A question for conservatives

[JDogger]

I It occurs later as they mature ?!? Where do you get this from?

Perhaps because frequently it is covered up and they are moved from parish to parish as they gradually get older (mature). As I stated, I doubt it occurs freshly out of seminary.

[zeus3925]

Here's my thing... Traditionally, marriage is between a man and a woman. There are Civil Unions that afford the same "rights" to partners legally as far as the common arguement as the "hospital" thing...

We had a bus load of gay couples from MN drive to Iowa to get married... here's why I don't support Gay Marriage: When a couple get's married in a state that supports gay marriage, and move back to a state where they aren't supported, does that obligate the State to then recognize the couple as married even though it's not legally recognized in that State?

If couples want to be recognized in marriage as gays, and there are states that have legalized gay marriage, then move there. Don't force your state to recognize your marriage...

That's the "force" issue I have. I don't believe in gay marriage, and my state doesn't either (yet). So don't shove it down my throat.

And what about taxes???

Rich,
I listened to the arguement about legalities of marriages in other states when same sex marriages came into prominence. Apparently, according to the legal experts, marriages performed in any state are required to be given full faith and credit in the other states regardless of local regulation.

Example of this is the age requirement in some states were or are lower than some others. Even though the residents of one state go to a state with a lower age requirement, the home state and the other stats must recognize that marriage.

[road kill]

Perhaps because frequently it is covered up and they are moved from parish to parish as they gradually get older (mature). As I stated, I doubt it occurs freshly out of seminary.

My posts speak directly to my personal experiences.
I hope yours don't.

I know what I have seen over my years involvement with my church (not Catholic).

I did not say my experiences were absolutes, but I have seen what I have seen.

I don't think I can get you to understand what I am saying, primarily because you don't want to.
It's OK, I know what I know.

[road kill]

I It occurs later as they mature ?!? Where do you get this from?

He made it up.
My observations are based on my experiences.
What are yours based on Jdogger?

[Keith Farmer]

This is an interesting note from Wikipedia concerning homosexuality and the Catholic church:

The Catholic Church teaches that "Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder".[4]
Although a 1961 document stated that homosexual men should not be ordained, this was left to bishops to enforce, and most did not, holding homosexuals to the same standards of celibate chastity as heterosexual seminarians. However, in November 2005, the Vatican completed an "Instruction" on the admission of homosexually inclined men to the seminary. According to the new policy, men with "transitory" homosexual leanings may be ordained deacons following three years of prayer and chastity. However, men with "deeply rooted homosexual tendencies", who are sexually active cannot be ordained.
In practice, several bishops have indicated that the directive will be interpreted in a variety of ways, much as its 1960s predecessor was.[citation needed]

[K.Bullock]

This is an interesting note from Wikipedia concerning homosexuality and the Catholic church:

I am not sure what you are trying to show, but nobody uses Wikipedia for a citation since anyone who chooses can add info to the site.

If you follow the external links from the wiki article you cited you will see they lead you to progressive and pro-gay sources.

This is the heading from one of your sources:

Cross purposes
The Vatican is about to issue a new directive condemning homosexuality and keeping gay priests out of the Catholic Church. In San Francisco, that would threaten one of the most vibrant Catholic parishes.

I also thought this was interesting from your own post:

In practice, several bishops have indicated that the directive will be interpreted in a variety of ways, much as its 1960s predecessor was.[citation needed]


The Catholic church is pretty clear on it's qualifications for priesthood, and has several mechanisms in place to deal with controversial topics that us Protestants could learn from rather than stick our heads in the sand.

[Keith Farmer]

For clarification here is a quote from (full text available here http://wf-f.org/CCE_DiscernmentVocations.html):

Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in view of their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders
Congregation for Catholic Education
November 4, 2005

One must in no way overlook the negative consequences that can derive from the ordination of persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies.

Different, however, would be the case in which one were dealing with homosexual tendencies that were only the expression of a transitory problem -- for example, that of an adolescence not yet superseded. Nevertheless, such tendencies must be clearly overcome at least three years before ordination to the diaconate.

This quotation seems to be from a position that there is some sort of unawareness period with folks whereby homosexual tendancies battling heterosexual tendancies are "normal" and therefore not a real issue like the deep seated tendancies.

My point is that the bible dictates qualifications for Deacons, Bishops, Elders, etc. Never does the bible mention a three year departure period from the transitory homosexual tendancies of a candidate. The biblical qualifications are distinct, exact, and comprehensive. Therefore, I do not think we need to look at the Catholic church's qualifications if they differ from biblical qualifications...but that's just me.

Further, here is revealing news that should bash the transitory theory anyway (full story here: http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/De...aspx?id=528376):

... the new statement, which appears in a brochure called "Answers to Your Questions for a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality," states the following:

<B>

"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles...."

</B>

[Gerry Clinchy]

Yardley wrote:

It was actually attributed to some fairly specifically identified research that appeared to indicate that sexual preferences were accompanied by measurable physiological differences in brains, by research indicating that the emergence of different sexual preferences could not be traced to any other psychological or sociological traits, and research suggesting a strong hereditary component to homosexuality. Specific studies were cited as the basis for the change when it was made, but I do not have those at my fingertips right now.

Was listening to an interesting discussion the other day: a study was being cited of findings that during the first 3 years of life, humans acquire incredible quantities of "data", but the data is not in an orderly configuration. About age 3, we begin to "organize" the data.

This was part of a discussion on how gender identity is "fluid", but not genetically inherited in the way that the color of our eyes or skin is inherited. The hypothesis was that beginning at age 3, organization of data will begin to define gender identity. So, yes, hetero or homo orientation would begin before puberty. However, it would not be a result of inheritance, but rather of the environment that surrounds us as we begin to organize our "data".

Interestingly, there was some discussion about how the fluidity of gender identity might be more pronounced in women v. men. There is an oft-cited discrepancy between men v. women, about women's need for cuddling and snuggling that does not require a sexual connection. It was suggested that this characteristic accounted for the greater fluidity of gender identity for women.

The gist of the discussion got to: if gender identity IS, indeed, "fluid" ... as Jeff mentions; and also as gay rights proponents suggest in defense of the gay lifestyle ... then, by creating an environment in which non-heterosexual pairing is more socially acceptable, it could, logically, promote more expression of the non-heterosexual orientation.

So, if gender is fluid, and if a non-heterosexual lifestyle has no long-term benefit to society, why would we want to make it more prevalent? I don't think that we can necessarily make a case for the fact that gay individuals who have contributed to our society in many noteworthy aspects did so solely, or primarily, because of their gay orientation v. what contributions they might have made if not gay.

This does not have to mean that heterosexuals can not be compassionate for good human beings whose gender fluidity was influenced through their life experience to result in their homosexual orientation.

From a religious standpoint, as Pete points out, Christianity, in its unembellished form, is probably one of the most "liberal" religions in always supporting the unlimited forgiveness of a compassionate Creator. (I'm not sure any of today's organized religions can be called "unembellished", however.)

As for changing behavior after many years of it being ingrained by habit and pleasure ... ask a smoker who is trying to quit; or who has quit; or has tried and failed to quit. I wouldn't doubt that if smokers could convince themselves and the rest of society that their habit was not self-destructive, there would be no reason to even think about quitting.

Since a gay person can make a case for his/her behavior not being destructive to themselves or anyone else, it is far easier to not change a habit (remember starting from around 3 yrs of age, according to the study). And I have no argument with this approach ... our country is based on individual freedom of choice, so long as it does not interfere with someone else's freedom of choice.

However, I might have some argument with the approach of compelling me to believe that this lifestyle should be embraced and promoted in our school system. Compassionate acceptance of an anatomical or psychological anomaly and granting euqal Constitutional rights, is not the same thing as "endorsement" of behaviors.

While I have heard before the argument that homosexual behaviors are apparent in nature; and, therefore, should be considered "natural" ... our humanity raises us beyond the level of animalistic behaviors that do not promote a functional and compassionate society. OTOH, there are some animal behaviors from which humans could benefit ... the boundless forgiveness, for example, that our dogs often exhibit to us humans

[K.Bullock]

Yardley wrote:



Was listening to an interesting discussion the other day: a study was being cited of findings that during the first 3 years of life, humans acquire incredible quantities of "data", but the data is not in an orderly configuration. About age 3, we begin to "organize" the data.

This was part of a discussion on how gender identity is "fluid", but not genetically inherited in the way that the color of our eyes or skin is inherited. The hypothesis was that beginning at age 3, organization of data will begin to define gender identity. So, yes, hetero or homo orientation would begin before puberty. However, it would not be a result of inheritance, but rather of the environment that surrounds us as we begin to organize our "data".

Interestingly, there was some discussion about how the fluidity of gender identity might be more pronounced in women v. men. There is an oft-cited discrepancy between men v. women, about women's need for cuddling and snuggling that does not require a sexual connection. It was suggested that this characteristic accounted for the greater fluidity of gender identity for women.

The gist of the discussion got to: if gender identity IS, indeed, "fluid" ... as Jeff mentions; and also as gay rights proponents suggest in defense of the gay lifestyle ... then, by creating an environment in which non-heterosexual pairing is more socially acceptable, it could, logically, promote more expression of the non-heterosexual orientation.

So, if gender is fluid, and if a non-heterosexual lifestyle has no long-term benefit to society, why would we want to make it more prevalent? I don't think that we can necessarily make a case for the fact that gay individuals who have contributed to our society in many noteworthy aspects did so solely, or primarily, because of their gay orientation v. what contributions they might have made if not gay.

This does not have to mean that heterosexuals can not be compassionate for good human beings whose gender fluidity was influenced through their life experience to result in their homosexual orientation.

From a religious standpoint, as Pete points out, Christianity, in its unembellished form, is probably one of the most "liberal" religions in always supporting the unlimited forgiveness of a compassionate Creator. (I'm not sure any of today's organized religions can be called "unembellished", however.)

As for changing behavior after many years of it being ingrained by habit and pleasure ... ask a smoker who is trying to quit; or who has quit; or has tried and failed to quit. I wouldn't doubt that if smokers could convince themselves and the rest of society that their habit was not self-destructive, there would be no reason to even think about quitting.

Since a gay person can make a case for his/her behavior not being destructive to themselves or anyone else, it is far easier to not change a habit (remember starting from around 3 yrs of age, according to the study). And I have no argument with this approach ... our country is based on individual freedom of choice, so long as it does not interfere with someone else's freedom of choice.

However, I might have some argument with the approach of compelling me to believe that this lifestyle should be embraced and promoted in our school system. Compassionate acceptance of an anatomical or psychological anomaly and granting euqal Constitutional rights, is not the same thing as "endorsement" of behaviors.

While I have heard before the argument that homosexual behaviors are apparent in nature; and, therefore, should be considered "natural" ... our humanity raises us beyond the level of animalistic behaviors that do not promote a functional and compassionate society. OTOH, there are some animal behaviors from which humans could benefit ... the boundless forgiveness, for example, that our dogs often exhibit to us humans

Good stuff Gerry.

[YardleyLabs]

Yardley wrote:

...

So, if gender is fluid, and if a non-heterosexual lifestyle has no long-term benefit to society, why would we want to make it more prevalent? I don't think that we can necessarily make a case for the fact that gay individuals who have contributed to our society in many noteworthy aspects did so solely, or primarily, because of their gay orientation v. what contributions they might have made if not gay. ...

The fundamental basis for arguing that homosexuality "has no long term benefit to society" is that it does not result in procreation. Needless to say, most sexual activity does not result, and is not expected to result in procreation. Do we therefore condemn it as having "no benefit?" There is an extreme presumptuousness and arrogance involved in assuming that any form of behavior has "no long term benefit to society", particularly when that behavior is important to a large portion of our society and does not injure others. There is no question that the number of homosexuals exceeds the number of hunters. Are we willing to see our own activities outlawed simply because the majority of the population finds them objectionable and unnecessary? If the objections are biblical, I say fine. Follow the rules of your religion as you wish but do not expect the law to mirror your interpretation of those rules.