PabloSerna said:

---

Are you saying that being homosexual is or is not biological?

---

Is not strictly or even primarily biological. Poster above cited sources.

Some have interpreted that same study as it is natural.

What they were looking for, etc. Let's be honest, neither of us are geneticist, so let's not resort to cherry picking. That same study is being hailed as an example that homosexuality is natural.

ETA: source.

PabloSerna said:

---

Some have interpreted that same study as it is natural.

---

Some have interpreted the Bible to say the catholic church is the great Satan. Some people have an agenda. The data don't lie. If this was sheer biology you would expect far, far higher correlation in identical twins. It should be predictive, but it isn't.

Homosexual issues are complex, as you probably know. At the end of the day, life experience plays a far larger role. But even if we grant you biology, the church would still have to tie itself in knots trying to show how it hasn't been flat out wrong in a matter of faith and morals. The church can get science wrong all day. That's fine. It can't get faith and morals wrong. Otherwise we're wasting a bunch of time and ought to go join the nearest Bible church

PabloSerna said:

---

What they were looking for, etc. Let's be honest, neither of us are geneticist, so let's not resort to cherry picking. That same study is being hailed as an example that homosexuality is natural.

ETA: source.

---

That very LGBT friendly website cites the same 8-25% factor. Where does the other 75-92% come from?

ETA: we REALLY need to be careful suggesting finding these behaviors in other animals is indicative of proper behavior. We find plenty of forced compilation and multiple sexual partners in the wild too. We find extermination of the young. Not a box we should open.

The Banned said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

Are you saying that being homosexual is or is not biological?

---

Is not strictly or even primarily biological. Poster above cited sources.

---

So if the RCC is willing to admit they still do not know some things about homosexuality (CCC 2357) you are willing to state on this fan board for Texas A&M that unequivocally - you know it all....

I see.

PabloSerna said:

---

The Banned said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

Are you saying that being homosexual is or is not biological?

---

Is not strictly or even primarily biological. Poster above cited sources.

---

So if the RCC is willing to admit they still do not know some things about homosexuality (CCC 2357) you are willing to state on this fan board for Texas A&M that unequivocally - you know it all....

I see.

---

No. Im willing to say the best science today shows that at best genetics account for 25% of homosexual tendencies

ETA I also listen to loved experiences. Every gay person I've heard tell their story says they'be always known they were gay and it's a part of who they are. Everyone I've listened to that has left that lifestyle has said the attraction was not a choice but the actions were. Which side should I believe? This is the danger in in making our behaviors a part of our identity.

"The church can get science wrong all day. That's fine. It can't get faith and morals wrong. Otherwise we're wasting a bunch of time and ought to go join the nearest Bible church"

+++

Fides et Ratio

Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truthin a word, to know himselfso that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves (cf. Ex 33:18; Ps 27:8-9; 63:2-3; Jn 14:8; 1 Jn 3:2).

Faith and reason cannot be in conflict.

PabloSerna said:

---

"The church can get science wrong all day. That's fine. It can't get faith and morals wrong. Otherwise we're wasting a bunch of time and ought to go join the nearest Bible church"

+++

Fides et Ratio

Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truthin a word, to know himselfso that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves (cf. Ex 33:18; Ps 27:8-9; 63:2-3; Jn 14:8; 1 Jn 3:2).

Faith and reason cannot be in conflict.

---

Whose "reason"? And that does not refute the fact that the Catholic Church would be doing an abrupt about face on the morals of homosexual actions

I'm not afraid to open the boxes. We have nothing to fear, faith and reason cannot be in conflict. So, take Aaron Rodgers at his word, "R-E-L-A-X."

Maybe it's just my relationship with God, but I look around and try to understand how genuinely good people are being told God hates them.

I honestly do not think we will see any so called "change" with regards to the sacrament of marriage because it is a foundational understanding as the "Bride of Christ." What I think, is there may be some development in recognizing (how? I don't know) LGBTQ+ lay faithful and how they are called to live out the universal call to holiness. As in marriage, they are also called to chastity and sacrifice.

If you step back, what is happening now, is that we are rapidly understanding more every year about LGBTQ+ persons and it is refuting the old idea of a promiscuous perverted person choosing to engage in "detestable things."

You don't have to answer this, but are you married?

I am. We have 8 kids. I can tell you 100% that how I physically love my wife can be a selfish act or a self-giving act. That's 35 years speaking and it's money.

So to recap- If the science is indicating that being gay is not unnatural and there is a biological basis, then we need to understand what that means to LGBTQ+ persons willing to live out their call to holiness. From what I can tell, the early understanding is rooted in the sexual violence (gang rape) at Sodom and Gomorrah. I do not believe these are the same.

PabloSerna said:

---

I honestly do not think we will see any so called "change" with regards to the sacrament of marriage because it is a foundational understanding as the "Bride of Christ." What I think, is there may be some development in recognizing (how? I don't know) LGBTQ+ lay faithful and how they are called to live out the universal call to holiness. As in marriage, they are also called to chastity and sacrifice.

If you step back, what is happening now, is that we are rapidly understanding more every year about LGBTQ+ persons and it is refuting the old idea of a promiscuous perverted person choosing to engage in "detestable things."

---

Going back to my earlier comment: being holy is in how we act. We have said ALL homosexual acts are immoral and can not be condoned. How do we change that without the church being wrong about a fundamental moral teaching?

Now if you're saying two men or two women can live together without any sexual activity or really any physical intimacy, MAYBE you can make that work as it's technically the definition of chastity. But a relationship with any amount of sodomy would be a rupture from church teaching. There is really no way around it.

PabloSerna said:

---

You don't have to answer this, but are you married?

I am. We have 8 kids. I can tell you 100% that how I physically love my wife can be a selfish act or a self-giving act. That's 35 years speaking and it's money.

So to recap- If the science is indicating that being gay is not unnatural and there is a biological basis, then we need to understand what that means to LGBTQ+ persons willing to live out their call to holiness. From what I can tell, the early understanding is rooted in the sexual violence (gang rape) at Sodom and Gomorrah. I do not believe these are the same.

---

Yes, I am married. We will be having our 5th child as our 8th year of marriage comes to a close. There have been many sacrifices we've made in how we live versus how we'd prefer to live because it would be so much easier. And each time we have another child it proves to me that the church's teaching on contraception is right, regardless of how I sometimes feel.

No matter what you want to read into the Bible today, it is very clearly taught throughout all of church history that acts of sodomy are sinful. You have to say that the modern church can overrule the moral teaching of the church since the beginning. This isn't changing the mass. This isn't saying the world is round. This is saying this act that we've said leads to hell since the very inception of the church itself has actually been ok all along. The church has taught grave error. If that happens, why should we trust the church in any other matters?

I see where you're going and have some semblance of an idea as to why you want it to go that way. But you have to understand that there is no way to reconcile all sodomy is sinful and some sodomy is ok if it's in a committed relationship. It's illogical, unbiblical and goes against the idea that the church is infallible in matters of faith and morals.

I admit I haven't read this whole thread, nor do I plan to

But after reading this I now see why Pablo Serna is pushing this crap

This is a rogue group that even this liberal Pope is warning about

So much to discover in this article

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/amp/news/253842/german-synodal-way-approves-same-sex-blessings-lay-preaching-and-reexamination-of-priestly-celibacy

Yup