Rationality of choice

DJPavel · Aug 1, 2007

I have an honest question to all people who consciously chose to be Christians but who don't believe that some of us didn't choose to be gay. I'm sorry, I didn't realize there were already so many posts on homosexuality, but I was always wondering.....

You chose to believe somebody's testimony from over 2000 years ago of something that is unheard of, from somebody you never met and never talked to. And yet, when I tell you in person (among thousands of others like me) that I did not choose to be gay, you don't believe me.

I don't understand this rationality. I mean a rational person assigns credence to a belief that has more likelyhood, right? What is more likely to you, a second hand story from a few folks that a dead person became alive again (something physically impossible to the best of our knowledge) or first hand information about somebody's conscious choice of their sexual preference? I understand some things have to be taken by faith, without such rationality. Then why can't you take by faith what I tell you about my choice? How did the gospels (and who wrote them) establish credibilty a priori, the priviledge I seem to be denied? Please explain.

DJP

ironheart · Aug 1, 2007

You are certainly in denial about your choice. The biggest problem about you is that you cannot accept the fact that what you are right now is the product of what you truly desired to be...because, if what you are is not your choice, then who chose for you to become what you are? You can never say "it's God's choice that I have become this way" because God gave us the freewill to be responsible of who we become.

The Nihilist · Aug 1, 2007

ironheart said:
You are certainly in denial about your choice. The biggest problem about you is that you cannot accept the fact that what you are right now is the product of what you truly desired to be...because, if what you are is not your choice, then who chose for you to become what you are? You can never say "it's God's choice that I have become this way" because God gave us the freewill to be responsible of who we become.

This is the worst argument I've seen in a long time. Anyone who takes it seriously loses.

Calculon · Aug 1, 2007

ironheart said:
You are certainly in denial about your choice. The biggest problem about you is that you cannot accept the fact that what you are right now is the product of what you truly desired to be...because, if what you are is not your choice, then who chose for you to become what you are? You can never say "it's God's choice that I have become this way" because God gave us the freewill to be responsible of who we become.

Or... It could be genetics. Right?

Did you choose your eye color?

IzzyPop · Aug 2, 2007

ironheart said:
You are certainly in denial about your choice. The biggest problem about you is that you cannot accept the fact that what you are right now is the product of what you truly desired to be...because, if what you are is not your choice, then who chose for you to become what you are? You can never say "it's God's choice that I have become this way" because God gave us the freewill to be responsible of who we become.

So my cousin chose to be born deaf and blind?

I chose to have blue eyes and a high forehead?

holysee · Aug 3, 2007

The Catholic Church in its Catechism notes re homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained.

So it allows for the possibility that a same sex orientation is not a matter of conscious choice. The origins of homosexuality are in fact unknown to religion, science, medicine and philosophy. Its just one of these known unknowns.

What the Church believes is that sexual activity is ordered by God for the creation of new life. Any form of sexual activity not open to the possibility of new life- use of contraceptives, masturbation, homosexual acts- are in that context dis-ordered intrinsically and should be avoided. A sexual orientation as such is neither sinful nor virtuous, it depends what you do with it.

The Nihilist · Aug 3, 2007

People who have lost: Calculon (awesome name), IzzyPop, and holysee. Guys, this is an argument that can only be put down by ridicule, because it is so absurd that it is offensive to reason.

DJPavel · Aug 5, 2007

holysee said:
What the Church believes is that sexual activity is ordered by God for the creation of new life. Any form of sexual activity not open to the possibility of new life- use of contraceptives, masturbation, homosexual acts- are in that context dis-ordered intrinsically and should be avoided. A sexual orientation as such is neither sinful nor virtuous, it depends what you do with it.

Thank you for the input, holysee, but to clarify, my question was not about what the Church believes, but rather, why YOU believe what the Church believes. The Church tells you something that is physically impossible and you have no problem digesting it, but you have a problem accepting the first hand information that I did not choose my sexual orientation. How do they earn instanteneous credibility in your eyes and I don't?

holysee · Aug 5, 2007

DJPavel said:
Thank you for the input, holysee, but to clarify, my question was not about what the Church believes, but rather, why YOU believe what the Church believes. The Church tells you something that is physically impossible and you have no problem digesting it, but you have a problem accepting the first hand information that I did not choose my sexual orientation. How do they earn instanteneous credibility in your eyes and I don't?

I don't doubt that your sexuality is not a matter of conscious choice on your part. The Catechism says Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. The question is not why you became what you have become but what you do with it.

phsyxx · Aug 5, 2007

ironheart said:
You are certainly in denial about your choice. The biggest problem about you is that you cannot accept the fact that what you are right now is the product of what you truly desired to be...because, if what you are is not your choice, then who chose for you to become what you are? You can never say "it's God's choice that I have become this way" because God gave us the freewill to be responsible of who we become.

Don't give me that existentialist rubbish -
You were conceived by your parents - not you, you did not choose to come in to this world.
You did not choose what colour skin you have
How tall you were
How heavy you were (to an extent)
What you look like -

Then, just then, add on "sexuality" - because you can't choose to be gay.
If you COULD choose, don't you think that nearly all homosexual people would choose NOT to be - JUST so that people like you would stop unfairly and unjustly persecuting them!?

DJPavel · Aug 6, 2007

holysee said:
I don't doubt that your sexuality is not a matter of conscious choice on your part. The Catechism says Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. The question is not why you became what you have become but what you do with it.

So, I didn't choose to be gay after all, but since I am, the question now is what I do with it. Fair enough. Then what should a straight man do with being straight and what should I do with being gay? Please explain.

By the way, since The Catechism has some insights into the human psychology, does it mention anything about delusions, i.e. false beliefs based on incorrect inferenference about external reality that is firmly sustained. Seriously, I enjoy reading insights into how the human mind works. My sources are psychology books. They provide a great deal of real cases that show how easy it is for a human mind to go wrong in its judgment and intuition. They demonstrate how we believe what we want to believe, regardless of what the real world suggests. But what I like the most about these books is that they provide a mechanism to check if they're mistaken in their own conclusions, backed up by experiments and predictive power. Should I add the Catechism to the list of my books to find out more about delusions and other biases of the human psyche?

DJP

holysee · Aug 6, 2007

Since sex has been ordered by nature for the purpose of bringing about new life and since new human life is best served in most cases by being raised in a stable loving home with parents of both genders then conclusions are easy to draw. All forms of sexual activity not open to new life in the context of a loving monogamous marriage are disordered.

The Catechism is not particularly a psychology manual. There are many Catholic psychologists and psychotherapists though. Perhaps you might care to be patronising with them instead of with me. I'm only a nurse after all.

In 1953 Pope Pius XII made an Address on Psychotherapy and Religion http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12PSYRE.HTM

30. First of all, scientific research is drawing attention to a dynamism which, rooted in the depths of the psychic being, would push man towards the infinite which is beyond him, not by making him know it, but through an ascending gravitation issuing directly from the ontological substratum. This dynamism is regarded as an independent force, the most fundamental and the most elementary of the soul, an affective impulse carrying man immediately to the Divine, just as a flower opens up to light and sunshine without knowing it, or as a child breathes unconsciously as soon as it is born.

31. This assertion immediately calls forth an observation. If it is stated that this dynamism is at the origin of all religions, that it manifests the element common to all, We know on the contrary that religions, the natural and supernatural knowledge of God and worship of Him, do not proceed from the unconscious or the subconscious, nor from an impulse of the affections, but from the clear and certain knowledge of God by means of His natural and positive revelation. This is the doctrine and the belief of the Church, beginning with the word of God in the Book of Wisdom and the Epistle to the Romans, down to the Encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis [On Modernism] of Our Predecessor, Blessed Pius X.

32. Having laid down this principle, there still remains the question of this mysterious dynamism. On this subject one might make the following remarks. We should certainly not find fault with depth psychology if it deals with the psychic aspect of religious phenomena and endeavors to analyze and reduce it to a scientific system, even if this research is new and if its terminology is not found in the past. We mention this point, because misunderstandings can easily arise when psychology attributes new meanings to already accepted expressions. Prudence and reserve are needed on both sides in order to avoid false interpretations and to make it possible to reach a reciprocal understanding.

33. It pertains to the technique of your science to clarify the questions of the existence, the structure and the mode of action of this dynamism. If its outcome proves to be positive, it should not be declared irreconcilable with reason or faith. This would only show that, even in its deepest roots, esse ab alio [to be from another], also implies an esse ad alium [to be for another], and that St. Augustine's words: "Thou hast made us for thyself, O Lord. and our heart shall not rest until it rests in thee" (Confessions, Book 1, chapter 1, N.1), find a new confirmation in the very depths of man's psychic being. Even if there were question of a dynamism involving all men, peoples, epochs, and cultures, what an invaluable help this would be for the search after God and the affirmation of His existence!

More recently is this http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/civilization/cc0165.html and this http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=1686

Incidentally I believe that research establishes that people with strong spirituality are less likely to become mentally ill than the general population and more likely to recover quickly if they do become ill.

DJPavel · Aug 6, 2007

holysee said:
Since sex has been ordered by nature for the purpose of bringing about new life and since new human life is best served in most cases by being raised in a stable loving home with parents of both genders then conclusions are easy to draw. All forms of sexual activity not open to new life in the context of a loving monogamous marriage are disordered.

You seem to know a lot about the purpose of nature and what it has ordered. Please direct me to this awesome source of knowledge, because all the evidence I've seen is that there is no purpose, at least in the sense you imply. Things simply happen (via 2nd law of thermodynamics) and you're the result of a large number of logically possible results. You also need to explain to the work ants or bees that they're disordered, since they can't procreate and "sex has been ordered by nature". I don't know about your obvious conclusions, but one conclusion is surely easy to draw - you base your judgements on highly presumptuous and limited understanding of how things work, and your primary source for this understanding is not empirical evidence, but somebody's rhetoric that you simply take by faith - how enlightening.

I want to be open minded and do what's right, but you have to show me you know what you're talking about before I take your advice, and that's fair, is it not? Be honest, if I told you there's something wrong with you because the Koran says so, you wouldn't belive me, would you? In fact, there's good case can be made that you're delusional, but you don't buy that either. Then why should I believe you and your quotes from the Catechism? Why should I be doing something about being gay instead of simply be one, just like a straight guy is simply being straight, because that's what he is.

holysee said:
Incidentally I believe that research establishes that people with strong spirituality are less likely to become mentally ill than the general population and more likely to recover quickly if they do become ill.

Research? You started believing in research now? Please forgive my acting like a jackass, but if there is any rationality in you, you should realize how selective you are in your reasoning.

DJP

holysee · Aug 8, 2007

Here is the deal about sex being ordered for procreation. It is. Thats its function. Thats why genitals exist thats why sperm and ova exist. Biologically sex ordained by its Creator for the purposes of reproduction. You could theoretically argue that in this respect humans can "rise above" their biologically determined role and be sexually active without being open to new life. If humans do that other humans are entitled to form an opinion about it. The opinion of the Church is that such activity is not "rising above" but "falling below" what the human spirit is capable of.

You assume that I take the opinion of the Church by faith. You are wrong. The Church itself does not require that. We are expected to apply our reason to its opinions on matters non-essential for salvation, which is what I have done in this case. Having done so I have moved from the permissive "all sex is ok" opinion to the "sex is not a game" opinion.

You need to remember that the Church is a Church of sinners not a Church of "perfect ones". Although celibacy and sexual continence is recommended for all persons outside of marriage the Church also recommends sobriety. Now from time to time Catholics even Bishops perhaps get drunk. If they become reconciled to God through contrition and prayer then they can happily remain within the body of the Church. And so on with all the sins. Homosexual persons are not condemned for their sexual orientation nor are they singled out above other sinners if they should "fall of the wagon" from time to time. The hope is with all of us that as we grow in our relationship with God and in His Grace then the occasions when we turn away from happiness in Him to experience mere pleasure away from Him diminish in number and eventually cease.

I always believe in research. I thought I mentioned I was a nurse. Its kind of important in my line of work.

ArchaicTruth · Aug 9, 2007

Its possible that it is a choice. Some people are gay because of some traumatizing event that occurred in a relationship with someone of the opposite sex. Some people were raped at an early age, possibly by family members of the same sex. It's also possible that a hormone imbalance occurs to create an attraction to the same sex. Either way, you should accept them, but don't encourage their life-style.

redmartian89 · Aug 12, 2007

The preferences may be natural, but acting on them requires an act of will power.

Homosexuals throughout history have been forced to make a choice: act on these preferences, or not.

I've seen different reasons argued for homosexual preferences: genes, brain, hormones.

But no one can say that acting on those preferences is not a choice.

No one is born homo- or heterosexual. Saying that sexuality is inborn is a complete crock.

Sexuality is built on your experiences, preferences, and choice.

It may start early for build up later (coming out as a teen rather then during marriage).

However, choosing homosexuality is completely fine. If that is your happiness, go for it.

Making it a sin, or crime, will drive it underground and give it an underdog appeal.

Infusing homosexuals with guilt over a decision of action is cruel and senseless.

Pavel, how long have you been gay, or when did you first notice your preference?

DJPavel · Aug 12, 2007

holysee said:
You assume that I take the opinion of the Church by faith. You are wrong.

Well, let's see:

holysee said:
Here is the deal about sex being ordered for procreation. It is. Thats its function. Thats why genitals exist thats why sperm and ova exist. Biologically sex ordained by its Creator for the purposes of reproduction.

Where did you get this? "ordered by whom? The Creator?! And you know that how??? From some research? I doubt it. Otherwise send me some references please.

You came to that conclusion through your own reasoning maybe? Then please elaborate, as I doubt it yet again, for people who spent their entire life researching this very topic think differently. Ill stay open minded though - after all, theres nothing wrong with having a professional nurse coming up with intelligent ideas that would overshadow those of contemporary professional biologists and philosophers.

Otherwise, what else is there left? Well, taking it by faith from the authority whose credibility you take from granted The Church! Yes, I might be wrong in this conclusion, but I challenge you to prove it otherwise. Please be specific though about your alternative sources, enough of vagueness and ambiguity in your explanations.

Let's further examine your logic:

holysee said:
Here is the deal about sex being ordered for procreation. It is. Thats its function. Thats why genitals exist thats why sperm and ova exist. Biologically sex ordained by its Creator for the purposes of reproduction

Its interesting that you arbitrarily draw the line at the level of sex organs. You do know that we have sex hormones (e.g. testosterone) being constantly secreted that make us horny, dont you? By your logic, they are also being ordered by the Creator so we could be having sex every time the hormones are secreted. But you dont mention that, you stop at the organ level. Why? My guess is because at the time when the notion of the Creator was conceived, the folks didnt know about the sex hormones, a very natural phenomenon with a specific purpose. So, while the organs are very obvious, their purpose was incorporated into the doctrine and passed through the generations. You are feeding off that very story. If not, prove me wrong and please elaborate on why the Creator has a purpose for organs that were supposed to use in a specific way, but when it comes to the sex hormones, were NOT supposed to follow their purpose (to have sex every time theyre secreted).

holysee said:
You could theoretically argue that in this respect humans can "rise above" their biologically determined role and be sexually active without being open to new life. If humans do that other humans are entitled to form an opinion about it. The opinion of the Church is that such activity is not "rising above" but "falling below" what the human spirit is capable of.

The Church is obviously putting a value judgement on something that is very natural for the reasons I yet to see. After all, there is a purpose behind the sex hormones, as I mentioned. Why does the Church want me to suppress what the Creator put in me? Makes little sense. Besides, yet again, youre showing that youre taking the opinion of the Church by faith. Otherwise, elaborate on how you got to that conclusion.

holysee said:
We are expected to apply our reason to its opinions on matters non-essential for salvation, which is what I have done in this case.

I know you did, but with all due respect, the reasons you provided are not really compelling, not to mention they lack any sophistication. All they are is a mere reflection of what the Church wants. Thats not surprising and helpful.

holysee said:
You need to remember that the Church is a Church of sinners not a Church of "perfect ones". Although celibacy and sexual continence is recommended for all persons outside of marriage the Church also recommends sobriety. Now from time to time Catholics even Bishops perhaps get drunk. If they become reconciled to God through contrition and prayer then they can happily remain within the body of the Church. And so on with all the sins. Homosexual persons are not condemned for their sexual orientation nor are they singled out above other sinners if they should "fall of the wagon" from time to time. The hope is with all of us that as we grow in our relationship with God and in His Grace then the occasions when we turn away from happiness in Him to experience mere pleasure away from Him diminish in number and eventually cease.

This is really begging the question the premise (the Church of sinners) presumes the conclusion (homosexuality is a sin). You really need to establish why I should believe what the Church says in the first place. Isnt that the point of the whole thread??? You reject the idea that you take everything the Church says for granted and yet you dont demonstrate any thinking of your own without presuming the credibility of the Church. How about you leave the Church aside for a moment and demonstrate how you arrive at the same conclusions with a different method?

holysee said:
I always believe in research. I thought I mentioned I was a nurse. Its kind of important in my line of work.

Im sorry its not obvious. Please show me which research you apply when establishing the purpose of the Creator you keep talking about. Id be very grateful if you also provide links to it.

In conclusion, Im sorry to say, but I have to stick with my previous observation you base your conclusions on very presumptuous and limited understanding of how things work. I yet to see anything substantial besides the same old boring preaching of the Church based on an ancient understanding of the world. The human species has made a great deal of progress in pushing the limits of its knowledge. We can prove that this knowledge is real we can launch man into space and treat devastating diseases. The knowledge of the Church you seem to be so fond of is YET to demonstrate any validity of its knowledge. All it seems to be is a nice story that appeals to human emotions. I can come up with a few dozens of those myself. And you seem to be taking such a story by faith, for granted, and passing judgments instructing other people how to live their lives. Prove me wrong.

ArchaicTruth · Aug 12, 2007

I'm really sure the reason for sex is reproduction, because the good feeling and the want to have sex were probably inducted into our system to make sure we have sex, therefore making sure we have children, just in case we decide we don't want to be parents. You may not want children, but you will have sex. If thats not it, I'd love to hear what you think.

Whoever said God didn't want us to have sex and make babies? I'm sorry, but I must have missed it. If you recall in medieval times, it was very common for kids to be married off as soon as they hit puberty, it is also a view of the Catholic Church (or was) that we should have at least five children. Which btw I disagree with, and I'm sure was a product of war. We're not supposed to have sex each time our hormones secrete because, well...if you wanna try it out, and tell me what happens, I'm sure it'd be a much better example then me having to explain it.

DJPavel · Aug 12, 2007

redmartian89 said:
The preferences may be natural, but acting on them requires an act of will power.

Homosexuals throughout history have been forced to make a choice: act on these preferences, or not.

I've seen different reasons argued for homosexual preferences: genes, brain, hormones.

But no one can say that acting on those preferences is not a choice.

No one is born homo- or heterosexual. Saying that sexuality is inborn is a complete crock.

Sexuality is built on your experiences, preferences, and choice.

It may start early for build up later (coming out as a teen rather then during marriage).

However, choosing homosexuality is completely fine. If that is your happiness, go for it.

Making it a sin, or crime, will drive it underground and give it an underdog appeal.

Infusing homosexuals with guilt over a decision of action is cruel and senseless.

Pavel, how long have you been gay, or when did you first notice your preference?

Red Martian, I'm sorry, the whole post is a giant "begging the question", for it presumes that homosexuality is wrong or unnatural. You need to establish this "wrongness" FIRST before you go into suggestions on how it should be treated or addressed.

redmartian89 said:
No one is born homo- or heterosexual. Saying that sexuality is inborn is a complete crock.

Sexuality is built on your experiences, preferences, and choice.

What are you basing this on? References please.

redmartian89 said:
Pavel, how long have you been gay, or when did you first notice your preference?

I'll answer that when you answer my question:

RedMartian, how long have you been straight, or when did you first notice your preference?

ArchaicTruth · Aug 12, 2007

*bump*

I hate it when we post at the same time >_<

Rationality of choice

Active Member

Member

Contributor

Active Member

I wear my sunglasses at night...

Regular Member

Contributor

Active Member

Regular Member

Senior Member

Active Member

Regular Member

Active Member

Regular Member

Ridiculously reasonable, or reasonably ridiculous

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Ridiculously reasonable, or reasonably ridiculous

Active Member

Ridiculously reasonable, or reasonably ridiculous

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency