Study Suggests Sexual Orientation Is Decided Before Birth

[Shi Huangdi]

Originally posted by Wittlich


....so by that line of thought, this would mean that I (or I should say all gays) were born with a tainted/sinfull soul? My, my sounds just like the sort of reasoning you would find in the Catholic church...oh wait, this is basically the belief of the Catholic church... : )

Please make more of an effort to understand what you attack.

CCC 2538

2358. The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively dirordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

The Church doesn't view it as a sin to have homosexual tendencies, only to act on said tendencies. So unless you were practicing sodomy from the moment of birth you were not born with any extra degree of sin on your soul.

[Dinner]

I have yet to see a viable stufy which shows aexuality is a post-birth construction instead of an after-birth construction. I have scene a lot of studies.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
The Church doesn't view it as a sin to have homosexual tendencies, only to act on said tendencies.

The reason we don't draw a distinction is like it's saying it's not a sin to have an arm, it's a sin to move it...

And don't give us that crap about some people choosing to remain celibate -- the vast majority of the people will not choose to be celibate.

[cinch]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I have yet to see a viable stufy which shows aexuality is a post-birth construction instead of an after-birth construction. I have scene a lot of studies.

Post-birth... After-birth... Are these not the same term?

[Shi Huangdi]

Originally posted by Asher

The reason we don't draw a distinction is like it's saying it's not a sin to have an arm, it's a sin to move it...

And don't give us that crap about some people choosing to remain celibate -- the vast majority of the people will not choose to be celibate.

Within the context of the Catholic religion, celibacy is not considered to be the unimaginable curse the secular world considers it to be.

[Asher]

Are you going to remain celibate your entire life?

[Agathon]

I always wondered if homosexuality wasn't nature's way of responding to overpopulation. Hmmmm.

[Az]

Originally posted by Agathon
I always wondered if homosexuality wasn't nature's way of responding to overpopulation. Hmmmm.

Nature doesn't respond to anything.

On the article: Interesting. But those are clearly only early, though not first, steps in the discovery of the reasons behind the homosexual behavior.

[Asher]

Nature doesn't respond to anything.

psst: adaptation

[Az]

Originally posted by Asher

Nature doesn't respond to anything.

psst: adaptation

Completely different. This is not the bio-sphere responding to a new species, but some members of the species showing some pretty strange behavior.

Look, NOT everything happens for a reason. I don't think this stuff is genetical, but probably a product of skewed brain developement. ( Otherwise, I hardly see those genes surviving the ape-man stage). Therefore, It's not as if nature's pressures would weed homosexuality out through the ages, or on the contrary, let them proliferate immensly. It's just something that happens.

[Asher]

I think you took it far, far too literally.

Plus I don't see why it's strange. Is it strange for a man and a woman to have sex when they're not specifically trying to make a baby?

Maybe I should post the gay penguin link.

http://www.jrn.columbia.edu/studentwork/cns/2002-06-10/591.asp

[Az]

That's sick, just sick.

Though having sex for non-reproductive purposes is rather clear (and it appears that humans didn't know that sex was the thing to bring babies, until a rather late stage), the 'target audience' is what matters.

What I am saying is, basically, that this ain't nature's way of controlling the population, or whatever. The whole concept of 'nature's way' as if nature was some sort of deity is false. But in this case, even that wrong expression is not applicable, since 'nature's way' is usually weeding out the ones that don't fit the needed criteria. But gay people are just like ordinary people in everyday behavior. And since most chances are that homosexuality is not transferrable, that path of 'weeding out' is incorrect, as well.

[Asher]

What I'm saying is you take things too literally if you seem to think that nature has a plan and/or deity.

I believe people are referring to the process of adaptation and natural selection...

[Az]

Originally posted by Asher
What I'm saying is you take things too literally if you seem to think that nature has a plan and/or deity.

I don't think so. That's the wibe I get from people that use the expression "nature's way"

I believe people are referring to the process of adaptation and natural selection...

And as I said, it has nothing to do with homosexuality.

[Asher]

Perhaps, perhaps not.

Frankly I don't care.

BTW, when people say "mother nature" do you also assume they're referring to some deity or somesuch?