Sickening?
- Thread starter Halldan1
- Start date
No one is rationalizing it. It was a disgrace, and hopefully will never happen again. The molesters are pathetic souls, to be sure, but I wouldn't absolve them of all outrage, either.
What is outrageous, as has been pointed out, is the usage of the word "hate," and the pleas for tolerance from the intolerant.
I was replying to shuathelete, who said, more or less, that members of the Church were supposed to be holy, but sin at the rate of the rest of us. Naturally -- we, and they, are human.
I didn't come up with the silly concept -- I was just replying to it, and probably wasting my time.
I didn't come up with the silly concept -- I was just replying to it, and probably wasting my time.
Dick, you're going to quibble with a reply I made, but you have no problem with a poster in the thread saying: "The masses are simply disregarding what theyve believed from biblical teaching because it contradicts common sense. Hold on to that rosary because the world is changing and theres absolutely nothing you can do about it."
I hope it's that the remarks were so stupid that you didn't bother to respond -- and maybe I should have just let it go; I might be the only one who responds to this clown's incessant, really clueless, garbage.
This thread was posted by Halldan from the general news media. Halldan abbreviated that article's title for his the subject line, ''Sickening?".
At its start, the thread had no mention of any church teachings or even social mores. Why did it then devolve into negative aspersions about the Catholic Church?
Early thread posters talked about Sam's draft position, the original tweet, posters' own revulsion to the ESPN use of explicit PDA, and, then, one poster personally suggested that ''men of good will must stand up and fight the gay lifestyle and not be afraid to oppose it''. No mention was made of homosexuals as people --- good or bad.
Then jcalz88 said ''How quickly we forget what our Pope is preaching.'' JCalz' implication was in error, but he, thus, indirectly introduced the Catholic Church into the thread. Until then there was nothing about religion, or mores, just personal reactions. Then Merge explicitly and patently wrongly stated that ''The pope disagrees with you.''
The Church (and the Jesuits) have always taught Catholics to love the sinner but to hate the sin---no matter what sin it is. That said, at an impromptu press conference on the flight home from World Youth Day, Pope Francis did say: ''I think like a Jesuit…..When I meet a gay person, I have to distinguish between their being gay and being part of a lobby. If they accept the Lord and have goodwill, who am I to judge them? They shouldn't be marginalized. The tendency [to homosexuality] is not the problem…they're our brothers.''
I challenge anyone to post a reputable source quoting specific words of Pope Francis in which he does not deem all extra-marital sex as mortal sin. Church teaching has, to my understanding, always focused not on feelings as sinful but on behavior, as it is permitted under the Magisterium Jesus left us; the Church --- albeit not all its members --- has ALWAYS left the ''judgment'' to God.
Merge also totally incorrectly stated that ''My point was that the pope does not believe that anyone 'must stand up and fight the gay lifestyle'....That is an extremist point of view not shared by the leader of the catholic church, and should be treated much the same way we treated the people who used to stand up and say that all men must stand up and fight against women's rights.''
The Bible, the Church and Pope Francis have always said that any and all sexual intimacy outside of holy matrimony is a mortal sin, i.e. meriting eternal punishment if not confessed and forgiven. This condemned behavior has always been 'mainstream' and not the least bit 'extremist'.
It therefore would be very unloving (i.e. un-Christian) NOT to oppose such a ''lifestyle'', as Pope Francis does. Pope Francis has emphasized the condemnation of the sin (the sexual promiscuity) not of the sinner.As to the women's rights throw-in, the Church has always been a vanguard on women's rights, not an opponent.
Gratuitiously, Merge later speciously opined that ''marriage is not a religious term. I can get married in a church but it is not recognized until I sign a license. The only step you can skip there is the religious one.'' Me thinks Merge is confused about Civil law versus Church law. There is an entire thread below which explains this in detail.
Later, in an Italian newspaper interview, the Pope also reiterated the Church's longstanding teaching that "marriage is between a man and a woman." However, he later said, "We have to look at different cases and evaluate them in their variety'. CNN then reports that in his response to the interviewer, the Pope emphasized the natural characteristic of marriage between one man and one woman, but, CNN wrote, the Pope later spoke about the obligation of the ''state to fulfill its responsibilities towards its citizens." Based merely on this, Daniel Burke of CNN Belief Blog printed: ''Pope Francis: Church could support civil unions''.
Merge later went further to try and bait yours-truly into a homophobic reaction---which will never happen --- when he stated: ''Clearly, for you to believe this to be a choice, you must be attracted to other men but decided that you would not peruse (sic) a relationship with them....Personally, I have never been sexually attracted to another man so I never had to make that 'choice'. ''
Merge's logic is clearly specious, and it hardly merits a response, but for clarity, let's deal with facts, not faulty reasoning.
The Baltimore Sun reported that in 1993, the media trumpeted the discovery of ''new evidence'' of a ''gay gene'' as a scientific breakthrough by Dean Hamer, a molecular biologist at the National Cancer Institute. But the stories and the study were an exercise in the uncritical reporting. In the 1996 book, Gender Shock, writer and lesbian woman Phyllis Burke, quoting Dr. Paul Billings, an internist and human geneticist, calls the born gay idea "a new fish story." [/URL] One of the larger pro-gay organizations Parents, Family and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG), later explained that there is no conclusive evidence that people are born gay. Ironically, what studies actually do evidence is that persons who experience same-sex attraction are not prisoners of their biology (but can) pursue other options.
It is a ''choice''.
The Church has always recognized that people have inappropriate ''feelings'' about sex, money, power, drugs, food, and the other deadly sins. The Church teaches that having such feelings are not sinful. BUT acting on such feelings is sinful. Bulimia can ''cause'' a teenage girl to binge eat and then vomit all she has ingested. Does that make Bulimic activity healthy and right? There reportedly is a gene which makes some individuals more prone than others to alcoholism. Does that make alcoholism healthy and right for them?
But in this thread it was Shuathlete who dove headfirst into the fallacies of non sequiturs and swam downstream into ad hominem attacks on the Catholic Church. Donnie has already dealt with most of his malaprops, but can Shuathlete really not distinguish the motives and actions of humans from those of monkeys? Can he cite one instance of Catholic belief which ''contradicts common sense''. To what end does he admonish Catholics to ''Hold on to that rosary because the world is changing''?
I suspect Shuathlete might simply dislike it when he 'thinks' others are being judgmental, but alums like me might hope he would check his logic if not his grammar before opening his mouth to evidence his Seton Hall education.
As for my old friend Seton75, rationalization has many connotations and only one implies specious reasoning. I have read thoroughly on the topic of the priests' scandalous and malicious abuse. In all the studies I have reviewed not one reports a higher incidence of sexual abuse among Catholic priests than among Protestant ministers --- of any denomination---, Jewish rabbis, policemen, firemen, politicians or others in office of public trust.. That does not make the abuse any less malicious or less scandalous, but it does invalidate the argument that this is a problem which is unique or even special to the Catholic clergy. The big difference is that the Catholic crimes are front page news in the media, as they should be. As for the cover ups, these too are deplorable, but not unique or special. Finally I am aware of absolutely no evidence other than unsubstantiated dispersions in the media which indicate that the cover ups had reached any higher than a local bishopric. If they were to have had, then these, too, would have been even more deplorable. But, first, such evidence does not exist to my knowledge, and , second, the Catholic Church is a self-proclaimed Church of sinners. The Holy Spirit only assures truth in Catholic teachings on faith and morals, not perfection in the actions or statements of its clergy. To many that might be deemed a copout, but it is another subtle but highly consequential distinction in logic.
Finally, back to Shuathlete who protests that he is ''going to go ahead and raise my kids to be good people because its the right thing to do. Dont need to be influenced by anything to do that.''
IMHO this is a laudable goal but I fear it shall be a daunting task to do that without them ''be(ing) influenced by anything.'' I wish you nothing but luck with that. But before you get too cocksure, be on guard because culture can be extremely influential on the morals of our young. Be careful what you wish for as well as which bulwarks you disdain.
This post was edited on 5/14 10:07 PM by Old_alum
At its start, the thread had no mention of any church teachings or even social mores. Why did it then devolve into negative aspersions about the Catholic Church?
Early thread posters talked about Sam's draft position, the original tweet, posters' own revulsion to the ESPN use of explicit PDA, and, then, one poster personally suggested that ''men of good will must stand up and fight the gay lifestyle and not be afraid to oppose it''. No mention was made of homosexuals as people --- good or bad.
Then jcalz88 said ''How quickly we forget what our Pope is preaching.'' JCalz' implication was in error, but he, thus, indirectly introduced the Catholic Church into the thread. Until then there was nothing about religion, or mores, just personal reactions. Then Merge explicitly and patently wrongly stated that ''The pope disagrees with you.''
The Church (and the Jesuits) have always taught Catholics to love the sinner but to hate the sin---no matter what sin it is. That said, at an impromptu press conference on the flight home from World Youth Day, Pope Francis did say: ''I think like a Jesuit…..When I meet a gay person, I have to distinguish between their being gay and being part of a lobby. If they accept the Lord and have goodwill, who am I to judge them? They shouldn't be marginalized. The tendency [to homosexuality] is not the problem…they're our brothers.''
I challenge anyone to post a reputable source quoting specific words of Pope Francis in which he does not deem all extra-marital sex as mortal sin. Church teaching has, to my understanding, always focused not on feelings as sinful but on behavior, as it is permitted under the Magisterium Jesus left us; the Church --- albeit not all its members --- has ALWAYS left the ''judgment'' to God.
Merge also totally incorrectly stated that ''My point was that the pope does not believe that anyone 'must stand up and fight the gay lifestyle'....That is an extremist point of view not shared by the leader of the catholic church, and should be treated much the same way we treated the people who used to stand up and say that all men must stand up and fight against women's rights.''
The Bible, the Church and Pope Francis have always said that any and all sexual intimacy outside of holy matrimony is a mortal sin, i.e. meriting eternal punishment if not confessed and forgiven. This condemned behavior has always been 'mainstream' and not the least bit 'extremist'.
It therefore would be very unloving (i.e. un-Christian) NOT to oppose such a ''lifestyle'', as Pope Francis does. Pope Francis has emphasized the condemnation of the sin (the sexual promiscuity) not of the sinner.As to the women's rights throw-in, the Church has always been a vanguard on women's rights, not an opponent.
Gratuitiously, Merge later speciously opined that ''marriage is not a religious term. I can get married in a church but it is not recognized until I sign a license. The only step you can skip there is the religious one.'' Me thinks Merge is confused about Civil law versus Church law. There is an entire thread below which explains this in detail.
Later, in an Italian newspaper interview, the Pope also reiterated the Church's longstanding teaching that "marriage is between a man and a woman." However, he later said, "We have to look at different cases and evaluate them in their variety'. CNN then reports that in his response to the interviewer, the Pope emphasized the natural characteristic of marriage between one man and one woman, but, CNN wrote, the Pope later spoke about the obligation of the ''state to fulfill its responsibilities towards its citizens." Based merely on this, Daniel Burke of CNN Belief Blog printed: ''Pope Francis: Church could support civil unions''.
Merge later went further to try and bait yours-truly into a homophobic reaction---which will never happen --- when he stated: ''Clearly, for you to believe this to be a choice, you must be attracted to other men but decided that you would not peruse (sic) a relationship with them....Personally, I have never been sexually attracted to another man so I never had to make that 'choice'. ''
Merge's logic is clearly specious, and it hardly merits a response, but for clarity, let's deal with facts, not faulty reasoning.
The Baltimore Sun reported that in 1993, the media trumpeted the discovery of ''new evidence'' of a ''gay gene'' as a scientific breakthrough by Dean Hamer, a molecular biologist at the National Cancer Institute. But the stories and the study were an exercise in the uncritical reporting. In the 1996 book, Gender Shock, writer and lesbian woman Phyllis Burke, quoting Dr. Paul Billings, an internist and human geneticist, calls the born gay idea "a new fish story." [/URL] One of the larger pro-gay organizations Parents, Family and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG), later explained that there is no conclusive evidence that people are born gay. Ironically, what studies actually do evidence is that persons who experience same-sex attraction are not prisoners of their biology (but can) pursue other options.
It is a ''choice''.
The Church has always recognized that people have inappropriate ''feelings'' about sex, money, power, drugs, food, and the other deadly sins. The Church teaches that having such feelings are not sinful. BUT acting on such feelings is sinful. Bulimia can ''cause'' a teenage girl to binge eat and then vomit all she has ingested. Does that make Bulimic activity healthy and right? There reportedly is a gene which makes some individuals more prone than others to alcoholism. Does that make alcoholism healthy and right for them?
But in this thread it was Shuathlete who dove headfirst into the fallacies of non sequiturs and swam downstream into ad hominem attacks on the Catholic Church. Donnie has already dealt with most of his malaprops, but can Shuathlete really not distinguish the motives and actions of humans from those of monkeys? Can he cite one instance of Catholic belief which ''contradicts common sense''. To what end does he admonish Catholics to ''Hold on to that rosary because the world is changing''?
I suspect Shuathlete might simply dislike it when he 'thinks' others are being judgmental, but alums like me might hope he would check his logic if not his grammar before opening his mouth to evidence his Seton Hall education.
As for my old friend Seton75, rationalization has many connotations and only one implies specious reasoning. I have read thoroughly on the topic of the priests' scandalous and malicious abuse. In all the studies I have reviewed not one reports a higher incidence of sexual abuse among Catholic priests than among Protestant ministers --- of any denomination---, Jewish rabbis, policemen, firemen, politicians or others in office of public trust.. That does not make the abuse any less malicious or less scandalous, but it does invalidate the argument that this is a problem which is unique or even special to the Catholic clergy. The big difference is that the Catholic crimes are front page news in the media, as they should be. As for the cover ups, these too are deplorable, but not unique or special. Finally I am aware of absolutely no evidence other than unsubstantiated dispersions in the media which indicate that the cover ups had reached any higher than a local bishopric. If they were to have had, then these, too, would have been even more deplorable. But, first, such evidence does not exist to my knowledge, and , second, the Catholic Church is a self-proclaimed Church of sinners. The Holy Spirit only assures truth in Catholic teachings on faith and morals, not perfection in the actions or statements of its clergy. To many that might be deemed a copout, but it is another subtle but highly consequential distinction in logic.
Finally, back to Shuathlete who protests that he is ''going to go ahead and raise my kids to be good people because its the right thing to do. Dont need to be influenced by anything to do that.''
IMHO this is a laudable goal but I fear it shall be a daunting task to do that without them ''be(ing) influenced by anything.'' I wish you nothing but luck with that. But before you get too cocksure, be on guard because culture can be extremely influential on the morals of our young. Be careful what you wish for as well as which bulwarks you disdain.
This post was edited on 5/14 10:07 PM by Old_alum
"All men of good will must stand up and fight the gay lifestyle" - Catholicman
" If they accept the Lord and have goodwill, who am I to judge them? They shouldn't be marginalized. The tendency (to homosexuality) is not the problem ... they're our brothers." - Popr Francis.
I believe these two statements to be opposing. which was my point.
My marriage license was not issued by a church but by a government. My ceremony was in a church, but even if it was just in town hall.... I would still be married.
A gay gene has not been proven by science, so it must not exist?
Do you apply that thinking to all aspects of your life, or just the ones you want to be true?
God has not been proven by science to exist.
Your use of scientific evidence during an argument rooted in religion doesn't seem consistent.
There is ongoing research on this topic, and it appears a gay gene is closer to being proven than not.
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/feb/14/genes-influence-male-sexual-orientation-study
My most primal instinct proves that it is not a choice. I have never been sexually attracted to a man. I have never had to make a choice to be straight. My first crush was on a girl in my class when I was 5.
If you can tell me that when you were a young teenage boy, you were attracted to both males and females then I will understand why you believe it can be a choice... but if you were only sexually attracted to one sex your entire life, how can you possibly believe you can choose to be gay?
Originally posted by Merge:
Originally posted by Old_alum:
Merge also totally incorrectly stated that ''My point was that the pope does not believe that anyone 'must stand up and fight the gay lifestyle'....That is an extremist point of view not shared by the leader of the catholic church, and should be treated much the same way we treated the people who used to stand up and say that all men must stand up and fight against women's rights.''
The Bible, the Church and Pope Francis have always said that any and all sexual intimacy outside of holy matrimony is a mortal sin, i.e. meriting eternal punishment if not confessed and forgiven. This condemned behavior has always been 'mainstream' and not the least bit 'extremist'. ulwarks you disdain.
"All men of good will must stand up and fight the gay lifestyle" - Catholicman
" If they accept the Lord and have goodwill, who am I to judge them? They shouldn't be marginalized. The tendency (to homosexuality) is not the problem ... they're our brothers." - Popr Francis.
I believe these two statements to be opposing. which was my point.
Originally posted by Old_alum:
Gratuitiously, Merge later speciously opined that ''marriage is not a religious term. I can get married in a church but it is not recognized until I sign a license. The only step you can skip there is the religious one.'' Me thinks Merge is confused about Civil law versus Church law. There is an entire thread below which explains this in detail.
My marriage license was not issued by a church but by a government. My ceremony was in a church, but even if it was just in town hall.... I would still be married.
Originally posted by Old_alum:
Merge later went further to try and bait yours-truly into a homophobic reaction---which will never happen --- when he stated: ''Clearly, for you to believe this to be a choice, you must be attracted to other men but decided that you would not peruse (sic) a relationship with them....Personally, I have never been sexually attracted to another man so I never had to make that 'choice'. ''
Merge's logic is clearly specious, and it hardly merits a response, but for clarity, let's deal with facts, not faulty reasoning.
The Baltimore Sun reported that in 1993, the media trumpeted the discovery of ''new evidence'' of a ''gay gene'' as a scientific breakthrough by Dean Hamer, a molecular biologist at the National Cancer Institute. But the stories and the study were an exercise in the uncritical reporting. In the 1996 book, Gender Shock, writer and lesbian woman Phyllis Burke, quoting Dr. Paul Billings, an internist and human geneticist, calls the born gay idea "a new fish story." [/URL] One of the larger pro-gay organizations Parents, Family and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG), later explained that there is no conclusive evidence that people are born gay. Ironically, what studies actually do evidence is that persons who experience same-sex attraction are not prisoners of their biology (but can) pursue other options.
It is a ''choice''.
A gay gene has not been proven by science, so it must not exist?
Do you apply that thinking to all aspects of your life, or just the ones you want to be true?
God has not been proven by science to exist.
Your use of scientific evidence during an argument rooted in religion doesn't seem consistent.
There is ongoing research on this topic, and it appears a gay gene is closer to being proven than not.
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/feb/14/genes-influence-male-sexual-orientation-study
My most primal instinct proves that it is not a choice. I have never been sexually attracted to a man. I have never had to make a choice to be straight. My first crush was on a girl in my class when I was 5.
If you can tell me that when you were a young teenage boy, you were attracted to both males and females then I will understand why you believe it can be a choice... but if you were only sexually attracted to one sex your entire life, how can you possibly believe you can choose to be gay?
This, fellow alums, is why I regret Alma Mater abandoning the strong core curriculum SHU mandated in the ''olden days''. Therer had been a time when every matriculating student was required to take 12 credits of: philosophy, English, science, foreign language, theology, etc.
Let's focus on philosophy 101 (logic) and English 101 (grammar).
In my discussion abover I laid out three distinct categories of interest:
1. People
2. Feelings, and
3. Actions.
People are referred to using nouns or personal pronouns. These People are always intended to indicate one or more human beings. They never are referred to as emotions or styles. Feelings also have been called compulsions, emotions, desires, wants, or even thoughts. Feelings might be referred to as styles, but rarely if ever as lifestyles. Actions might be referred to as activities, deeds, accomplishments, behavior, etc. Herb Pope is an individual, a person. Herb reported that he ''felt'' or ''believed'' that in a blow-out game against Rutgers at the Rock, a dunk at the close by Rutgers would be insulting. This thought or ''feeling'' did not result in a foul call. But Herb took ''action'' in his own hands and used a hard block to prevent the dunk. For this ''action'' Herb was given an intentional foul.
In this instance if the Church were to act as the NCAA official then it would always love Herb. It would say his ''feeling'' just was and would not constitute a sin (or in this case a foul). But his choice to act on that feeling was wrong and deserved to be called a ''sin'' (or in this case a ''foul'').
In quote #1, Catholicman did not call for any bad feelings or actions against any gay person--- individual or group, nor against their feelings or compulsions (which just are), but only a fight (figurative, I am very sure) against their "actions", their "lifestyle".
#1: "All men of good will must stand up and fight the gay lifestyle" - Catholicman
In quote #2, Pope Francis defended love of the homosexual "people", and understanding for their "feelings" or "tendencies". BUT Pope Francis did NOT defend nor would he as a right thinking Jesuit ever do anything but condemn their actions or 'lifestyle". Love --- and never judge --- the sinner, ignore the feelings (which just are), and hate the sin. This is classic mainstream Catholicism which has not changed for 2014 years.
#2: " If they accept the Lord and have goodwill, who am I to judge them (ed: third person plural pronoun)? They shouldn't be marginalized. The tendency (ed: or ''feelings for'') (to homosexuality) is not the problem ... they're our brothers (ed: persons to be loved)." - Pope Francis.
Now Merge has opined that he ''believe(s) these two statements to be opposing.''
I really see them as congruent based on Grammar 101 and logic 101.
Then Merge said: ''My marriage license was not issued by a church but by a government. My ceremony was in a church, but even if it was just in town hall.... I would still be married.''
This is why I resurrected the "''Poll: Gay Marriage'' thread from a year ago.
In the extended thread I felt we resolved the issues that the Church law on Marriage predated the English Common Law on marriage by at least 1000 years and that the English common --- later codified civil --- law only added the weight of the temporal ruler to the predefined canon of the eternal ruler. Further, I had expected that I had convinced others (since no one had dissented last year) of the point that Christians have ''feelings'', too, and were no less deserved of protecting them, so the 2014 year old Sacramental word ''marriage'' may not, cannot, and should not be usurped by applying it to an "action" viewed as a mortal sin 1000 years before there was English common law.
Finally, Merge wrote:
''A gay gene has not been proven by science, so it must not exist?
Do you apply that thinking to all aspects of your life, or just the ones you want to be true?
God has not been proven by science to exist.''
Oh for the lost value of a core curriculum! Merge, no one in science or philosophy has ever conceded that ANYONE could EVER empirically prove a negative, because to do so would must exhaust ever option in the vast universe. Therefore it would be folly for anyone to ever try!!
Science deals only with induction [going from the specific (controlled observations) to the universal (consistently evidenced ''rules'')]. Sometimes ''rules'' which Scientists thought had been evidenced sufficiently (like Newtonian physics) are invalidated by new discoveries (like Quantum physics). This has happened 100s if not 1,000s of times to scientific rules, but not once to Catholic dogma.
Philosophy uses deduction (going from the general or universal to the specific). See Thomas Aquinas' and others' ''proofs'' of God.
Merge continued: ''Your use of scientific evidence during an argument rooted in religion doesn't seem consistent.
First of all this thread (or in your words ''argument'') started as rooted in neither religion nor science (social or biological), but as opinions and personal reactions to a social event.
When Jcalz, Blackie, Shuathlete and you introduced ''religion'' you did so based on both testimony (subjective evidence of the Pope's statements, but nonetheless admissible in court), on ''facts'' (i.e. that no one has a ''choice'' about homosexual behavior), and on ad hominem attacks on some Church members scurrilous behavior irrelevant to the thread topic.
It was this evidence you introduced which precipitated my introducing empirical evidence (satisfying the requisite ''scientific method'' for proof to be ''empirical''). No scientifically valid experiment has ever been posited for peer review that homosexual behavior is genetic. NONE! The gay community has never claimed such a scientific cause.
Now Merge extends his claim: ''There is ongoing research on this topic, and it appears a gay gene is closer to being proven than not.
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/feb/14/genes-influence-male-sexual-orientation-study
Let's start with the phrase: ''a gay gene is closer to being proven than not''.
I am not sure how Merge substantiates such a statement. Remember in calculus when the prof said a ''limit was like almost getting hit by a train but not being hit''? Well proof is like limits and like pregnancy, either it is or it it is not true. If it has not been proven then it is not proven. QED.
But NEXT did Merge even read the article he wrote? That article says: '' The flawed thinking behind a genetic test for sexual orientation is clear from studies of twins, which show that the identical twin of a gay man, who carries an exact replica of his brother's DNA, is more likely to be straight than gay. That means even a perfect genetic test that picked up every gene linked to sexual orientation would still be less effective than flipping a coin.''
And this study as reported is on Gay men only. The original indictment of the 1993 Hamer study was not only its shallow sample, but its whole approach with no control group. It violated a basic precept of all scientific studies! The newer and only slightly deeper sample (400 gay men) repeated the exact same fatal flaw. There was no ''straight'' control group; no ''placebo'' set, as it were.
Beyond that IMHO it was terribly naive. It not atypically for bogus science confuses correlation with causality! If they debate is over nature versus nurture, how can ANY test of the cause of sexual orientation ignore the one that has been repeatedly proven using strict, peer reviewed tests (see Robert Spitzer of Columbia) and others, which have repeatedly shown that there is a correlation coefficient approaching 1.0 between same-sex attraction compulsions and either (i) childhood abuse or (ii) paternal neglect or dislike.
Further, in these studies it was scientifically proven that with proper psychological treatment this same-sex-attraction compulsion is reversible. If anyone with same sex attraction ''chooses'' psychiatric treatment, he will be straight.
Now all of this does not condemn or judge the people with same sex attraction, nor does it deny the feelings or ''compulsions'' with which they have to deal. But it does prove ''scientifically'' that homosexual actions or lifestyle or behavior is always a choice.
''My most primal instinct proves that it is not a choice. ''---Merge
How can these instincts of yours be called primal if you have never felt them?
''If you can tell me that when you were a young teenage boy, you were attracted to both males and females then I will understand why you believe it can be a choice... but if you were only sexually attracted to one sex your entire life, how can you possibly believe you can choose to be gay?''
Homophobic baiting, pure and simple. To end your obsession, no I never had the slightest attraction to another male, ever.
This post was edited on 5/16 11:39 PM by Old_alum
It is not homophobic baiting to ask if you have been attracted to a man.
If you believe it to be a choice, that should be a logical question.
You are at a crossroads, and you have the choice to go left or right.
If you only see a path on the right, then you can only go left.
It is a pretty simple analogy. If you have never been attracted to another man, how can you possibly believe it is a choice?
If you believe it to be a choice, that should be a logical question.
You are at a crossroads, and you have the choice to go left or right.
If you only see a path on the right, then you can only go left.
It is a pretty simple analogy. If you have never been attracted to another man, how can you possibly believe it is a choice?
First, why answer an irrelevant post script and ignore the real post?
second, my personal choice or lack thereof is irrelevant to any large scale political decision.
third, if your point was intended to be logically relevant why personalize it?
fourth, why repeatedly insist on one person's experience when your highly accentuated justification is purported to be sufficient?
And did I mention you ignored all of my last two posts' explanation of your fallacious argument and return yet again to this homophobic baiting technique
Because your post script is counter intuitive to your belief.
I believe there are men who are attracted to women, men who are attracted to men and men who are attracted to both sexes. No one chooses who to be attracted to. You either are or you are not.
Your religion tells you it is a choice, and you can not waiver against your religion... but why have you never been attracted to a man? Can you just ignore the most simple innate feelings you have had towards physical attraction?
I didn't answer the rest because I do not agree with you, and I acknowledge that we will not agree.
If the Pope believed that "all good men must stand up and fight the gay lifestyle" he would have phrased what he said differently. "Love the sinner, hate the sin" does not equate to "Love the sinner, fight their lifestyle"
You can hate gay sex, but recognize that the people who are having gay sex do you share your beliefs... or
you can hate gay sex, and actively fight against the lifestyle.
That is where I see a difference between what the pope and Catholicman said.
The most recent study which I referred to has not yet been published, so I can speak to its validity. My point was that the research is ongoing and there appears to have been some progress.
Not quite irrefutable evidence, but just because we don't have it yet doesn't mean the evidence isn't there.
I was actually at a wedding a few weeks ago for a gay couple. One of the men (my wife's cousin) has a fraternal twin brother. They were raised the same and yet are totally different people.
I have know a lot of gay men and women. All of them were raised with loving families and while I suppose it would be possible that they were abused, none of them ever suggested such a thing.
Speaking of Robert Spitzer, these are his words when asked if homosexuality is a choice. "Is a choice? No, for sure, that's the one thing I have no doubt about, it's no choice."
I think your last post finally helped me understand your confusion.
I think there is confusion between same-sex-attraction and homosexual activity.
As Pope Francis said, we have to understand that the "tendency" toward homosexuality is "not the problem", i.e. same-sex-attraction (the "feeling") is NOT a choice. Statistically, the data indicates that this almost always is a result of either abuse or a detached if not negative relationship with a parent. No one would choose that. But the Pope draws the distinction between this compulsion or tendency or feeling and the homosexuality it often leads to. The homosexuality is the act of having sex with someone of your own sex. As in my Herb Pope hard foul example the feeling is not a foul but acting on the feeling is a choice which results in a foul.
I apologize for being unable to distinguish this in my many earlier attempts. I hope this is clearer.
That was what I intended to convey with the bulimia example. Obviously I was not clear enough.
So one more time, the Pope---as an advisedly good Jesuit thinker---loves the sinner (the person). They are our brothers.
A Jesuit thinker, he says the tendency or attraction or feeling is "not the problem".
So that leaves the act or choice of homosexuality. Since he is a good Jesuit thinker, and since the Church and the Jesuits have ALWAYS said that homosexuality is a mortal sin and since the rhetoric says the "tendency" is not "the problem" then the Pope is obviously saying the the choice of homosexual acts IS THE PROBLEM (English 102).
Perhaps that will clear the fog.
I think there is confusion between same-sex-attraction and homosexual activity.
As Pope Francis said, we have to understand that the "tendency" toward homosexuality is "not the problem", i.e. same-sex-attraction (the "feeling") is NOT a choice. Statistically, the data indicates that this almost always is a result of either abuse or a detached if not negative relationship with a parent. No one would choose that. But the Pope draws the distinction between this compulsion or tendency or feeling and the homosexuality it often leads to. The homosexuality is the act of having sex with someone of your own sex. As in my Herb Pope hard foul example the feeling is not a foul but acting on the feeling is a choice which results in a foul.
I apologize for being unable to distinguish this in my many earlier attempts. I hope this is clearer.
That was what I intended to convey with the bulimia example. Obviously I was not clear enough.
So one more time, the Pope---as an advisedly good Jesuit thinker---loves the sinner (the person). They are our brothers.
A Jesuit thinker, he says the tendency or attraction or feeling is "not the problem".
So that leaves the act or choice of homosexuality. Since he is a good Jesuit thinker, and since the Church and the Jesuits have ALWAYS said that homosexuality is a mortal sin and since the rhetoric says the "tendency" is not "the problem" then the Pope is obviously saying the the choice of homosexual acts IS THE PROBLEM (English 102).
Perhaps that will clear the fog.
no it does not, and that is a disgusting thing to say.
This post was edited on 5/17 5:00 PM by Bobbie Solo
Don't hold your breath waiting for Bobbie solo's research. His offense is a good defense: refute what you say, then hide.
Merge brings up an interesting point about twins: what do the twin studies say? If identical twins have the same set of genes, and homosexuality is genetic, wouldn't all identical twins be either straight or gay?
Merge brings up an interesting point about twins: what do the twin studies say? If identical twins have the same set of genes, and homosexuality is genetic, wouldn't all identical twins be either straight or gay?
True, but it's AWFULLY close, like 99% identical, with the only differences coming as a result of transcription errors and environmental effects. That's why twin studies are so valuable in medical research.
I tend to believe this, too. I don't think most people would choose what has been such a socially difficult path, particularly as often regards their own families.
That said, it's certainly anti-evolution; the inability to procreate is not in line with survival of the fittest. Why hasn't the gay gene been wiped out by natural selection by now?
I ask this to be intellectually provocative, not argumentative.
I am not expert on this, but a cursory glance at the first two links OA attaches does not throw great gravitas to what either guy says. They come from low level academia and have a wish to prove what the Church says. One guy left the national group when it stopped saying homosexuality was a mental disease and started his new org, that will practive reverse sexual training on three year olds who are showing a homosexual leaning.
It is an interesting question. There is a recent theory that says that stress by a pregnant woman causes a shift on hormones which could lead to the child being gay. I have absolutely no idea is this is a valid claim, but I have seen it a few times recently (we are expecting our second in November, I don't just pick up this stuff for fun... haha)
This would probably not be too well received, but it would make sense against the evolutionary argument.
I think being gay can be both genetic and by choice.
And hete's an interesting and true situation:
I know a family with 4 children. 2 females with the same biologic mother and father. 2 younger brothers, both adopted from entirely different mothers and fathers. The oldest female is straight, the other 3 are all gay. What say you to that?
And hete's an interesting and true situation:
I know a family with 4 children. 2 females with the same biologic mother and father. 2 younger brothers, both adopted from entirely different mothers and fathers. The oldest female is straight, the other 3 are all gay. What say you to that?
Certainly possible. I believe it is mostly genetic but that doesn't mean every child by the same parents is going to turn out gay. Like all other genetic matters, you are simply pre-disposed to it. That doesn't mean it will develop that way, though. Some do, some don't.
The American Psychology Association consistently defined homosexuality as an abnormality UNTIL a new president led a charge to change that opinion. And, speaking of agendas, what a surprise that years later that president confessed that he was homosexual.
Everyone has an agenda. But science is supposed to be based on repeatable, control-tested results. Did you check out the footnotes?
I am not an expert on this, either. But I do read a lot. Where can you point me for better info?
Is it your opinion that only the 'great gravitas' of Ivy League schools have 'high level academics' requisite to faithfully record and report long term test results for peer review?
BTW, please check out the final link, from the ''BI (sexual) Summit" conference in 2009. That group's statistics indicate that 74% of bisexual adults were sexually abused as minors.
This post was edited on 5/23 1:23 PM by Old_alum
I did a search on bisexual suicide. Here is the link, and it jives with the stats you cite, but possibly gives a reasonable explanation that what you seem to imply, that they are just a little more odder than we normal folk. BTW, I have no clue who wrote the article I linked, their "gravitas" or educational backgound or political leanings. That was just the first link of my search.
Bullying and suicide rates
Bullying and suicide rates
I think it is important to distinguish between same-sex-attraction (SSA) and homosexual behavior. IMHO the term 'gay' seems to carry with it somewhat of a political or social agenda.
There is no question that SSA is not truly voluntary, however that does not make it genetic. I am aware of no published, peer-reviewed scientific research which seems to indicate that it is genetic.
As Donny said, identical twins have virtually identical DNA (same egg, same sperm). That said, I suspect that almost all identical twins were also raised by the same parents in the same household with essentially the same environment.
Speaking candidly, if SSA were found to be genetic that might have additional scary implications on the genetic designer-boutique OB (via abortion) crowd.
There is no question that SSA is not truly voluntary, however that does not make it genetic. I am aware of no published, peer-reviewed scientific research which seems to indicate that it is genetic.
As Donny said, identical twins have virtually identical DNA (same egg, same sperm). That said, I suspect that almost all identical twins were also raised by the same parents in the same household with essentially the same environment.
Speaking candidly, if SSA were found to be genetic that might have additional scary implications on the genetic designer-boutique OB (via abortion) crowd.
Similar threads
