Posted on 01/20/2014 10:31:37 AM PST by markomalley
What the gay lobby refuses to consider is that many heterosexuals also must choose, and choose frequently, whether or not to engage in sexual behavior. Single, divorced or widowed people, people who can admit to themselves that they are unfit for marriage for any number of reasons, and even married people from time to time within marriage, and often in situations outside their marriages. They weigh the consequences and potential losses and make the choices, to risk their moral and social standing -- or decide not to, regardless of what the flesh is urging.
I don’t agree with anything you said ...but I wish you well with no hard feelings.
I've seen the reverse, as well; although it usually happens younger than 50, but not always. Some people who lived the lifestyle wake up one day and start the process of leaving it behind. The reasons are as individual as the individuals who do so. What I do think is fairly common in this group is a reluctance to disclose it, unlike the "out and proud" group. And the gay lobby, again, has made every effort to demonize, deny, accuse and suppress these people.
A disorder of the normal heterosexual hard-wiring is just that, a disorder. It is not a hard-wired, but opposite equivalent. It is at most a broken "wire"; more likely it is an emotional obsession. That is not the same thing as "hard-wiring", which refers to genetics. Try as they might, biological-determinist homosexualists have never found any reputable scientific support for a theory of hard-wired homosexuality.
It is not useful to compare how you feel as a heterosexual to how they say they feel as a homosexual. Scientific studies look a lot deeper than subjective opinions, even of ourselves.
Not sure I follow that, but then I am not a scientist.
I would argue the results of such an atypical prenatal development that we are discussing would not be difficult to identify, and are often readily apparent even to a lay person. I.e., there is reason to believe there was indeed a mutation.
With that, rather than my earlier reference to a “mistake of nature”, it would have been more precise to say nature reliably produces those results and our effort should be to identify the mechanisms of causation.
Good point, and the lobby's broad and successful campaign to suppress and outlaw, etc, suggests the argument is indeed true.
It is also a great example of a political issue intentionally ignored. Our survival as a republic may ultimately depend on national and local politicians and community leaders who are unafraid of facing such issues.
Thank you, and the same to you, as I am of a "both+and" frame of mind and not an "either+or" person when it comes to dealing with people.
Would it help to know that I've done extensive research on the graduate level and am not just spouting my personal opinion? I was absolutely convinced it was a permanent condition until actually doing the research at a major university in mid-life, at an age when understanding and questioning what is written are easier than when one is in one's 20s, due to life experience. That, and living long enough to see the long sweep of the lives of several individuals who made the change in one direction or the other, straight to gay or gay to straight, and as I said upthread, hearing their stories and meeting their friends, siblings and sometimes their parents. Food for thought?
Sure. Always welcome input from smart people like you. It doesn’t match my understandings from gay friends but then I have only known a few gay people well - limited sampling.
It's a sin. He needs to become more familiar with the Bible that the Catholic church claims to have written.
The point about it is that genes do not mutate under environmental pressure during natal development.
Lysenkoism is a cardinal sin in the biology world...although late breaking news is that there might - and only might - be an environmental pressure that leads to genetic mutation by protein modification, the emerging field of Epigenetics.
Doubt if anything as complex as homosexuality would be the result of such a thing.
If there are people who say they are gay with whom you have to work or share family gatherings, nothing is forcing you to get in their faces about it, unless you have put in the time to deeply consider a religious point of view and are able to take the risk of sharing it gently with the goal of planting a seed, or directing them to someone who can flesh out the spriritual dimensions. If you feel unable to say anything constructive, it's ok to just tolerate people and not get drawn into discussing it unless they are sincerely seeking a way out. If they are, or if they are considering adopting and are open actually to weighing the pros and cons, and if it wouldn't deprive your family of your livelihood, it may be worth a shot to say that other opinions are out there, and they should look into all points of view.
So if you have felt that you need to believe your friends or family members who are gay just really can't help it, and that helps you to accept them, I'm saying you don't need to do that to accept their presence in your vicinity. Tolerance is just that: accepting people in a civil way without having to agree with them. Some people take a really long time to wake up from the various trouble spots in life, and we've all got some.
As I've pointed out above, the homosexual lobby has with great success attempted to criminalize mere tolerance. Court cases have been mounted and won demanding that businesses set aside their beliefs to cater to homosexualist demands -- abrogations of Americans' First Amendment freedoms of conscience and association. Homosexualists' claim of absolute biological determination is a key argument in courts of law when they seek to crush any other point of view, including a right of religious belief.
But science has never been able to prove their claim that they are "born that way." It's a war that has been won by the public relations and civil rights law industries, not by actual painstaking research.
I'm sure the newly appointed Cardinal knows it's considered a sin. Were you referring to him, or to the news reporter's politically correct choice of words?
It sounds as if, out of compassion, the cardinal-elect is urging such people to seek help, which could of course include pastoral counseling, prayer counseling or other constructive helps along with confession. Just making people feel condemned hasn't been working.
A good counselor would of course discuss the Church's position and scriptural references as part of the struggle a penitent is dealing with, but also offer hope of recovery through patiently seeking the Holy Spirit's intervention. Particularly if a person has come to the homosexual lifestyle through child abuse or other past trauma that the person was powerless to resist, great compassion is called for.
Makes sense to me. And one of the major "environmental factors" is molestation by homosexuals.
That's the REAL story, and the reason they want to break down the barriers and get access to our children!!!
I believe my gay friends’ depiction that they are born with the afflection more than someone with a political agenda (you). Thanks.
Hear me now; believe me later. I'm not running for any political office, not against gay civil unions, do not believe in bullying gays, just speaking what I have learned over many years, and concerned for powerless children who may be caught up in something that is not beneficial for them.
Best freegards to you.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Normalizing homosexuality serves the purposes of liberals. It undermines a morality which their generation finds abhorent, one that restricts their right to have sex. It sustains their belief that the orgasm is the proper goal of all sexual activity.
Jung suggested that homosexuality is an urban phenomenon, arising perhaps from the difficulty of maintaining traditional sexual roles in a very complicated social environment.
That is, after all, a belief.. Do they really know? Maybe it is just a rationalization of the choices they made, or sometimes just a forgetting of unpleasant events such as molestation by an older person?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.