The Sins of the Father

Published on July 17, 2007 By Dr Guy In Religion

One of our esteemed members decided to post an article concerning a religion where he stated:

I should comment that I am pretty much against the Catholic Church

Some of the reasons he stated are historical, if somewhat prejudicial, and are ones that the Church in the modern era has had to deal with in their quest to return to its roots - that of being a faith based, and not a political based organization. And some are an attempt to bestow upon an fallible organization a measure of perfection that does not exist in this world. And still others are a gross mis-interpretation of a teaching that many do not understand, yet continue to decry and denounce in their ignorance.

Let us look at these three different aspects of these accusations.

The first is easy enough to identify. They deal with Historical facts. The inquisition, the heresy of Galileo, and the Crusades. All of these are historical facts, that are undeniable. And to deny them would be akin to denying the holocaust. But they are historical. The implication in the linked article is that since these were done in the name of the Church, then all descendants must bear the shame of those forefathers. That those descendants must renounce their faith, because the Church (not the faith) is imperfect and has done evil. They are guilty, because their ancestors are guilty. And not even necessarily their ancestors, but the acquaintances of some of their ancestors.

It matters not that the descendants have apologized for those deeds. It matters not that the descendants have repudiated the deeds. It matters only that those deeds were committed by the fathers, and thus the sins must be visited upon the children.

Now we come to the point where this faith based organization must know not only all that has been, but all that will be. In 1933, the Church signed a concordat with a sovereign nation stating they would get out of Politics. Something they had been in since Constantine back during the Roman Empire. Something they were never meant to be. And something they should never have been. And yet, into the 20th century, they were still involved with the remnants of the Holy Roman Empire. So they got out. By signing an agreement with the government of Germany. At the time, a democratically elected government whose primary concerns were not with ruling the world (that would come later), but in getting the country out of the worst depression they had ever seen.

While this was a mistake, at the time, no one knew the evil that was to occur under the new leadership of Germany. But we are to believe, again, that this is a heinous crime. And the crime was in not being omniscient. They should have known that the evil was to come, and never signed the agreement, and that they did sign it before the evil was perpetrated upon the world, is irrelevant. For they must be omniscient. Because people say they are.

And because they signed this agreement, then all the works of the Catholics throughout Europe, those who sacrificed their lives for the persecuted, was just a dog and pony show. Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. hey! They must have been pretending.

Finally we come to modern day deeds. Yes, what WE do today WE are responsible for. At least in most circles. But what did the Church do in the current day? There are 2 charges.

One: The participation in the genocide in Rwanda by priests and nuns,

Two: Hundreds of years (no kidding or exaggeration) of tacitly permitting the sexual abuse of parishioners, specifically including children, by priests

That is right. The church and all 1.1 billion members participated in the genocide in Rwanda. And not another soul in the world did so. Nope, none of the other 5 billion people participated, just the 1 billion Catholics. And how did they participate? How many people were killed by Catholics? Well, that gets kind of murky, since even the author does not indicate that a single Catholic raised up arms against the Hutus and Tutsis. NO, the only allegation is that they did nothing. But the other 5 billion people sure did a lot, right? They sure stopped the massacre from happening! I remember well, the brigades of Americans (non-catholic of course), Israelis, English, French, and Germans marching in there to stop this slaughter. I remember it very well. Maybe you do as well?

But not the Catholics. Not a single Catholic sacrificed their lives for that massacre.

And the pedophilia? Yep! A crime that did not exist prior to it being discovered in the church, and what is even better, would not exist were it not for the church. And its 1 billion members! That is right! You heard it here first! The Church, and its 1 billion members are all pedophiles, or so we are to believe. Because only Catholics are pedophiles, and they must all be because we have found some priests that are.

Forget those men behind the curtain: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,286153,00.html

Forget the hundreds of instances where headlines have blared that "This teacher and that teacher" is convicted of it (they must all be Catholics too). Forget all the felons rotting in jail (they are all Catholics too). Just concentrate on the 13,000 charges (not all proven yet - except the fact they are Catholics) in the last 50 odd years against those evil Catholics. Do away with those Catholics, and problem solved! You do not need to worry about any one else!

No way is it possible that perhaps those inclined to pedophilia are attracted to occupations that put them in contact with children. No, all those teachers are Catholics, all those Felons are Catholics, and all those Protestant ministers, Jewish Rabbis and Muslim Imams are really Catholics in disguise. Problem solved. The final solution is to kill all the Catholics.

Then we have this statement: When Ratzinger was a Cardinal, he helped conceal the severity of the problem. And this is the man that has the audacity to say that you are "wounded" in your beliefs if you do not acknowledge him?

Yes, the author now is an expert on theology, and knows more about interfaith dialog than any one else. So he can now state the intent and reason for the claim of "wounded" irregardless of its context: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,288976,00.html

Let just pretend again that the Pope (who is all Catholics after all), is again saying that, now not only all Muslims are evil (Exact quote from Manuel Il Paleologus, a Byzantine Emperor, not a pope):

Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached

Since he quotes a historical text to a CLASS on theology, he must have originated the quote, and firmly believes in it. Just like the statement he re-released recently that the experts in the media took to be a slam on protestant churches, instead of what it was. A re-statement of a working paper for the reconciliation of all Christian faiths. "The wound" that is talked about is reflected in the Popes belief that his faith is the right one. But as we can guess from these wanna-bee Theological experts in the mainstream media and elsewhere, ONLY Catholics believe that. All other people of faith must then believe that their faith is not the right one, and they are just waiting on a street corner for a bus to come along with a better one.

I guess we have 5 billion people that just cant wait to find a better creed and faith.

And finally we get to the last item. One corrected so many times, it truly boggles the mind that people would continue to perpetrate it. I guess some just love to revel in their ignorance instead of trying to discern the truth, or even seeking it. Even worse, when presented with the truth, they chose to ignore it, because ignorance is so much more fun. But for the record:

Pope ... ....always correct and infallible...

Is incorrect. The pope is only infallible when he goes Ex-cathedra, which means speaking for the faithful, and that has occurred only twice in the last 500 years. All the other times, he is speaking as the leader of the faithful - much like Bush speaks for all Americans (ha ha). He is the head teacher, as the role of priest has its roots in the Jewish faith, and that of the Rabbi - which means teacher, his words carry more weight than the other teachers and the students. But last I checked, no teacher is right all the time, and no man is either. And the Pope, outside of his role as head teacher, is just that. A man.

So please, slam those 1 billion plus Catholics for all these sins. We can even make a special place for them, since they are all evil and do only evil. But at least get your facts right when you are marching them to the gallows.

Comments (Page 6)

Dan Greene

on Aug 18, 2007

"policies of "zero tolerance", and other steps that have come from the Holy See, the Church is doing what is needed to effectively solve the problem."

Haven't excluded Cardinal Bernard Law, a known enabler, from being a member of the church.

"The root problem is that of homosexuality and the sooner that everyone, including the Church, recognizes that, the better."

Homosexuality is no more at fault than heterosexuality for the abuse. Abusers abuse victims because of opportunity and need. There are heterosexuals who are just as guilty of perpetrating crimes on people. One quarter of the abuse is on the opposite sex, clearly though there are more opportunities for adult men to come into contact with boys, than girls.

Even if homosexuality comes into it, which I would agree that in part it does, why are homosexuals in other religions not given the same scrutiny? Why not homosexuals in other areas of life. Why not heterosexuals?

"And basically neither trait is a "learned" one, but rather either a genetic trait or a mental difference."

There is a belief that people choose to be homosexual. I do not know first hand as I speak as a heterosexual, however I find it exceedingly illogical that there would be a crowd of people, outside the counter culture realm, inside the conformalist arena, there are lots who largely going with the flow, are mainstream and yet are gay. I'm not talking about the marchers with the assless chaps and rainbow outfits. I'm talking about "the normal crowd" the guys at the office or plant who on the weekend kisses other guys. So what right? But who would chose this one area to be different because simply they chose it when there is an active stigma. Who would choose this lifestyle with the higher rate of AIDS risk?

Read about something here...

An article, with citations and a reference to a physical difference between a homo-heterosexuals humans' brain.
http://allpsych.com/journal/homosexuality.html

An article on homosexuality in animals, which are not subject to the same type of environmental and marketing influences that humans are influenced by.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality#Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

It is my firm belief that this is nature and genetics and life. Another point, on sex offenders, who would chose this type of behavior? Who would chose to harm a child? Why do animals kill the offspring which isn't theres? Why does life attack weak things? It's nature, in these cases, it could be that these offenders have a need to injure to harm to leave a scar on their victim that is not visible but clearly has a severe impact.

Our society has created plenty of opportunities for the weak and strong to intermix daily and in nature strength attacks weakness. We apply these struggles in war, in politics, in sports, in so many areas it's easy to just overlook the constant struggle of nature. Certainly most of us don't live in a pure natural environment and the result of this combined with a high emphasis on influenced behavior leads to socially objectable behavior.

Jythier

on Aug 18, 2007

Within the allpsych article, it is expressed that among pairs of identical twins (That's identical DNA) only 52% were both gay. While that says that the closer the DNA, the more likely it is to be tied together, it also proves conclusively that DNA is, in fact, not the sole cause of homosexuality. If it was, it would be 100%.

So, your own article says there's no definite answer and disproves that there is a 'gay gene' or that a homosexual is born that way, ie identical twins would always both have the same sexual orientation.

Dr Guy

on Aug 18, 2007

So, your own article says there's no definite answer and disproves that there is a 'gay gene' or that a homosexual is born that way, ie identical twins would always both have the same sexual orientation.

I gather this was directed at Dan, as I clearly stated I do not know. And I do not. However, the DNA of identical twins is not 100%. And the cause of homosexuality (or pedophelia) is not known. It could be choice, it could be genetic, or it could be mental (which is not strictly genetic). The general consensus is that it is a born trait, not a learned one.

But how it comes about, while important in some circles, is not really germaine to this issue. Priests dont become homosexuals, or pedophiles, homsexuals and pedophiles become priests. The evidence is very strong that those with a predilection to pedophelia migrate to professions where they can carry out their pervase behavior. Otherwise, why the greater than normal (in relation to the general population) percentage of these individuals in teaching and non-catholic ministries. neither of which share the requirement of celibacy with the Catholic church, but both of which share the interaction of trusted adults with children?

Dan Greene

on Aug 19, 2007

Let me first say that I added this article into the discussion to point out that there is no known cause of homosexuality. I don't even know if it is credible but I have no reason to suspect it is not. I do believe that it is well sourced and objective.

"Within the allpsych article, it is expressed that among pairs of identical twins (That's identical DNA) only 52% were both gay. While that says that the closer the DNA, the more likely it is to be tied together, it also proves conclusively that DNA is, in fact, not the sole cause of homosexuality. If it was, it would be 100%.

So, your own article says there's no definite answer and disproves that there is a 'gay gene' or that a homosexual is born that way, ie identical twins would always both have the same sexual orientation."

Before you put words in my mouth or on the paper in my handwriting consider...

I didn't assert that genetics is the sole cause of homosexuality. I just pointed out a study which has some information on homosexuality.

What I said was...

"An article, with citations and a reference to a physical difference between a homo-heterosexuals humans' brain.
http://allpsych.com/journal/homosexuality.html"

The specific section I was referring to is here...

"D.F. Swaab conducted the next noteworthy experiment in 1990. This experiment became the first to document a physiological difference in the anatomical structure of a gay man's brain. Swaab found in his post-mortem examination of homosexual males' brains that a portion of the hypothalamus of the brain was structurally different than a heterosexual brain. The hypothalamus is the portion of the human brain directly related to sexual drive and function. In the homosexual brains examined, a small portion of the hypothalamus, termed the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN), was found to be twice the size of its heterosexual counterpart [2].
At the same time, another scientist, Laura S. Allen made a similar discovery in the hypothalamus as well. She found that the anterior commissure (AC) of the hypothalamus was also significantly larger in the homosexual subjects than that of the heterosexuals [2]. Both Swaab's and Allen's results became a standing ground for the biological argument on homosexuality. The very fact that the AC and the SCN are not involved in the regulation of sexual behavior makes it highly unlikely that the size differences results from differences in sexual behavior. Rather the size differences came prenatally during sexual differentiation. The size and shape of the human brain is determined biologically and is impacted minutely, if at all by behavior of any kind."

Let me remind you there is no known direct causation of either heterosexuality or homosexuality. There is speculation, theory, guesswork, and some possibilities ruled out but as of yet, it's still a debate about genetics, environment, and choice, because it just isn't known.

If you look at it logically, I find it hard to believe homosexuality exists in nature, in places where it is forbidden, in places where it is taboo, in places where it is stigmatized, and places where it is accepted, purely because people will it. In all walks of life and culture it exists. To me that means it's a genetic/born trait. I find it hard to believe that homosexuals in Nazi Germany or other places of forbidden non-conformity in history it was still a way of life which existed at the risk of death. That to me is appears to be a natural drive, not a learned response, or a chosen trait.

People with Polio, on the whole, cannot choose to walk, obese people cannot choose to be thin, people with serious debilitating diseases cannot choose to just shrug them off, knowing that and understanding it, can you tell me that people who have a deep drive to be romantic with members of the same sex rather then opposite are choosing that over it being chosen for them by nature? How about the people who have sex reassignment surgeries because they are born in the wrong body and identify with the opposite sex? I do not know if that occurs in nature in the animal kingdom but I do know homosexuality does.

When I write "It is my firm belief that this is nature and genetics and life." Forgive me for intermixing terms, I mean to say I think it is a born trait rather then a learned one. As to if it is genetic or not I don't know much about the human genome. I do know homosexuality occurs in animals in nature and so why not humans. Animals have fewer learned abilities and more instinctive and born traits than do humans because of their experience. To me that means it is likely that homosexuality is a born with trait similar to how with genetics you are born with traits.

As for a "gay gene" I don't know if there is one or of it if there is.

"it also proves conclusively that DNA is, in fact, not the sole cause of homosexuality. If it was, it would be 100%."

NO IT DOES NOT! at the end of the article it says...

"We have examined many causes for homosexuality in the preceding pages, both biological and social. And although an interesting topic of debate, no one theory or experiment leads to a definitive answer... Perhaps there is no one answer, that sexual orientation, whether homosexual or heterosexual; gay, straight, lesbian, or bisexual, all are a cause of a complex interaction between environmental, cognitive, and anatomical factors, shaping the individual at an early age."

If you want to comment on an article READ THE WHOLE THING OR DON'T BOTHER! THANK YOU.

"But how it comes about, while important in some circles, is not really germaine to this issue. Priests dont become homosexuals, or pedophiles, homsexuals and pedophiles become priests. The evidence is very strong that those with a predilection to pedophelia migrate to professions where they can carry out their pervase behavior. Otherwise, why the greater than normal (in relation to the general population) percentage of these individuals in teaching and non-catholic ministries. neither of which share the requirement of celibacy with the Catholic church, but both of which share the interaction of trusted adults with children?"

The meat and potatoes of the debate summed up in one paragraph. Excellent ending question too by the way Dr.

Why do offenders gravitate towards occupations of trust. Maybe it's a sub-conscience thing as well as environmental and genetic thing rolled into one.

kingbee

on Aug 19, 2007

Why do offenders gravitate towards occupations of trust. Maybe it's a sub-conscience thing as well as environmental and genetic thing rolled into one.

it could be as simple as willy sutton's propensity for robbing banks because banks are where the money is.

it might also be that both pedophiles and molestors are, in some respects, perpetual children stuck at age 7 (or 12 or whatever)wearing adult bodies, as such, they continue to enjoy the company of children currently of a corresponding age and are drawn to activities and other social situations which appeal most to those same children.

Jythier

on Aug 19, 2007

I don't like to talk about it, because it's always dismissed, but Satan is in fact at work in our lives. The offenders are often those in positions of trust around children because that was the temptation thrown at them by Satan.

So people say they were born that way, so that it's not their fault that they can't control themselves. And we let them, because that means we're NOT born that way, and it will never happen to us.

Dr. Guy, what's up with this? "The DNA of identical twins is not 100%." I must admit I learned this in public school, so I may be mistaken, but I was under the impression that identical twins were born from the same egg and sperm as each other, and therefore their DNA was identical, hence the term, identical twins. Did I miss something?

As a whole, when I say the Catholic church has a lust problem, the reality is the whole of America has a lust problem, which is the root of homosexuality, pedophilia, and every other perversion of what God intended. Lust is the root, not some difference in the brain.

I read the whole article, Dan, but that doesn't make the conclusion valid. It cited a study that identical twins were not always the same sexuality. Therefore, if their DNA is 100% (which may not be a valid presumption, as Dr. Guy has challenged it), then homosexuality cannot be an in-born trait based on genetics.

kingbee

on Aug 19, 2007

in her reply #39, lulapilgrim faulted me for using 'pedophilia' inaccurately.

she objected to using this term as a catchall definition of sexual predators whose victims are above the age of pubescence. it seemed to me then a specious distinction but was aware i had been using it otherwise innacurately.

in my reply #40, i conceded the point, thanked her and then excerpted additional text from a source i'd cited earlier in the discussion for further clarification.

at risk of appearing to quibble--but in the interest of precision--i'm re-quoting that portion here. my reason for doing so goes beyond misapplication of the terms pedophile/pedophilia in this thread.

i dunno if any of you are aware of a person who recently attracted considerable attention to himself--none of it to his advantage--by professing publicly to be a pedophile. he was operating a website on which he listed places of potential interest to other pedophiles due to the number and ages of children to be found there.

responding to angry parents' demands he be arrested, the lapd explained pedophilia is a psychological condition which cannot be criminalized by our legal system because it involves no action. sexual molestation, assualt or any other activity is an entirely different matter.

with that in mind, consider this:

A second problem is that the terminology used in this area is often confusing and can even be misleading. We can begin to address that problem by defining some basic terms.

Pedophilia and child molestation are used in different ways, even by professionals. Pedophilia usually refers to an adult psychological disorder characterized by a preference for prepubescent children as sexual partners; this preference may or may not be acted upon. The term hebephilia is sometimes used to describe adult sexual attractions to adolescents or children who have reached puberty.

Whereas pedophilia and hebephilia refer to psychological propensities, child molestation and child sexual abuse are used to describe actual sexual contact between an adult and someone who has not reached the legal age of consent. In this context, the latter individual is referred to as a child, even though he or she may be a teenager.

Although the terms are not always applied consistently, it is useful to distinguish between pedophiles/hebephiles and child molesters/abusers. Pedophilia and hebephilia are diagnostic labels that refer to psychological attractions. Not all pedophiles and hebephiles actually molest children; an adult can be attracted to children or adolescents without ever actually engaging in sexual contact with them.

Child molestation and child sexual abuse refer to actions, and don't imply a particular psychological makeup or motive on the part of the perpetrator. Not all incidents of child sexual abuse are perpetrated by pedophiles or hebephiles; in some cases, the perpetrator has other motives for his or her actions and does not manifest an ongoing pattern of sexual attraction to children.

Thus, not all child sexual abuse is perpetrated by pedophiles (or hebephiles) and not all pedophiles and hebephiles actually commit abuse. Consequently, it is important to use terminology carefully.

Another problem related to terminology arises because sexual abuse of male children by adult men2 is often referred to as "homosexual molestation." The adjective "homosexual" (or "heterosexual" when a man abuses a female child) refers to the victim's gender in relation to that of the perpetrator. Unfortunately, people sometimes mistakenly interpret it as referring to the perpetrator's sexual orientation.

To avoid this confusion, it is preferable to refer to men's sexual abuse of boys with the more accurate label of male-male molestation. Similarly, it is preferable to refer to men's abuse of girls as male-female molestation. These labels are more accurate because they describe the sex of the individuals involved but don't implicitly convey unwarranted assumptions about the perpetrator's sexual orientation.

The distinction a victim's gender and a perpetrator's sexual orientation is important because many child molesters don't really have an adult sexual orientation. They have never developed the capacity for mature sexual relationships with other adults, either men or women. Instead, their sexual attractions focus on children – boys, girls, or children of both sexes.

For the present discussion, the important point is that many child molesters cannot be meaningfully described as homosexuals, heterosexuals, or bisexuals (in the usual sense of those terms) because they are not really capable of a relationship with an adult man or woman. Instead of gender, their sexual attractions are based primarily on age. These individuals – who are often characterized as fixated – are attracted to children, not to men or women

kingbee

on Aug 19, 2007

The DNA of identical twins is not 100%

twins (or triplets or quadruplets) not exact clones of each other. my next younger sisters are twins who looked so much alike as kids only family members--and not all of those--could tell them apart. as alike as they may sometimes seem, there are also vast differences between the two.

kingbee

on Aug 19, 2007

Satan is in fact at work in our lives.

there's nothing factual about the above. you may believe it to be true. it may even be true. nevertheless, facts depend entirely on verifiable evidence. as far as satan goes, there isn't any.

next time someone's books don't balance, try tellin them it's satan's doing.

Jythier

on Aug 19, 2007

Satan worked in the thief's life, causing him/her to need money, usually right after the opportunity presents itself... some people don't take the money, some do. Some do to feed their family. Is it still wrong? Yes, but that justification is just another way Satan attacks...

No, I can't prove to you that Satan is working in your life.

But, I figured since you all shared your beliefs, I could share mine. Dan Greene believes homosexuals are born that way, I believe it has a lot more to do with lust and demons. If it's his firm belief, does that make my firm belief less valid? No. As you said, it may even be true. It IS true. But provable does not equal truth, as many innocent people put in prison will tell you. Truth just IS. Perception is what makes something provable or not, not truth.

kingbee

on Aug 19, 2007

Perception is what makes something provable or not, not truth.

fact and truth intersect but are by no means the same thing.

satan's existence is by no means a fact. nor ia this:

Satan worked in the thief's life, causing him/her to need money,

i suspect you know the difference (which is why you won't be telling anyone satan's responsible for accounts out of balance).

Dan Greene believes homosexuals are born that way,

as do i. while there's no conclusive evidence supporting either position at this time, current ongoing research of which i'm aware seems more likely to confirm our position than yours.

does that make my firm belief less valid?

factual validity isn't mitigated by belief. no matter how convinced you may be in your ability to turn base metal to gold by force of will, it ain't gonna happen.

But provable does not equal truth, as many innocent people put in prison will tell you

neither jury nor judge can determine innocence. their duty is to decide whether sufficient evidence exists to support--beyond a reasonable doubt--conviction or acquittal.

lulapilgrim

on Aug 20, 2007

Dan Greene posts #76

Lula posts:

To my knowledge, no member of the Church involved in this scandal, whether as an abuser or one who wittingly or unwittlingly shuffled them from one parish to another, has been ex-communicated. Excommunication isn't the way the Church works with sinners. Those clergy who were found guilty of sexual abuse were de-frocked, made to resign, but not excommunicated. Those who are not in prison, are sent to a monastery-type place where they will live the remainder of their lives in contemplative prayer seeking God's mercy and receive His healing grace through repentance.

We know now that some bishops who unwittingly moved predators around did so based on the unsound advice of therapists who assured them that the individuals in question were safe. They have since acknowledged innocently contributuing to the problem and are taking their responsibility working to provide effective steps to resolve that it doesn't ever happen again.

lulapilgrim

on Aug 20, 2007

Dan Greene posts #76

Lulapilgrim posts:

"The root problem is that of homosexuality and the sooner that everyone, including the Church, recognizes that, the better."

Dan Greene posts:

Homosexuality is no more at fault than heterosexuality for the abuse.

Dan, you say that "Homosexuality is no more at fault than heterosexuality for the abuse."

In this case, I must disagree based upon the following:

1--We know now that 1.5 percent of the estimated 60,000 or more men who have served in the Catholic clergy have been accused of child sexual abuse. In a study put out by USA TODAY, it was determined that in the nation's 10 largest dioceses, 234 priests who have been accused of sexual abuse, 91 percent of their victims were male.
2--1.8 per cent of all priests ordained from 1950 to 2001 have been accused of child sexual abuse.
3--Thomas Kane, author of Priests are People, too", estimates that between 1 and 1.5 per cent of priests have had charges made against them.
4--Almost all the priests who abuse children are homosexuals so says Dr. Thomas Plante, a psychologist at Santa Clara U. found that 80 to 90% of all priests who in fact abuse minors have sexually engaged with adolescent and teen boys, not pre-pubescent children.
5--The numbers show that BOston which was the epicenter of the scandal is even worse. There the clergy sex abuse cases that were referred to prosecutors in Massachusetts more than 90% involve male victims. The most prominent Boston lawyer for alleged victims said 95% of their clients are male.

lulapilgrim

on Aug 20, 2007

Even if homosexuality comes into it, which I would agree that in part it does, why are homosexuals in other religions not given the same scrutiny?

First of all, the homosexual connection is NOT being discussed and therfore is not what is receiving scrutiny; it's politically incorrect to do so. Pedophile can be mentioned day-in and day-out, but not homosexuality.

Second, even though there is sexual abuse of children found among Protestant clergy and among Rabbis, even moreso than in the CC, there is more money to be made by suing the Catholic which as a whole is much, much larger than are the individual Protestant denominations for example.

lulapilgrim

on Aug 20, 2007

DAN GREENE POSTS #76

"And basically neither trait is a "learned" one, but rather either a genetic trait or a mental difference."

There is a belief that people choose to be homosexual. I do not know first hand as I speak as a heterosexual, however I find it exceedingly illogical that there would be a crowd of people, outside the counter culture realm, inside the conformalist arena, there are lots who largely going with the flow, are mainstream and yet are gay. I'm not talking about the marchers with the assless chaps and rainbow outfits. I'm talking about "the normal crowd" the guys at the office or plant who on the weekend kisses other guys. So what right? But who would chose this one area to be different because simply they chose it when there is an active stigma. Who would choose this lifestyle with the higher rate of AIDS risk?

Ah, here again comes the question of choice...

The argument goes---Homosexuality must be innate because no one would choose to be "gay" and incur the resulting social stigma or of being infected with AIDS.

First, I have to give credit to the success of the so-called "gay rights" crowd for their amazing triumpth of clever deception over simple logic. I haven't been able to find any one who argued that homosexuality was innate before 1986, have you?

The argument is invalid since many people choose lifestyles that others condemn. More than that, there are way too many homosexuals who freely admit their lifestyle is a voluntary preference. Furthermore, if "sexual orientation" (which is also a term devised by the talented sophists of the "gay" (oops another term) movement), is fixed from birth, why do some homosexuals switch from heterosexuality or bisexuality?

ON the question of choice, it must be noted that all sexual activity, except rape, is voluntary and thus every sexual act involves a person's conscious choice.

Let's suppose I honestly believe that I've been born homosexual. Am I required to engage in homosexual acts? Am I not capable of controlling my sexual desires and remaining celibate?

How different is this from the heterosexual person who chooses to be sexually promiscuous in spite of the devestating consequences of emotional turmoil, diseases, etc.?

Either way, we are all personally responsible for our own behavior sexual or non-sexual---while we may have strong desires, we are not required to engage in any particular form of sexual conduct.
A choice must still be made.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!