trans. Anthony C. Meisel and M.L. del Mastro. New York: Doubleday. 1975. p70).

I do not have a copy of the book you mention since it was written in 1949. However, I find it very strange that a translation of the text is embedded in an introduction rather than seperate from the introduction. To me this ruins the flavor of the rule rather than complimenting it. Besides, the introduction that I read in front of mine shows that Benedict was not well liked and an attempted poisoning was thwarted. Regardless of one's own feelings, the rule as laid out by him was for the purpose of holiness. The requirements of the monastic life are never easy regardless if an individual has ****sexual attractions or otherwise. The following chapter (23) discusses "excommunication for faults." Very appropriate. Asdf would very much like to advocate ****sexuality, the Church does not. therefore, you should be against his position.

[Trinity]

Originally Posted by Columcille

Trinity, you are stating what is obvious to me. However, the goals and sentiment of Asdf are not the same as you and me on this subject... at least in regards to what Catholicism teaches on the subject. This you have to get clear in your mind

Like Catholics we obey to the teaching of the Church, but this is not an obligation for the non-catholics.

Trinity