Are homosexuals born with this disorder?

[notself]

Do you seriously think that? In my sheltered little world, I can name more than a few who experimented with it. Why wouldn’t they?
Kids experiment with things WAY more dangerous than being gay. That doesn’t seem to stop them.

I don’t believe it. Any boys who experiment with homosexuality are most likely homosexual and in denial or are bisexual.

Do you personally know any heterosexual boy who would be attracted to another heterosexual boy sufficiently to have anal sex as an experiment? Can you even imagine it happening between any two heterosexual boys that you know?

I will not say that it never happens since anything can happen. I am saying that at most it would be extremely rare and certainly not on the increase as Nicolosi has stated.

Nicolosi is after one thing, to prey on the fears of religious people to take the money for a ‘cure’ of homosexuality that does not work. Ted Haggard is not cured of his homosexual urges after intensive of “therapy”. He says he is not acting on his urges but he still has those homosexual urges. He is not cured of those urges.

Counseling with a priest on celibacy is a much better approach for Catholic homosexuals. After all we are not our urges but rather we are our acts.

 

[elvisman]

You have to be smarter than this garbage you just posted here.

You’re right.
I should be smart enough to believe the garbage you peddle do about the Catholic Church.

Nicolosi and Dallas have MUCH more experience in this field that you or notself. Their results with ex-homosexuals speak volumes over both of your ignorant rants.
Tell me - what is your clinical experience in this field?
What is notself’s. I would hazard to say, in comparison to both of these experts - zip!

As for what my confirmation students told me - I believe them. They are first-hand witnesses, whereas you aren’t. They did say that drugs, alcohol and family dysfunction play a part in all of this.

Yes, I’d say that they are much wiser and more aware than both of you.

 

[yellowbicycle]

I don’t believe it. Any boys who experiment with homosexuality are most likely homosexual and in denial or are bisexual.

Do you personally know any heterosexual boy who would be attracted to another heterosexual boy sufficiently to have anal sex as an experiment? Can you even imagine it happening between any two heterosexual boys that you know?

I will not say that it never happens since anything can happen. I am saying that at most it would be extremely rare and certainly not on the increase as Nicolosi has stated.

Nicolosi is after one thing, to prey on the fears of religious people to take the money for a ‘cure’ of homosexuality that does not work. Ted Haggard is not cured of his homosexual urges after intensive of “therapy”. He says he is not acting on his urges but he still has those homosexual urges. He is not cured of those urges.

Counseling with a priest on celibacy is a much better approach for Catholic homosexuals. After all we are not our urges but rather we are our acts.

Maybe they’re bi, but they tell me that they’re straight, and I believe them. They’ve all gone on to marry spouses of the opposite sex and have asked me to keep their pasts hush-hush.
And I’m afraid I don’t know who this Nicolosi is.
I have friends who were strippers at gay clubs, and we’re very specific all along that they were gay for pay. For the right price, and a combination of drugs and money was really the best cocktail for them, they’d perform any sex act requested.
I have friend who were in orgies, and the phrase ‘any port in a storm’ comes to mind. I would definitely call that experimentation.
I have friends who said that receiving oral, or giving anal, did NOT mean that they were gay. They just wanted sex, and it just so happened to be gay men who were willing.
All of these things happened for them between the ages of 15 and 30.
And if by ‘imagine’ no I can’t. I’ve walked in on it happening (oral, not anal) but no, I could not have imagined it. What I can imagine though, obviously, has very little bearing on reality.
I don’t mean to be rude, but where you grew up, this DIDN’T happen? Really?

 

[centurionguard]

To avoid ambiguity on this discussion it’s important first of all to distinguish between behavior and the structural disposition of the personality of a homosexual person. In the broad sense, homosexuality includes any sexual act or behavior, even occasional of an individual with other persons belonging to the same sex. Seen in this way, there is a continuum between exclusive homosexuality and absolute heterosexuality, with a whole series of intermediate degrees. In the strict sense, however, homosexuality refers to habitual homosexual behavior based on a specific orientation of the personality that rejects woman as a sexual companion ( or man, in the case of female homosexuality ) The Church’s teaching maintains that while the homosexual orientation itself is not sinful, homo-genital acts must always be judged as objective moral wrongs which are totally unacceptable. The current social and cultural milieu with it’s glorification of the individuals right and freedom to choose one’s own lifestyle and create one’s own values has produced a situation in which many homosexual person’s today promoting “gay Liberation” and “gay rights”. These person’s propose that homosexual behavior is just as good and moral as heterosexual expressions of love. The Catholic Church nevertheless must be a constant witness to Sacred Scripture and Church tradition which takes a negative view toward homosexual homo-genital acts.
A number of contemporary scripture scholars have proposed that the biblical evidence against homosexuality is inconclusive or that it’s moral implications are culture-bound and are no longer applicable to the current situation today ( We see this happening today in the Anglican and United Church which is on the verge of a Split ) Sadly; we see homosexuality running amuck amongst our own Catholic clergy and the laity. While opposing biblical exegesis may have discerning views the exact meaning and context of a number of anti-homosexual references found in both the Old and New Testaments; the broader scriptural evidence give adequate substantiation and credence to traditional condemnation of homosexual activities. During Pope John Paul II reign a letter from the Vatican Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith was issues to world bishops on the “Pastoral care of Homosexual Persons” in the Church. It asserts that Scriptures cannot be properly understood when they are interpreted in a way that contradicts the living tradition of the Catholic Church.
The letter thus states; (" the Church’s doctrine regarding the issues on homosexual “homo-genital behaviors” is based not on isolated phrases for facile theological argument, but on the solid foundation of a constant biblical testimony. The basis plan for understanding this entire dicussion of homosexuality is the theology of creation we find in Genesis. Specifically, this means that persons, “in the complementarity of the sexes, are called to reflect in the inner unity of God the Creator” The human body in itself has an intrinsic “spousal significance” which cannot be removed in God’s design, however; much of it obscured by original sin") This letter clearly anchors it’s treatment of homosexuality in the Theology of the Body and Sexuality developed by Pope John Paul II.

 

[Detales]

One thing that humans are famous for is making a=b by definition rather than by actual equality. In other words the way we frame a question or statement reveals our own assumptions as distinct from facts. Sometimes those coincide. It may have been more impartial, if you are in doubt, to ask something like “Is homosexuality a birth or genetic condition or factor?” I mean, if you are asking, you might as well just step back and ask from the standpoint of completely impartial inquiry. You can add your faith based opinion to it later if you still wish to. But it has been historically dangerous to proceed in this sort of inquiry starting from a religious premise. This is because religious systems are largely divisive, whereas universal principles are generally not.

In this regard Order/disorder seems to be a favorite black and white or two valued evaluation mode engaged in very easily by christianists of any ilk, and folks in general. In this case we may yet be talking about a variation in relational preference of which by some accounts there are actually twelve, not just the contentious two (homo/hetero) we usually argue about.

Even looking just at the structure of the physical universe takes a minimum eleven valued logic, not counting the field in which those exist. The two valued logic of me/not me used in most moral/religious evaluations is but a step above the me/me logic of infantilism. Though these might work in a limited number of instances, few seem to progress to a more encompassing both/and or above logic which is more encompasing. It can be argued that remaining in a two valued logic is the sole reason for needing faith as distinct from Knowledge or Wonder. Of course that would become a qualitatvely different sort of knowledge. The two valued system* is also the reason why more complete spiritual maps have been rejected by simplistic religions that require an anthropomorphised god. It also acts as a prophylaxis against a deeper and more immediate experiential understanding of the crucial points of faith.

I also feel it is a blasphemy against the God of Love and all Good to lay blame for human actions and suffering at His feet. Such a god becomes a scapegoat for human frailty and the opponent in an adversarial relationship incapable of resolution by the ordinary christianist views of Salvation and Redemption. It is also self defeating to even consider homosexuality and such in the small terms that are most often resorted to in these forums. Those who have advocated at least a wider field for the consideration are more likely on the right track, or at least heading for the right arena.

Again, to consider any question off the bat from the premise of a conclusion, e.g. that it is a de facto disorder, could be construed as deliberately looking through St. Paul’s glass, darkly. In matters of faith it cannot be discounted that in the very patristic history of the Church many issues have been clouded by false piety and the ignorance of men. As one extremely influential world leader of a short time ago, (A.H.,) correctly said: “It is great luck for leaders that men don’t think.”

Indeed, if most of our considerations, correct in substance or not, were to be put under the curious light of semantics, semiology, epistomology, or any such discipline aimed at the clarification of human thought, our statements might become galaxies of red and blue editor’s marks. Truely we are a rce bent on mixing apples an oranges. On the other hand, if our contentions were clearly understood at the root, one might think that there would be a clear cognitive line from prmise to conclusion which would be Universally applicable and recognizable, faith or no faith. I therefore recommend tollerance and dispassion in examining these issues and shun placing blame on individuals for something that may yet prove to be a matter beyond their choice.

Bindar Dundat

*There is the wonderful signature someone on here has that goes: “There are only 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary and those who don’t.”

 

[notself]

Maybe they’re bi, but they tell me that they’re straight, and I believe them. They’ve all gone on to marry spouses of the opposite sex and have asked me to keep their pasts hush-hush.
And I’m afraid I don’t know who this Nicolosi is.
I have friends who were strippers at gay clubs, and we’re very specific all along that they were gay for pay. For the right price, and a combination of drugs and money was really the best cocktail for them, they’d perform any sex act requested.
I have friend who were in orgies, and the phrase ‘any port in a storm’ comes to mind. I would definitely call that experimentation.
I have friends who said that receiving oral, or giving anal, did NOT mean that they were gay. They just wanted sex, and it just so happened to be gay men who were willing.
All of these things happened for them between the ages of 15 and 30.
And if by ‘imagine’ no I can’t. I’ve walked in on it happening (oral, not anal) but no, I could not have imagined it. What I can imagine though, obviously, has very little bearing on reality.
I don’t mean to be rude, but where you grew up, this DIDN’T happen? Really?

As a teen, I knew several heterosexual boys who were approached by other boys for homosexual sex. In those cases the person doing the soliciting was and still is homosexual. In those cases the heterosexual boys who were approached turned down the advance.

In the instances you speak of, the heterosexual partner was accepting oral sex from a homosexual. The heterosexual would probably had sex with knotty pine paneling if he could have figured out a way. He wasn’t experimenting with homosexuality. He was only interested in sexual release and didn’t care how or with whom he received it.

Your other examples were of drug addicts and prostitutes and were not heterosexual teenage boys experimenting.

Nicolosi is a psychologist who sells a program that supposes to cure people of homosexual urges. It He says he can turn homosexuals into heterosexuals. He states that homosexuality is caused by domineering fathers and cold unemotional mothers. (Or is it the other way around?) He says that homosexuality is learned and can be unlearned. A homosexual may no longer have homosexual sex. A homosexual may get married to a woman and have heterosexual sex. Physically, the person can be celibate or be in a heterosexual relationship, but mentally still be attracted to members of the same sex, i.e. mentally a homosexual.

 

[yellowbicycle]

In the instances you speak of, the heterosexual partner was accepting oral sex from a homosexual. The heterosexual would probably had sex with knotty pine paneling if he could have figured out a way. He wasn’t experimenting with homosexuality. He was only interested in sexual release and didn’t care how or with whom he received it.

Your other examples were of drug addicts and prostitutes and were not heterosexual teenage boys experimenting.

I guess I’m getting confused. If you claim to be a heterosexual, but then engage in homosexual behavior, just to try it, how is that not experimenting? Just because they got paid for it? Just because they were also experimenting with drugs? That makes it not experimenting?

 

[notself]

One thing that humans are famous for is making a=b by definition rather than by actual equality. In other words the way we frame a question or statement reveals our own assumptions as distinct from facts. Sometimes those coincide. It may have been more impartial, if you are in doubt, to ask something like “Is homosexuality a birth or genetic condition or factor?” I mean, if you are asking, you might as well just step back and ask from the standpoint of completely impartial inquiry. You can add your faith based opinion to it later if you still wish to. But it has been historically dangerous to proceed in this sort of inquiry starting from a religious premise. This is because religious systems are largely divisive, whereas universal principles are generally not.

In this regard Order/disorder seems to be a favorite black and white or two valued evaluation mode engaged in very easily by christianists of any ilk, and folks in general. In this case we may yet be talking about a variation in relational preference of which by some accounts there are actually twelve, not just the contentious two (homo/hetero) we usually argue about…

…On the other hand, if our contentions were clearly understood at the root, one might think that there would be a clear cognitive line from prmise to conclusion which would be Universally applicable and recognizable, faith or no faith. I therefore recommend tollerance and dispassion in examining these issues and shun placing blame on individuals for something that may yet prove to be a matter beyond their choice.

Bindar Dundat

*There is the wonderful signature someone on here has that goes: “There are only 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary and those who don’t.”

I completely agree with the above parts of your statement. I am arguing from a black and white POV since that is how the thread started. Clearly sexuality is an extremely complex set of stimulus and response. Why else would there be fetishes, etc?

The Church’s focus on homosexual acts being always wrong clearly includes compassion and understanding for the homosexual person being a child of God. I do believe that people can learn to restrain their behaviors and where appropriate should be guided in doing so. I just think the word “cure” should not be used.

 

[Detales]

Yes, to me the “cure” idea sounds like hanging a ham in smoke. It gives me the impression in this context of attempting to fix something when you don’t even know what it really is. I feel for my friends who have been the object of perhaps well meaning but, I think, irrisponsibly or incompletely thought out and felt out argumentation. If there is any emphasis to be placed, I feel it is in the way of understanding “Child of God.”

As for the “black and white” aspect, that is why the other person’s signature line was included: One person’s two can be another’s ten, depending on point of view or base logic.

Thanks for your response.

B.D.

 

[notself]

Maybe they’re bi, but they tell me that they’re straight, and I believe them. They’ve all gone on to marry spouses of the opposite sex and have asked me to keep their pasts hush-hush.
And I’m afraid I don’t know who this Nicolosi is.
I have friends who were strippers at gay clubs, and we’re very specific all along that they were gay for pay. For the right price, and a combination of drugs and money was really the best cocktail for them, they’d perform any sex act requested.
I have friend who were in orgies, and the phrase ‘any port in a storm’ comes to mind. I would definitely call that experimentation.
I have friends who said that receiving oral, or giving anal, did NOT mean that they were gay. They just wanted sex, and it just so happened to be gay men who were willing.
All of these things happened for them between the ages of 15 and 30.
And if by ‘imagine’ no I can’t. I’ve walked in on it happening (oral, not anal) but no, I could not have imagined it. What I can imagine though, obviously, has very little bearing on reality.
I don’t mean to be rude, but where you grew up, this DIDN’T happen? Really?

I was specifically responding to your examples in post 23. In each of your examples one of the parties was not experimenting but was gay. In your statement above one of the partners was gay.

In the original post, the so called expert said that heterosexual experimentation with homosexual acts was increasing. I think that homosexual acts between two heterosexual teenage boys are extremely rare.

My main concern is with the tone and some of the statements in post 16. This clearly states that somehow heterosexuals become homosexual through fashion and have to be converted back to heterosexuality.

According to Christian author and ex-homosexual, Joe Dallas and Catholic therapist, Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, many transition to this behavior early on during their early years of childhood and that it can be diverted.
In fact, Dallas has converted many back to heterosexuality.

Unfortunately for many young people, homosexual experimentation has become fashionable and chic because of today’s blurred sexual moirés.

When I was in high school over 25 years ago, we knew of only 1 or 2 professed homosexual students.
When I recently asked my confirmation students what the ratio was today at the same school – I was shocked to learn that many of their friends often experiment with homosexuality and that is was considered to be “no big deal”.

 

[Detales]

Both my sisters were raped. One of them reported it, the other didn’t. If you have* any *clue what a rape victim has to go through with a report, especially thirty years ago, you might easily opt to not report.

Similarly, the statement

*“When I was in high school over 25 years ago, we knew of only 1 or 2 professed homosexual students.
When I recently asked my confirmation students what the ratio was today at the same school – I was shocked to learn that many of their friends often experiment with homosexuality and that is was considered to be “no big deal”. *”

might be a reflection of the atmosphere in which, 25 years ago, such an admission might have been recieved. There were clear incidents of homosexual solicitaiton in both my Catholic grammar and high schools, and a least one attempted pederasty I experienced myself. These were not uncommon, and as they were initaiated by parish priests and faculty, they were not reported. Some of my friends claim to be the objects of such advances as well. It is even difficult in this more tolerant age to even broach the subject. So please consider the context of such statements before including them in a line of “reasoning.” Thank you.

 

[Brian_Reeves]

I’m new to this thread but I do believe passionately, and from personal experience, that the majority (but not all) of S.S.A. men grow into this “attitude”. The Jesuits say, “Give me a child until he is seven, and I will give you a man”, and certainly this rings true with me and all those S.S.A. men who have let me into their earlier lives and with whom I have shared. The great problem I feel is that this S.S.A.“feeling” comes into the mind and then Satan (and you’d better believe in him!) fans it into a fire, and what was initially a desire to simply have a loving, and yes pationate, relationship with another man (often caused by an early terribly, dysfunctional relationship with ones father, but certainly this is not always the case) becomes much more a desire for a sexual relationship. Once that is in place, and then acted upon, it is very, very difficult to admit the error, repent and call on Jesus for healing: healing of the dysfunctional relationship being the foundational problem.
I feel it is now becoming more and more socially acceptable to be Homosexual/bisexual etc, and you are one of the lads rather than recognising that, I feel, you are simply distancing yourself from Jesus. He wants an intimate relationship with us but it is up to us to positively, healthily respond and “love” Him. I feel that this sort of deviance actually contains little of the love of God, but that is drifting into another topic.
In myself I know that I could have gone into a very different lifestyle had not Jesus, through various, “Him inspired” circumstances, pulled me back from going over the top, as it were. I’m sure it was because I had already set out towards Him that this happened and where I feel any change/growth must start.

 

[StevenFrancis]

Are homosexuals born with this disorder? I have never heard a definitive answer on this subject. I believe this behavior is not learned, but if it happens at birth, why would God place such a heavy cross on any human being he created?

I’ve never really understood why this would matter one way or another. It will probably turn out to be a little of both. But even if it’s ALL birth or ALL conditioning, which are both hightly doubtful outcomes once the research is all in, it’s not the point of the Church. It’s not even an element of the morality debate. What the Church says is that ALL persons are called to chastity, save for those heterosexual men and women who are married to each other in the holy sacrament of matrimony. These are the only people who are not to be celibate.

Mankind has gone so far astray, and is so unwilling to be holy, that these very statements probably sound insane to all except the Church faithful, but in fact, it is the state we are called to, unless we’re called to the vocation of matrimony.

Heterosexual persons deal with lust, and so do persons who have attractions to members of the same sex, (be they nurtured and encouraged by a morally corrupt society, or inborn, or a little of both), really doesn’t belong in the argument from the standpoint of the Church.

Whatever the reason, as the Church herself says, the population of same sex attracted men and women is not insignificant. Persons who experience these additional difficulties with purity, which involve disorder on top of natural heterosexual lust, or even instead of it, have perhaps a little harder line to toe in that regard. They are to be treated compassionately, and with love, as are all persons.

But, a person isn’t relieved of their moral responsibilities to God by reason of lust, whether it is towards members of the opposite or same sex. Lust, fornication, sodomy, and adultery are sins. Sin is what it is. No matter who among us is committing those sins. They are all sins of purity.

I’m open to whatever science discovers about the reasons, though I suspect it will always be something that only God knows. Most of mans discoveries would be suspect to me of being tainted with the bias of man’s way of justifying moral corruption. Whatever discoveries are made are not going to take away the teachings of God. Heaven and earth will pass way, but God’s word will not.

In the mean time, none of us are to hate. We are all to love each other, and help each other. But loving and helping does not mean coddling and lying either. Homosexuals should be aware of their sins, just and heterosexuals should be aware of their sins. You don’t get a pass from morality BECAUSE of a disorder. Just perhaps a little more understanding.

It will be illegal soon to even criticize sexual perversity in most of the world. Sadly after a while, if you’re constantly confronted with the Gospel, but refuse to hear, you can be just given over to your sin, and left alone.

This doesn’t tend to turn out so well on the eternal side of things from what I understand.

God bless us one and all,

Steven

 

[Claudden]

I have had this discussion more than once and the conversation isn’t always this civil. This thread provides thoughtful comments on both sides and gives me talking points if the subject comes up in the future. Thank you.

 

[edwest2]

Hi, Bill

If you really want to hear some interesting responses, make friends with some actual gay people, friendly ordinary people with whom you have something in common, and then at an appropriate time, ask 'em!

I’m sorry that sounds snotty. What I want to say is, it isn’t productive to objectify people according to their brand of sexual sin. This has been a challenge for me since I became a Christian. I never wanted to believe there was anything wrong with homosexuality. It has taken me a long time to accept that what God says, goes, and nobody gets to show up and change the rules.

So I have to reconcile the gay community’s desire to believe that homosexuality is a trait one is born with (and I have seen my share of gay animals), with the many, many times I have heard the defensive statement “Yes, I was molested as a kid, but that’s not why I’m gay!” A lot of heartbreak in the gay community, and not just from social rejection.

I feel that when the bible says that Jesus was tempted in every way, that people who are struggling with their sexual orientation should take comfort in His victory against their temptation.

I think it’s worth noting that homosexuality is associated with spirituality in many cultures. My best personal guess is that Satan is responsible for all viruses, deformities, hormonal imbalances, etc., and that God really can work everything for good. I don’t know many people (except maybe missionaries in hostile countries?) who have been able to choose the cross they would bear.

I understand that this is off the OP but, I think Christianity owes the gay community a coherent message of hope, as well as the undistorted truth about God’s laws. Let’s not wait until the definitive analysis comes in!

But the actions of homosexuals pushing for marriage point only one way. On TV, a gay man yelled, “I was born like this!”

Wouldn’t a definitive analysis be a good thing? At present, the push for gay rights hinges on their being accepted as a natural sexual orientation variant. With all due respect to gay people, including those I’ve known, isn’t some type of analysis appropriate?

According to the Catholic Medical Association, gay people are not born that way.

Here is an article from another group that addresses the born that way question:

narth.com/docs/istheregene.html

The Christian community has offered homosexual persons a coherent message of hope, however, gay activists simply want to encourage gay behavior. The Catholic Church has never told heterosexuals to just run around and have sex with whoever, married or not. That this message was heavily marketed starting in the late 1960s is not the Church’s fault.

Peace,
Ed

 

[GloriousOrder]

Being a man with S.S.A. myself, I can tell you most certainly that it is a matter of choice; however, it is of a deeper choice than the superficial one presented us by certain people.

It is a very psychological thing, indeed. Before I started looking into matters of morality, I believed it was quite an ingrained thing, my problem. Now that I see how deeply Grace works, how many forms it takes, and the various ways in which God tries to penetrate our darkened souls, there is a clearer understanding of free will. The Blessed Lord damns no one by their own nature, and so homosexuality cannot ontologically be in the nature, since homosexual actions are wrong. It is most certainly a choice.

I can say this because, recently, I’ve begun to have suitably strong lusts for women. These are not solicited on my part, believe me, and no choice was made to suddenly become ‘straight’. It’s a sort of inner working of the Holy Ghost, that wondrous Spirit of God’s Love. I prayed for a long time that He enter my soul with the Spirit and make me chaste, pushing my homosexual desires to the far reaches, and eventually off the cliffs of my soul. I never would have thought that He’d get me to look at the female form with attraction, but He has!

He almost always surprises us with His divine invention in saving us from our own arrogance. Presumption is the devil: let all souls remember this.

 

[StevenFrancis]

Being a man with S.S.A. myself, I can tell you most certainly that it is a matter of choice; however, it is of a deeper choice than the superficial one presented us by certain people.

It is a very psychological thing, indeed. Before I started looking into matters of morality, I believed it was quite an ingrained thing, my problem. Now that I see how deeply Grace works, how many forms it takes, and the various ways in which God tries to penetrate our darkened souls, there is a clearer understanding of free will. The Blessed Lord damns no one by their own nature, and so homosexuality cannot ontologically be in the nature, since homosexual actions are wrong. It is most certainly a choice.

I can say this because, recently, I’ve begun to have suitably strong lusts for women. These are not solicited on my part, believe me, and no choice was made to suddenly become ‘straight’. It’s a sort of inner working of the Holy Ghost, that wondrous Spirit of God’s Love. I prayed for a long time that He enter my soul with the Spirit and make me chaste, pushing my homosexual desires to the far reaches, and eventually off the cliffs of my soul. I never would have thought that He’d get me to look at the female form with attraction, but He has!

He almost always surprises us with His divine invention in saving us from our own arrogance. Presumption is the devil: let all souls remember this.

Thank you so very much for sharing this with us.

I see you are a cathecumen. I will keep you in my prayers.

God bless you,

Steven

 

[PerfectTiming]

People like to claim that things are genetic and that people are ‘born that way’ because it’s neat and convenient. But this is founded in a misunderstanding of how our genetics work. Genes are not blueprints: they do not define us. Everything about who we are is not written in our DNA. One of my professors (I’m a psychology student) talked about this and said genes are more like building blocks: they limit us rather than define us. So no, people are not ‘born’ gay.

 

[Newbie2]

There most likely isn’t a single gay gene. Rather any number of genes could be responsible.

Homosexual behavior has been observed in many animal species. The preference for the same sex appears to happen as frequently in nature as it does in humans, who of course are part of nature.

Some selected species and groups from Wiki
Birds
Black swans
Gulls
Mallards
Penguins

Mammals
Amazon Dolphin
American Bison
Bonobo and other apes
Bottlenose Dolphins
Elephants
Humans
Japanese Macaque
Lions
Polecat
Sheep
Spotted Hyena

Others
Dragonflies
Fruit flies
Lizards

Great theological truths from Wikipedia Unless one lowers humans to the level of animals, the mention of “homosexuality” in the animal kingdom is rather moot.

Your actions matter, not your inclinations.

And there you have it, wrapped up in 6 words.

I don’t believe it. Any boys who experiment with homosexuality are most likely homosexual and in denial or are bisexual.

Do you personally know any heterosexual boy who would be attracted to another heterosexual boy sufficiently to have anal sex as an experiment?.

Well, the question has to be asked, is anal sex the defining charictoristic of homosexual “experimentation”? Without going into detail, there are other “experimental procedures” that boys can engage in with other boys short of anal sex that would qualify under “homosexual experimentation”, no?

What the Church says is that ALL persons are called to chastity, save for those heterosexual men and women who are married to each other in the holy sacrament of matrimony.
Steven

You used more than six words, but a pretty good summation nonetheless.

People like to claim that things are genetic and that people are ‘born that way’ because it’s neat and convenient. But this is founded in a misunderstanding of how our genetics work. Genes are not blueprints: they do not define us. Everything about who we are is not written in our DNA. One of my professors (I’m a psychology student) talked about this and said genes are more like building blocks: they limit us rather than define us. So no, people are not ‘born’ gay.

Exactomundo. Does everyone with genes that predispose them to substance abuse become substance abusers?

Whether or not homosexually oriented persons are born that way or not, methinks, is a moot point. Homosexual sex is a temptation for them, for whatever reason, just like…say…fornication is a temptation for just about all of us at one point in our lives or another.

How we respond to temptation is what is important, not the cause of the temptation.

 

[Nelka]

Firstly, God would never create someone as a homosexual.
Secondly, babies do not have a sexual preference.
Thirdly, dna and genes do not play a part in it eaither.

Sexual preference is a choice.

If you say that all people are born straight or gay you would have to say the a peadophile was born that way too.

As you would say a paedophile chooses to be that way you would also have to say a homosexual chosses too.

I am not saying that an attraction to children and same sex are the same thing but either everybody chooses their sexual attraction or nobody does.

Everything bad comes from satan, whether a little bit bad or a great deal bad.

Science through satan looks for reasons why something should be allowed as normal.

If I were born without limbs, do you think that God made me that way to test me? No, it would be a human reason why I was born that way.

We all need to pray, I am 100% straight and still sin.
We all sin.
We all have to pray to stop sinning.

Don’t make satan’s job easier by saying that people are born gay and therefore may continue as it wasn’t their fault.

I have nothing against gays, I have had gay friends in the past.

God creates a perfect soul and we are the ones who distort it.

I hope my post hasn’t offended anyone.