Are homosexuals born with this disorder?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bill_Pick
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
TAU_Wolf_2011 said:
Yes, but the fact that it was refuted may not count to a teenaged homosexual who, for example, heard about the Target/Tom Emmer/YCR scandal and got a bit curious. I didn’t notice the refute, which I apologize for, but another teenager may not have noticed it either, and even the presence of a quotation like that is enough to send some over the edge. Suicidal thoughts, which are supposed to be a sin, can come from mere fear of being persecuted and possibly killed because people don’t agree with their lifestyle.
Click to expand...
I hope you are not saying that blame should be placed at the feet of the person to whom the false interpretation is attributed, instead at the feet of the peddler of misinterpretation. It is wrong to pass or spread untruths, especially to the youth whose minds are hungry and hearts are tender.

It is important to consider the source as there are forces and manipulation at play. This is obvious in this thread and every thread on homosexuality at CAF.

As you can glean in reading the posts here, gay advocates insist that theirs is the side that has reason and science in the debate on homosexuality. As if those who do have compassion and charity to people with same sex attraction but do not embrace homosexual sex as normal, are detached from reason and science.

Ask yourself why gay advocates are promoting their beliefs in a Catholic forum.

Peace and blessings to you,
.
 
If by “gay advocates” you mean “homosexuals” or “friends of homosexuals,” then maybe they’re posting to shed light on an issue that is misunderstood by many?

Promoting compassion and understanding is hardly “gay advocacy.”🤷
 
This is an intereseting discussion, but to return to the initial question:

The Catholic Church has no opinion on the cause of a homosexual orientation. Thus should conclusive evidence be demonstrated for a biological cause the Church would accept it. So the question is not that important for Catholics. If some individauls with a homosexual orientation wish to attempt to change it I see no reason why they shouldn’t try. But false hopes should not be raised, nor treatment which could be psychologically damaging employed.

As to the question of why God would place such a cross. That question is not framed properly. The cross which all humans bear is that of Original Sin in which we all are conceived. This is Catholic doctrine. The consequences of Original Sin are the disordering of the passions, the threefold concupiscence and the darkening of the intellect. Thus all human sexuality is disordered, merely in different ways. All human beings have a strong tendency towards sin, which is the turning away from God and the seeking of fulfilment in the created order in his place.

Catholicism holds that chastity is a virtue to which all people are called. Chastity of the unmarried means a life of perpetual continence, that is to say, no sexual relations. This state is considered to be higher than that of the married state, as St Paul teaches, and a good in itself.
Chastitiy of the married means sexual relations only within marriage, and the avoidance of contraception which makes marital sex unchaste.

The problem of contemporary society is its glorification of sex generally, rather than homosexuality in particular.
 
PS Kaytu, I agree with you on the promortion of compassion and understanding. A major problem in any conversation between conservative Christians and homosexuals is the insistence by the former that the homosexual orientation is somehow a choice. Unfortunately, even some Catholics adopt that attitude, though it is not Catholic teaching.
 
edwest2 said:
Additional information:

catholicdoctors.org.uk/CMQ/Feb_2000/homosexuality.htm

No empirical evidence was submitted for the 1973 vote.

"Numerous psychiatrists over the past decades have described what forces were really at work both inside and outside of the American Psychiatric Association-and what led to the removal of homosexuality as a mental disorder.

"Dr. Ronald Bayer explains how homosexual activists captured the APA for political gain.
Dr. Ronald Bayer, a pro-homosexual psychiatrist has described what actually occurred in his book, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnosis. (1981)

'In Chapter 4, “Diagnostic Politics: Homosexuality and the American Psychiatric Association,” Dr. Bayer says that the first attack by homosexual activists against the APA began in 1970 when this organization held its convention in San Francisco. Homosexual activists decided to disrupt the conference by interrupting speakers and shouting down and ridiculing psychiatrists who viewed homosexuality as a mental disorder. In 1971, homosexual activist Frank Kameny worked with the Gay Liberation Front collective to demonstrate against the APA’s convention. At the 1971 conference, Kameny grabbed the microphone and yelled, “Psychiatry is the enemy incarnate. Psychiatry has waged a relentless war of extermination against us. You may take this as a declaration of war against you.”

“Homosexuals forged APA credentials and gained access to exhibit areas in the conference. They threatened anyone who claimed that homosexuals needed to be cured.”

If you don’t believe me, you can get the book and see for yourself.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
Ed, thanks for the info. Very interesting.

It’s important for people to realize that many progressives and academics care more about the propects of world overpopulation rather than the Truth. I’m saying that their agenda might be to create more homosexuals so there will be less children and less need for resources. They don’t care to prevent or cure homosexuality because they see homosexuality as a cure for “their” agenda. This is academically dishonest and selfish, as it FAILS to give individuals understanding and choices because they have already made the judgment without giving the individual the choice to increase understanding. The 1973 vote may have been more political than scientific.

Read Nicolosi for answers to “why.”
 
Interestingly, the above cited article does not in fact say that a homosexual orientation can generally speaking be changed. It discusses the politics surrounding the APA decision, and it mentions both the opinion that homosexuality is incurable as well as the research of Fr Harvey and Dr van den Aerdweg who it says claimed to have helped homosexuals become celibate, and in some cases to heterosexuality. Now the celibacy claim is hardly controversial, but in how many cases they succeeded in actually creating a heterosexaul response is not said. And that really is the crux of the matter.

At the present time Catholics should refrain from adopting unproven hypotheses, while naturally being open to evidence.
 
The Church has nothing to say about this? From the Catholic Answers library:

catholic.com/library/gay_marriage.asp

Just as heterosexuals who have sex outside of marriage are in danger spiritually, we now have LGBT groups claiming discrimination. What discrimination? Right now, people around the world are doing whatever they want. They don’t need the Church’s permission and certainly not the permission of anyone here.

Let’s just get the truth out. It was explained quite clearly by a self described gay comedian. “Catholics say it’s OK to be gay as long as you don’t practice it. Well I think it’s OK to be Catholic as long as you don’t practice it.” This is precisely where both groups are.

The scientific evidence shows that gay persons are not born that way but are affected by multiple things at an early age. Some do believe they were born that way and that is the basis for the claim of homosexuality simply being a normal variation of human sexuality. Then the comparison is made with animals. Animals don’t have human cognition. We don’t put animals in courtrooms and try them for serious crimes. It’s understood that certain animals can seriously harm and even kill human beings but we don’t send them to jail.

Peace,
Ed
 
The Church definitely has a teaching on marriage, but that is not the question. Also what is biologically driven is not the same thing as what is morally acceptable. People who insist that, despite the evidence, there is no biological component to homosexual orientation, do so because they believe homosexual acts are immoral. What they confuse are morality and biology.

For Catholics morality is determined by Revelation and reason guided by the authority of the Pope and bishops. In this sense the Church has no views as to the cause of a homosexual orientation,. Anyone who says otherwise is merely expressing a personal opinion.
 
Kaytu said:
If by “gay advocates” you mean “homosexuals” or “friends of homosexuals,” then maybe they’re posting to shed light on an issue that is misunderstood by many?

Promoting compassion and understanding is hardly “gay advocacy.”🤷
Click to expand...
If you are addressing this post to me, I will explain what I mean when I used the term “gay advocates”. But I will do that in my next post, as I wish for you to consider something first:

I followed your posts and I read your claim of having had a normal and healthy childhood, and that none of the NARTH studies on homosexuality apply to you. So, you ask, why and how did you become gay, knowing you had SSA even before you entered high school? The truth is not all questions have answers and not even the most learned member at CAF can tell you. Your orientation may not be a choice, as you assert, but acting on it is. (Nobody with SSA likes hearing this.) If you live in the U.S., at least you live in a free society, and can live as free as anyone with SSA can with laws in place to protect you. Heterosexuals including conservative heterosexuals are just as horrified at the persecution and punishment of homosexuals in repressive Muslim societies (which is why I had to correct the incorrect news posted by TAU Wolf in #130).

Basing on your posts (I see you just joined the forum this month), you seem to know or understand Catholic teaching, which I don’t imagine you accept as a guide in your personal life, being a non-Catholic. But I have this to say, which I hope will be taken no other way but in the spirit of charity. Looking ahead (you’re probably a young man), it might help with your disappointment or frustration about your SSA, it you don’t make your sexuality the core with which you identify or on which you base the meaning of your life. I have no specialization in psychiatry or psychology, but I did grow up with a homosexual brother. That’s all I will say so you know that I am not completely unknowing or unfeeling of your dilemma.

Blessings and peace,
.
 
Kaytu said:
If by “gay advocates” you mean “homosexuals” or “friends of homosexuals,” then maybe they’re posting to shed light on an issue that is misunderstood by many?

Promoting compassion and understanding is hardly “gay advocacy.”🤷
Click to expand...
This is what I meant when I used the term “gay advocates” in Post 141:

Gay advocates = promoters of the belief that
  • gays are born that way even if it has not been established in scientific studies
  • homosexual sex is normal and it is not a sin (some even push that homosexuality is to be celebrated)
  • the meaning of natural law as explained by the Church is in error
  • homosexuality exists in animals; ergo, human homosexuality is “natural”
  • the definition of marriage is not just a union between a man and a woman, but can be between a man and another man, a woman and another woman.
  • gay couples are therefore entitled to “marry” and to adopt children (even from Catholic agencies)
  • the Church should not preach that any of the above is wrong; IOW the Church should be prevented from preaching its two thousand+ year teaching that homosexuality is wrong
  • young children in school need to be educated of all of the above
Gay advocates are usually active homosexuals (living the gay lifestyle) or homosexuals who justify the lifestyle. Advocates are also supporters of gay causes (as listed above); they may not be gay or claim not to be gay but they advance homosexual causes in efforts to “broaden justice,” as one poster stated in another thread on the same subject. Not surprisingly, conservatives and the Church do not believe that broadening justice involve the further destruction of the traditional family unit and values on which the stability of society are hinged. Conservative leaders also do not buy into the agenda of homosexual activists that same-sex marriage is a civil rights issue, which is an angle being used by advocates to hasten legalization of same-sex marriage.

Now each and every item raised above has been debated at length across this forum in many threads, past and present. The issues just get re-hashed as new members come on board.

Members of the Church faithful to her teachings maintain that homosexuals are to be accepted as no less than God’s children, worthy of love, compassion, and understanding. However, love, compassion and understanding are NOT EQUIVALENT to tolerance or acceptance of the sin, or silence as to the moral teaching of the Church.

Btw, I meant to include this in my previous post, so I’m doing it here: Welcome to CAF!🙂

Peace and blessings,
.
 
I really have no idea what causes a person to have same-sex attraction. I don’t know of anyone who does know what causes it. I know that a lot of people like to speculate about the causes. But that is beside the point. The point is that the Catholic Church which is the Church that Jesus founded teaches that homosexual activity is sinful and therefore a person with strong homosexual tendencies should be celibate. The Church also teaches that homosexual inclinations are objectively disordered. I fully agree with this. I fully agree with all that the Catholic Church officially teaches. Anyway, you can find out what the Catholic Church officially teaches in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Here is a link to paragraph in the Catechism that explains the Church’s teaching on homosexuality:

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm#2357

God Bless,
Holly
 
InSearchofGrace said:
ted by TAU Wolf in #130).

Looking ahead (you’re probably a young man), it might help with your disappointment or frustration about your SSA, it you don’t make your sexuality the core with which you identify or on which you base the meaning of your life.
InSearch, you make an excellent point about homosexuals not making their sexuality the core of their existence. But I would also argue that heterosexuals are as (or even more) guilty of making a gay person’s sexuality his/her sole identification. Scandal magazines routinely have a “Who is Gay?” cover to tantalize customers in checkout lines. A TIME magazine theater reviewer recently stated that he felt that a gay man could not play a straight role because the actor wasn’t being “genuine” (although he did not express a similar reservation about a straight man playing a gay role). There is even speculation about the sexual preference of long-dead historical figures.

So maybe the “straight world’s” obsession with homosexuality is the real problem. We (in the universal sense) make all kinds of assumptions about the sex lives of our gay brothers and sisters (particularly that they are extremely promiscuous and out to convert straights to their “side”) without allowing for the possibility that they are trying to follow Scriptural teachings in their personal lives - by being celibate.

It cannot be easy to be gay, either socially or spiritually. We may never know what really causes an individual to be straight or gay. But we can continue to help each other on our individual spiritual quests, regardless of our personal sexual preference. As a new member, that is one of the things I really appreciate about this forum. 🙂
Click to expand...
 
According to Nicolosi, “Some” homosexual men did not have a father who gave them enough unconditional love, acceptance, and validation. Maybe dad was an absent workaholic who thought he was doing his best by providing a higher income. Maybe dad was focused on his own interests and did not sacrifice to spend time with his son. Maybe dad had high standards for behavior due to his own narrow expectations or pride. Maybe dad was absent. Many of these homosexual men are craving validation, acceptance, and love from other men in an attempt to get what they missed from their childhood. Perpetually looking into the eyes of different men, searching for acceptance. Add the male sex drive, and there you have it. Imagine how much peace could be brought to these men through education.

According to Nicolosi, Narth, and the worldwide Human Genome Project, there is no gay gene and that much of homosexuality is thought to be developmental in early childhood. The entire human genome has been sequenced in the Human Genome Project. No gene for sexuality was found. No gay gene was found. Identical twins were studied because identical twins have exactly the same chromosomes. In cases of identical twin boys where one boy was homosexual, in only 20% of the cases was the second boy homosexual. If a gay gene was causing their homosexuality, then 100% of the second boys would be homosexual. This is strong evidence against a genetic cause of homosexuality. Since no gene for sexuality was found, open minded people might wonder if it’s due to peer pressure/societal norms, and whether the secular save the earthists will use it to “save the earth” from the polluting humans via depopulation via promotion of homosexuality. Things that make you go Hmm.

Imagine the understanding and pain that could be relieved through education.
 
Claudden said:
InSearchofGrace;7472764:
ted by TAU Wolf in #130).

Looking ahead (you’re probably a young man), it might help with your disappointment or frustration about your SSA, it you don’t make your sexuality the core with which you identify or on which you base the meaning of your life.
InSearch, you make an excellent point about homosexuals not making their sexuality the core of their existence. But I would also argue that heterosexuals are as (or even more) guilty of making a gay person’s sexuality his/her sole identification. Scandal magazines routinely have a “Who is Gay?” cover to tantalize customers in checkout lines. A TIME magazine theater reviewer recently stated that he felt that a gay man could not play a straight role because the actor wasn’t being “genuine” (although he did not express a similar reservation about a straight man playing a gay role). There is even speculation about the sexual preference of long-dead historical figures.

So maybe the “straight world’s” obsession with homosexuality is the real problem. We (in the universal sense) make all kinds of assumptions about the sex lives of our gay brothers and sisters (particularly that they are extremely promiscuous and out to convert straights to their “side”) without allowing for the possibility that they are trying to follow Scriptural teachings in their personal lives - by being celibate.

It cannot be easy to be gay, either socially or spiritually. We may never know what really causes an individual to be straight or gay. But we can continue to help each other on our individual spiritual quests, regardless of our personal sexual preference. As a new member, that is one of the things I really appreciate about this forum. 🙂
Click to expand...
Welcome to CAF, Claudden. 🙂

Let me respond to your post.

The media is dominated by the Left. Time Magazine, for example, is a news magazine that is now criticized as a leftist propaganda rag. The same with the morning TV show, The View, to cite a program whereby its women hosts are regarded by some or many people as purveyors of what views on any and all subjects are correct. If members of society look to media as the source of authoritative analysis or values, there would be much imbalance and inaccuracy taken as “truth”, no?

You commented on the straight world’s obsession with homosexuality, bringing up “Who is Gay?” as featured in Time Magazine.

There is no easy analysis on which came first, homosexuals making their sexual identity stand out (those who are overt, anyway, in their action, manner and dressing) or heterosexuals picking on them. We hear about “gay panic defense” in court such as in the Matthew Shepard case.

You are right in saying that we should talk more about gays who are making efforts, who are living with a commitment to be celibate. You mentioned those trying to follow Scriptural teachings. But what about those who do not believe in Scripture, like those who have embraced atheism / agnosticism, or those coming from highly secularized families with no religion? In fact, there are quite a few agnostic / atheist homosexuals who are on CAF, looking for answers how to make sense of their SSA and be happy. It is difficult.

Two days ago, I watched on EWTN a feature on Father Harvey, founder of Courage, and the account of ten active homosexuals who joined Courage and spoke of their conversion. Nine homosexual males, and one female. All related their profound feeling of desolation and disconnectedness even as they as they gave in to their homosexual urges over long years with serial or various partners of the same sex. (This touched me as I thought about my gay brother’s life.) After joining Courage, the homosexuals on the program learned that chastity is a virtue (like honesty and courage) that applies to a person’s sexuality. It is not repression but moderation of the sexual appetite in accord with right reason. Some seek to rationalize their way around this but that is ultimately a denial of Christ’s teaching and that of His Church. As the Courage sitecouragerc.net/chastity.html explains, the denial of a Scriptural teaching is far worse than a sexual sin committed out of weakness.

Catholic posters here have expressed that we should not be hung up whether homosexuals are born that way or not, as interesting and nagging a question it is, as proven by the quest for the “gay gene” for over 20 years. But one sees why homosexuals want to reach validation in science if a gay gene is indeed discovered because they would not be challenged anymore to change – it would be clear to society that they have no choice if being gay is inborn.

It would be hard for homosexuals now to argue that they are being discriminated at work or they are disadvantaged for their orientation in practical life without legal recourse. As a strong and vocal group, homosexuals seem able to fight their social struggles with success. Their spiritual struggle is something else, and it is faith, not science, IMO, which can help them overcome their disconnectedness to society. Faith is not to be disassociated from reason.

Blessings and peace to you.
.
Click to expand...
 
I know I may sound like a simpleton but, GOD IS NOT THE AUTHOR OF SIN.

It applies not just to this but to many of the ills of today that “modern science?” tries to explain away as natural progression/evolution. Just because the Church doesn’t say - doesn’t make it so. The Church is concerned about faith and morals. It may be guided by the Holy Spirit but it is still occupied by mankind. The last 100 years have been very trying for Christ’s Body. It’s almost as if It has been suffering It’s own Passion. The Vatican astronomy scientist/astrologist (what? Is that a necessary office?) might say extraterrestrial life is not in conflict with Dogma but it does not make ET’s so. The Church may say evolution is not in conflict with Dogma but it does not make it a necessay truth. I may not believe in aliens or evolution but how does that effect Faith and Morals? We have become too focused on happiness IN this world and undersatanding OF this world. We need to focus on where we are going in the world without end. If it is defined as a sin by the Church (modern?/ism) science will always try to refute it and proclaim the Church wrong. IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN THIS WAY.

/rant off

p.s. I’m not that old nor am I as Catholic as I hope to be.
 
larkin31 said:
No, it isn’t. This is one of those untruths I see bandied around from time to time.
Click to expand...
The majority of the mass media is dominated by the Left. Only a handful of media companies own most of the media. Instead of leaving the news alone, these owners have the “power” to slant it. The Left is the preferred direction right now.

Peace,
Ed
 
Hello TAU Wolf,

I should have been more specific in my description of magazines that feature “Who is Gay?” covers. I was not referring to TIME. I was referring to magazines like The National Enquirer and Star and Us. I don’t think their agenda is political; it is financial. They put out salacious, borderline-libelous articles to draw in readers - and it sells because the American public is basically nosy.

Hope this clarifies - I should have stated which magazines I meant originally.

Claudden
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top