Speaking of the teachings of the Church, David of the “Cosmos, Liturgy, Sex” blog recently completed a five-post series on “Sex and the Human Person” that would serve as an excellent primer for those who’ve never encontered the Church’s dealings….

As I recall it, I was trying to point out the philosophical presuppositions inherent in your questions. I’m glad that you do not explicitly hold the position but often times we unconciously avert to erroneous presuppositions.

And I think you can incorporate JPII’s and other views supportive of your position.

I have no personal positions to share. I simply wish to present the truth of the human person revealed by God and taught by His Church and the theological support which can help us to understand why.

But I think you would do the issue credit to search out the very best of the opinions contrary to your own, rather than deal in generalities

You will have to wait and see how we proceed here. But again, I am not presenting personal opinions per se. If you happen to find a rational theology of homosexuality that addresses my presentation please share. I have not found such a thing.

http://www.johnheard.blogspot.com

I am aware of the theories in some quarters but as far as I understand there is nothing close to any evidence that there is such a thing. Regardless, there there is substantial evidence that environment affects gene transcription after birth in still maturing children (see Hardwired to Connect http://www.americanvalues.org/ExSumm-print.pdf).

I doubt we’re close to being able to conduct a scientific study to determine the fact of homosexual origin.

Right you are because the issue is quite beyond the reductionist presuppositions of science. Only one who succumbs to scientism would suggest that science should have the last word on this. In fact, the empirical evidence from science supports classical anthropology quite tightly.

Catholic Charities still send children to single-parent homes. CC doesn’t (so far as I know) screen out couples who practice contraception, or support torture, or other issues. If the Church were to frame it in terms of only letting children out to the most moral of families, then make a list from there.

Unfortunately, as we have seen, some chapters of Catholic Charities do not seem very often to let a small matter like Church teaching get in the way. Again, the problem with SSA adoptions is not simply an issue of morality. It is even more an issue of affective disorder and resulting dysfunction.

- The disposition to SSA seems to be genetic in origin, or perhaps before a child comes to consciousness about sexual identity. So early, in other words, it has no moral attachment. That’s not to say some people don’t experiment with sexual activity outside of heterosexual marriage. That’s just a poor moral choice unfaithful to a person’s make-up.

- I doubt we’re close to being able to conduct a scientific study to determine the fact of homosexual origin. Some people on both sides would oppose it, or oppose the results. If people were born SSA, God made them that way. It would be more difficult to deny aspirations to monogamous relationships on moral grounds.

- I think I can help you on the bigotry question. The Gay Adoption issue is unnerving because of the perception that some anti-adoption folks are seen to apply a moral yardstick only on SSA couples. The Church speaks of the ideal of one man-one woman, but Catholic Charities still send children to single-parent homes. CC doesn’t (so far as I know) screen out couples who practice contraception, or support torture, or other issues. If the Church were to frame it in terms of only letting children out to the most moral of families, then make a list from there. When a single moral judgment on a single issue is publicized, it might be discrimination. It might also be bad PR, but the protesters might have a right to ask for a clarification.

- And lastly, David, I think some people need to be careful about reading too much into what their opponents say. In our recent discussion about gays adopting, you made presumptions–false ones I might add–about a post I made here. I think you can do well to present your own viewpoint. And I think you can incorporate JPII’s and other views supportive of your position. But I think you would do the issue credit to search out the very best of the opinions contrary to your own, rather than deal in generalities such as “The moral approach to sexual intercourse is too often viewed in terms of libidinism” or “the very idea that sexual intercourse should be limited to marriage has come to be seen as quaint” or “Many who are personally affected by SSA might see this as a personal attack.” What would be fascinating (in my opinion) would be to solicit input from a learned and reasonable person who believes differently–who can actually present an opposing view–and present the discussion in a point-counterpoint format. If nothing else, it would keep the discussion honest and the participants on their toes.