Conquer Club

homosexuality - hard-wired, not chosen

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Re: homosexuality - hard-wired, not chosen

Postby PLAYER57832 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 6:25 pm

dewey316 wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote: in this case it is not a matter of the church bowing to society. It is a matter of the church reviewing the results of their teachings, their actions AND reviewing the tests themselves to see if there are some subtleties that have been missed.


This is assuming that something has been missed. Some things are writen down enough that I don't think there can be a mistake about it. Sexual sin in general is one that is listed enough times through scripture, that I am not sure how one could even begine to justify it through the scripture, unless you were to set out specificly to justify it. I like to filter my ideas through the Bible, not filter the Bible through my ideas.

I think the key here is when you say "I think". Quite a few very learned Biblical scholars, entire denominations of churches at least feel there is a question. Some have already decided that homosexuality has been misclassified or misunderstood...

much as leprosy once was.
dewey316 wrote:To the orginal subject, I am still waiting to see results in new borns. I am willing ot guess, that what we will see, is that infants brains all start off very similar, and that through whatever means (Diet, circumstance, abuse, etc), brains devolope differently. Of course, and the end of the day, I don't think whatever the outcomes of the study are going say, there will still be this debate. lol.

The problem is that many aspects of sexuality, including brains, don't show until puberty approaches. That does not mean the propensities are missing, it just means that you sometimes have to wait for puberty to see the fruition.

So, you may or may not see changes in newborns. If you did, it would prove an early llink (not necessarily genetic, even then) BUT, and this is key absence of such evidence means nothing. It could show up later.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: homosexuality - hard-wired, not chosen

Postby tzor on Sun Jun 29, 2008 6:37 pm

PLAYER57832 wrote:The problem is that many aspects of sexuality, including brains, don't show until puberty approaches.


:lol: Ha ha ha ha. That's funny. No seriously, some areas of the brain do not develop until well after puberty, around the ages of 17+ "The observed late maturation of the frontal lobe conspicuously coincides with the typical age-of-onset of schizophrenia—late teens, early twenties—which, as noted earlier, is characterized by impaired 'executive' functioning." (NIMH: Teenage Brain: A work in progress)
Image
User avatar
Cadet tzor
 
Posts: 4076
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:43 pm
Location: Long Island, NY, USA

Re: homosexuality - hard-wired, not chosen

Postby tzor on Sun Jun 29, 2008 6:43 pm

But let's get back to the problem at hand. If homosexual acts are "sinful" they are so not because of the laws of Deuteronomy, but because they are to some extent a minor to major violation of the virture of chastity.

Catholic Encyclopedia wrote:Chastity is the virtue which excludes or moderates the indulgence of the sexual appetite. It is a form of the virtue of temperance, which controls according to right reason the desire for and use of those things which afford the greatest sensual pleasures. The sources of such delectation are food and drink, by means of which the life of the individual is conserved, and the union of the sexes, by means of which the permanence of the species is secured. Chastity, therefore, is allied to abstinence and sobriety; for, as by these latter the pleasures of the nutritive functions are rightly regulated, so by chastity the procreative appetite is duly restricted. Understood as interdicting all carnal pleasures, chastity is taken generally to be the same as continency, though between these two, Aristotle, as pointed out in the article on CONTINENCY, drew a marked distinction. With chastity is often confounded modesty, though this latter is properly but a special circumstance of chastity or rather, we might say, its complement. For modesty is the quality of delicate reserve and constraint with reference to all acts that give rise to shame, and is therefore the outpost and safeguard of chastity. It is hardly necessary to observe that the virtue under discussion may be a purely natural one. As such, its motive would be the natural decency seen in the control of the sexual appetite, according to the norm of reason. Such a motive springs from the dignity of human nature, which, without this rational sway, is degraded to brutish levels. But it is more particularly as a supernatural virtue that we would consider chastity. Viewed thus, its motives are discovered in the light of faith. These are particularly the words and example of Jesus Christ and the reverence that is owing to the human body as the temple of the Holy Ghost, as incorporated into that mystic body of which Christ is the head, as the recipient of the Blessed Eucharist, and finally, as destined to share hereafter with the soul a life of eternal glory. According as chastity would exclude all voluntary Carnal pleasures, or allow this gratification only within prescribed limits, it is known as absolute or relative. The former is enjoined upon the unmarried, the latter is incumbent upon those within the marriage state. The indulgence of the sexual appetite being prohibited to all outside of legitimate wedlock, the wilful impulse to it in the unmarried, like the wilful impulse to anything unlawful, is forbidden. Moreover, such is the intensity of the sexual passion that this impulse is perilously apt to bear away the will before it. Hence, when wilful, it is a grave offence of its very nature. It must be observed too, that this impulse is constituted, not merely by an effective desire, but by every voluntary impure thought. Besides the classification already given, there is another, according to which chastity is distinguished as perfect, or imperfect. The first-mentioned is the virtue of those who, in order to devote themselves more unreservedly to God and their spiritual interests, resolve to refrain perpetually from even the licit pleasures of the marital state. When this resolution is made by one who has never known the gratification allowed in marriage, perfect chastity becomes virginity. Because of these two elements — the high purpose and the absolute inexperience — just referred to, virginal chastity takes on the character of a special virtue distinct from that which connotes abstinence merely from illicit carnal pleasure. Nor is it necessary that the resolution implied in virginity be fortified by a vow, though as practised ordinarily and in the most perfect manner, virginal chastity, as St. Thomas following St. Augustine, would imply, supposes a vow. (Summa Theol., II-II, Q. clii, a. 3, ad 4.) The special virtue we are here considering involves a physical integrity. Yet while the Church demands this integrity in those who would wear the veil of consecrated virgins, it is but an accidental quality and may be lost without detriment to that higher spiritual integrity in which formally the virtue of virginity resides. The latter integrity is necessary and is alone sufficient to win the aureole said to await virgins as a special heavenly reward (St. Thomas, Suppl., Q. xcvi, a. 5). Imperfect chastity is that which is proper to the state of those who have not as yet entered wedlock without however having renounced the intention of doing so, of those also who are joined by the bonds of legitimate marriage, and finally of those who have outlived their marital partners. However in the case of those last mentioned the resolution may be taken which obviously would make the chastity practised that which we have defined as the perfect kind.
Image
User avatar
Cadet tzor
 
Posts: 4076
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:43 pm
Location: Long Island, NY, USA

Re: homosexuality - hard-wired, not chosen

Postby MeDeFe on Sun Jun 29, 2008 7:06 pm

Catholic Encyclopedia wrote:tl;dr

Could you give us the gist of it?
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
User avatar
Major MeDeFe
 
Posts: 7831
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 2:48 am
Location: Follow the trail of holes in other people's arguments.

Re: homosexuality - hard-wired, not chosen

Postby Neoteny on Sun Jun 29, 2008 7:11 pm

MeDeFe wrote:
Catholic Encyclopedia wrote:tl;dr

Could you give us the gist of it?


Something about "INCONTINENCE."
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
User avatar
Major Neoteny
 
Posts: 3396
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 10:24 pm
Location: Atlanta, Georgia

Re: homosexuality - hard-wired, not chosen

Postby dewey316 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 9:43 pm

PLAYER57832 wrote:
dewey316 wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote: in this case it is not a matter of the church bowing to society. It is a matter of the church reviewing the results of their teachings, their actions AND reviewing the tests themselves to see if there are some subtleties that have been missed.


This is assuming that something has been missed. Some things are writen down enough that I don't think there can be a mistake about it. Sexual sin in general is one that is listed enough times through scripture, that I am not sure how one could even begine to justify it through the scripture, unless you were to set out specificly to justify it. I like to filter my ideas through the Bible, not filter the Bible through my ideas.

I think the key here is when you say "I think". Quite a few very learned Biblical scholars, entire denominations of churches at least feel there is a question. Some have already decided that homosexuality has been misclassified or misunderstood...

much as leprosy once was.


Are you saying this from the standpoint of, we have misunderstood how we should be treating them, and acting towards them? Or are you saying that we misunderstood that homosexuality is a sin? That is going to make a very big difference in my response. I tend to agree with you on a lot of this subject, in that the way Christianity has acted towards people who engage in the homosexual lifestyle, and how most of us continue to treat them, is not right. In this side of things, I am on your side, and disagree with a lot of conservative Christians. If you are saying that we have misunderstood, and that the act of homosexuality is not a sin, then my response is going to be a little different.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class dewey316
 
Posts: 61
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 2:30 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Re: homosexuality - hard-wired, not chosen

Postby brooksieb on Mon Jun 30, 2008 8:06 am

suggs wrote:who cares what some book that has been so heavily edited it would make Lucas look good,says? (ed. -you could do with some editing yourself, suggs boy)

Its not a good read, interesting, or reliable. So why discuss it?
Lets BIN THE BIBLE!


f*ck you and go believe in adam and steve = )
User avatar
Corporal brooksieb
 
Posts: 1060
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2007 4:44 pm

Re: homosexuality - hard-wired, not chosen

Postby joecoolfrog on Mon Jun 30, 2008 8:26 am

brooksieb wrote:
suggs wrote:who cares what some book that has been so heavily edited it would make Lucas look good,says? (ed. -you could do with some editing yourself, suggs boy)

Its not a good read, interesting, or reliable. So why discuss it?
Lets BIN THE BIBLE!


f*ck you and go believe in adam and steve = )


It is well thought out,articulate responses like the above that make these debates so worthwhile.
Colonel joecoolfrog
 
Posts: 661
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 9:29 pm
Location: London ponds

Re: homosexuality - hard-wired, not chosen

Postby tzor on Mon Jun 30, 2008 8:27 am

MeDeFe wrote:
Catholic Encyclopedia wrote:tl;dr

Could you give us the gist of it?


You mean you weren't the only one who get confused by the way which the old Catholic Encyclopedia never could say a paragraph when a whole set of pages could do just as well.

Everyone is called to Chastity. This calling away from "indulgence of the sexual appetite" is similiar to those callings not to be a glutton or to be a drunkard. Even those in a proper marriage (and for purposes of this disussion a marriage is the union of a man and a woman with the understanding of the acceptance of the purpose of procreation) some degree of proper restraint is required. Outside of such unions, chastity tends to call for abstinance.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is a little less wordy.

CCC wrote:2337 Chastity means the successful integration of sexuality within the person and thus the inner unity of man in his bodily and spiritual being. Sexuality, in which man's belonging to the bodily and biological world is expressed, becomes personal and truly human when it is integrated into the relationship of one person to another, in the complete and lifelong mutual gift of a man and a woman.

The virtue of chastity therefore involves the integrity of the person and the integrality of the gift.
Image
User avatar
Cadet tzor
 
Posts: 4076
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:43 pm
Location: Long Island, NY, USA

Previous

Return to Acceptable Content

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users