Are homosexuals born with this disorder?

[WetCatechumen]

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.

I do not believe that most pedophiles, if any, choose to be attracted to children. I believe that the attraction happens, and sometimes they nurture it and make is worse, but on the whole I view it to be similar to homosexuality.

It’s just that acting upon those inclinations is much much worse in this case.

 

[Newbie2]

Firstly, God would never create someone as a homosexual.

Why not? Other people are given different crosses to bear.

Secondly, babies do not have a sexual preference.

Of course they do not. Neither are babies alcololics. What’s your point here?
Thirdly, dna and genes do not play a part in it eaither.

Proof? There is none either way.
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.

Not necessarily, but maybe Pedophiles are born with that tendency. Nobody has said anything to the contrary.
As you would say a paedophile chooses to be that way you would also have to say a homosexual chosses too.

So are you saying that there are people with pedophilic tendencies that never act on them or that all people with pedophilic tendencies act on those tendencies?
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.

Not necessarily, but thus far no pedophilic gene nor any homosexual gene has been found. That does not prove that one does not exist.
Everything bad comes from satan, whether a little bit bad or a great deal bad.

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

In many cases, yes. But homosexual orientation and homosexual acts are two quite different things in a moral sense.
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.

Please explain. You lost me.
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 don’t think anyone here is saying that i.e. that they simply cannot help sinning as they are so inclined to sin. What I think you’re missing is the testimony of chaste homosexuals here on the CAF. There have been numerous posts by those with SSA that are living chaste, although difficult lives despite their sexual orientations. To say that the orientations are clearly their own doing is like a slap in the face. Why would these individuals choose such an orientation that is so difficult to struggle with and then continue a lifelong struggle against it?
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.

Agreed, if you are taking into account our original sin. Disagree if you are saying that all homosexual people choose to be that way.
I hope my post hasn’t offended anyone.

 

[Hadrianus]

Those really interested in the scientific evidence for the biological origin of the homosexual orientation can find a good deal of information on the web. At present there isn’t enough evidence for anything conclusive to be said, but studies done on the amygdala and hypothalamus glands and scans of the brains of homosexual men and women do show a difference from those of heterosexuals. The brains of homosexual men function more like those of heterosexual women and the inverse is true for lesbians and heterosexual men.
It is possible that hormonal factors during gestation are responsible, but nothing is known for sure. It does seem possible though that neuroscience may settle the question within the next 20 years or so as the advances in knowledge in this area are growing exponentially, or so a neuroscientist told me.

Anyone well versed in theology will know that a consequence of the Fall is the disordering of human sexuality generally. God need not be blamed for any kind of human abnormalities, ecept insofar as He allows children to be conceived at all. But I don’t think anyone would serious complain about that.

It’s worth adding further that biology is not destiny, and even if the biological origin of homosexuality is one day established this does not mean that some individuals might not be able to change their orientation with sufficient therapy. Much probably would depend upon degree, as with many things.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

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.

Domineering fathers and cold unemotional mothers: it’s the other way around. The father is perceived to be cold and uncaring towards the son and the mother is domineering.

 

[PerfectTiming]

Those really interested in the scientific evidence for the biological origin of the homosexual orientation can find a good deal of information on the web. At present there isn’t enough evidence for anything conclusive to be said, but studies done on the amygdala and hypothalamus glands and scans of the brains of homosexual men and women do show a difference from those of heterosexuals. The brains of homosexual men function more like those of heterosexual women and the inverse is true for lesbians and heterosexual men.

That doesn’t mean that they are ‘born’ homosexual. There are plenty of studies that show our brains can change depending on the way we use them. So it is completely possible that those brain differences noted are not due to any genetic or innate difference, but due to environmental influence. They in no way provide any evidence for the suggestion that homosexuality is biologically determined.
Also, saying one brain area shows difference is not the same as saying that “The brains of homosexual men function more like those of heterosexual women and the inverse is true for lesbians and heterosexual men.” That is a huge overstatement and again, entirely explainable by the influence of social norms and stereotypes (ie. homosexual men are effeminate, homosexual women are butch).

 

[Hadrianus]

As I said, those interested can look at the data. A Swedish study of 2008 is interesting, as is also the fact that in the case studies the amygdala in homosexual men is smaller than in heterosexual men. The same is true of sheep who exhibit homosexual activity. Of course the brain can undergo changes caused by behavior. and this has been taken into account… As to whether or not sheep can be effeminate is however a question I cannot answer. In any case, none of the research is at present conclusive, but it should not be dismissed aprioristically.The important thing is to look at the issue objectively and follow calmly where the research leads rather than to reject evidence which doesn’t fit into pre conceived assumptions.

 

[Kaytu]

I’m not Catholic, but I think there is a lot of misunderstanding in this thread. I am a gay male, and I think I can (hopefully) shed some light on the issue.

I think there is a lot of confusion (not just among Catholics, in all of society) over what homosexuality - or more specifically, the term “homosexuality” - really means.

If you break things down, there are three elements to being gay.

Sexual orientation (homosexuality/heterosexuality) refers to one’s natural feelings and inclinations. NO ONE has control over orientation. No one can “decide” to feel attracted to men or women, just as no one can “decide” to feel attracted to blond hair or tall people. In this way, sexuality is entirely not a choice. Just as a heterosexual individual cannot feel excited (sexually) by someone of the same sex, a homosexual individual cannot feel excited by someone of the opposite sex. Here, we’re talking completely about psychology and biology.

Sexual behavior refers to the activities one participates in. One has total control over this category. One can be homosexual but abstain from sexual activity or participate in heterosexual activity.

Sexual identity refers to how an individual identifies him/herself. In other words, what do YOU consider yourself. Many homosexuals identify as heterosexual (what society commonly refers to as “being in the closet”), and many bisexuals identify as heterosexual (simply because it’s the more socially acceptable way to identify) and only participate in heterosexual behavior.

As you can see, homosexuality really only refers to sexual attraction or feeling, which is very confusing because there is a lot more to it (behavior and identity). Also notice how one DOES have control over these last two elements. So, to a certain extent, there IS choice involved. But the problem is, many people completely overlook the most powerful and intrinsic element - the orientation or attraction itself. That is NOT a choice. To say that homosexuality - NOT behavior and identity - is a sin is completely incorrect, as any gay Catholic can and will tell you!

One CAN have a homosexual orientation but participate in heterosexual behavior and identify as heterosexual (which is what the Catholic church suggests).

Also, just a random tidbit I feel like including: femininity/masculinity/gender dysphoria has absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality…just thought I’d throw that out there. It’s a shame that the media likes to bombard us with all of these terrible stereotypes (not to say being a “feminine” man or a “masculine” woman - or whatever that really means - is a bad thing) that have no merit. The VAST majority of homosexuals are just like you and live lives just like yours - no drugs, no sex, go to work go to school, etc.

 

[Kaytu]

I do believe it is psychologically damaging to live a life in which these three elements are not in alignment - or concordance - and I realize this goes against the Catholic faith. A common argument is that gays CAN have heterosexual sex, therefore why don’t they simply choose that? Gays CAN marry individuals of the opposite sex, so why don’t they just do that? This is promoting a life of discordance and often of failed marriages. So many homosexuals try to get into a heterosexual marriage only to wind up divorcing. I will say that celibacy is the far better option, but to claim that since homosexuals are physically capable of performing heterosexual sex they should simply “choose” that option is - once again - completely ignoring the orientation/feelings/affections category of sexuality as I mentioned earlier. Just try imagining yourself (if you are heterosexual) having sex with someone of the same sex…You can DO it, right? But it just doesn’t work. There’s no feeling. There’s no attraction.

Furthermore, although most agree that homosexuality is a combination of genetics, epigenetics, and environmental stimuli, I would like to tackle what I believe are some other misconceptions about how environment affects homosexuality.

I think when people mention environment, they immediately think about things like family and friends. I was raised by two heterosexual Catholic parents. Our family is very conservative. I attended Catholic school for nine years. I never met someone gay until high school, but before high school I definitely knew I had same-sex attractions. All of my friends were straight males. I never had gender issues (i.e. I never had a liking for stereotypically “girly” things). I played baseball, I played video games with my friends, I had a very normal and boring childhood. I was never molested or raped. I have always had a wonderful relationship with my dad. I have always had plenty of male role models in my life. So why am I gay?

My point here is, the environmental “causes” people often cite do not apply to me at all. I had a loving father. I had no gay friends so I wasn’t “influenced” or drawn to join the culture (whatever that means…it still boggles my mind when people mention the “gay lifestyle”). I wasn’t bullied, I wasn’t feminine (people often claim that feminine boys are bullied into becoming gay…nonsense), I was raised in a completely wonderful, loving, and religious atmosphere!

There is absolutely no proof that a man lacking a close relationship with his father or a woman lacking a close relationship with her mother leads to homosexuality. There is no proof that any of these things I’ve mentioned cause homosexuality. NO ONE KNOWS THE CAUSES. But I can say that, from my own personal experience, I think it probably is more of a genetic or epigenetic or biological thing than an environmental one. Obviously, that is just me speaking, and I’m no scientist…but I often think of myself as an exception to the stereotype, and I think it’s worth noting that I still wound up having same-sex attractions despite having everything that my straight friends had during my childhood.

People often claim that kids are “drawn” to the gay culture (once again, whatever that is) because they are looking for a place to fit in…but that too is utter NONSENSE. It actually kind of upsets me. Watch the news. Homosexual kids are committing suicide. If a kid is being bullied for seeming overly feminine and “gay” (once again, nothing to do with homosexuality…I wish society would figure that out soon), he is NOT going to suddenly think, “Oh! Maybe I am gay! I am going to start fantasizing about men!” It simply doesn’t work like that. And furthermore, that kid is not going to find a gay community in elementary school in the first place.

Phew. Well, thank you for reading and I hope you try and see this from my perspective. I don’t think there’s actually much opinion in my post in the first place…but I think a lot of people simply do not understand homosexuality because they do not know any homosexuals. Do yourself a favor and go meet one. Talk it out! I can ASSURE you that none of them woke up one day and decided to be homosexual, and I can ASSURE you that most of them had perfectly normal childhoods.

Again, thanks for reading. I know a lot about the Catholic faith and I know how well-meaning you all are. I think it’s a shame that some Catholics simply don’t get it and fail to realize that they are hating the sinner rather than the sin. And in all fairness, there is quite a bit of ungrounded “anti-Catholic” sentiment out there regarding homosexuality, and they too are mistaken.

 

[justtryin]

Sorry if I sound blunt, but if homosexuality and sodomy are sins then we cannot be born that way. Have we strayed so far away that we replaced “born that way” with “created that way?” God is not the author of sin.

 

[Kaytu]

^You are confusing homosexuality with homosexual behavior. Homosexual attraction should not be clumped together with sodomy.

Having the propensity to sin (like we all do) is not a sin.

I don’t know if people are born with same-sex attraction, and no one does, but I do know that no one chooses.

Perhaps people aren’t born that way, but they most definitely do not choose to be that way. It is something beyond our control.

 

[Timothy17]

Those Who Serve God Should Not Follow the Fashions:

Catholic psychologist Gerard van den Aardweg
notes in his “(self-) therapy” book for homosexuality: The Battle
for Normality, that in cultures (even the most primitive and pagan)
where “the clear distinction” is made “between boys and girls,”
homosexuality is very rare, if not non-existent

.24
It doesn’t surprise that me males in our society are the most likely to exhibit these problems ; after all, male dress is still firmly masculine :** it is the women who cross-dress in our society** en masse. It really shouldn’t be a surprise that the modern woman’s indoctrination to act like men, to be careerists and to directly compete (rather than support and compliment) men, has destroyed authentic feminity in our culture, and by consequence sexualized masculinity. It shouldn’t be a surprise that men have become more effeminate, as by-and-large they have been emasculated by society and stripped of all authority.

Transference is an extremely easy psychological phenomenon ; that is, it is very easy for the mind to transfer ideas and attitudes from like to like. If women are not disctinct in our society in dress and manner, and by their nature sexualize their apparels and demeanours, and if they are sexualizing their clothing and self-imposed and unnatural pursuit of manliness, it makes drawing the line between male and female more difficult, especially for men. If women by their example glamourize independence and power and consequently sexualize them in the mind, then a man growing up in today’s world will have a difficult time not seeing symbols of independence, power or authority as sexual.

If there is someone to blame for the increase in homosexuality in the West, then quite frankly it is the Church leadership. The Apostles whose successors they are and the whole of Scripture uniformly condemn cross-dressing as “abominable.” When else do we see this word used by God ? When condemning homosexuality as “an abomination,”

“A woman shall not be clothed with man’s apparel, neither shall a man use woman’s apparel: for he that doeth these things is** abominable **before God.”
[Deuteronomy 22:5]

Notice that God does not say “she or he” that does such things is “abominable,” but only “he,” even though this passage condemns both male female cross-dressing also. It would appear that a woman who cross-dresses is reckoned as a man for all intents and purposes, and has divorced herself (as it were) from her feminity.

And,

“Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is** abomination**,” (Leviticus 18:22)
And,

“If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them” (Leviticus 20:13),

And,

“There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel” (Deuteronomy 23:17).

This last quote is interesting. Notice that in our society those things (even to this day) most roundly and uniformly condemned by traditional sentiments of sexuality is i) female promiscuity, and ii) (especially male) homosexuality.

Priests and Bishops should uniformly and frequently condemn cross-dressing by women, and not permit them to partake in confession or the Eucharist until they start dressing like women again.

For more on this, please see “Those Who Serve God Should Not Follow the Fashions,” by Robert T. Hart.

Pax,
Tim

 

[Timothy17]

Homosexual attraction should not be clumped together with sodomy.

This is like saying jeuvenile behaviour should not be clumped together with jeuvenile crime or psychotic behaviour with psychopaths or murderous behaviour with murder.

The root cause of these problems themselves, as modern man has no excuse not to know, is the cause of the ultimate problem. The “doorway” mentality is where the line must be drawn : there the battle must be fought, and extinguished, which is why Christians are taught to discipline themselves in the mind and not flirt with sinful desires, but immediately condemn them, and further even remove themselves from those occassions or situations that they find promote or foster them.

Please note that willingly flirting with (entertaining, as it were) evil thoughts or desires constitutes sin, even if not actuated. Day-dreaming about murdering your boss, for example, is sin, and if your boss knew you were doing this, would rightly want to have you fired and, furthermore, jailed for his safety.

Furthermore, you have conveniently removed yourself from reality in that statement. You have failed to consider what the implication is by not considering that you, yourself, are either the one fancying the attraction on one hand or the object of it on the other. I certainly would be both disgusted and offended by another man “eye-balling” me, especially if I have done absolutely nothing to invite such a trespass.

Pax,
Tim

 

[Claudden]

Thank you, Hadrianus, for your thoughtful comments. I had heard that some studies were pointing toward a possible biological cause for male homosexuality; I had not heard that there were any definitive studies regarding lesbianism. No matter what scientists ultimately discover, this will remain an area of dispute. I appreciate you sharing.

 

[Captain_America]

Nicolosi is the guy who tells fathers, “Don’t hug your sons or some other guy will.”

Nicolosi’s program is religion disguised as science and does a disservice to both.

The National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs, that collects statistics on sexual violence of all kinds, states in their report that there was an 11% increase of sexual violence against homosexuals in 2007 over 2006. 67% of the calls to sexual violence help lines are from gays.

Gays are being beaten and killed just for being gay in this country. It is hardly something that heterosexual boys experiment with.

ONE important thing worth noting, but not mentioned here, is that GAY ON GAY violence (and exploitation) is huge compared to heterosexual relationships.

Why is this?

For all the millions spent on scientific research in America, and millions more on AIDs research, no one has yet focused on homosexual behavior development.

 

[Captain_America]

Some basic observation over this and similar threads:

1.) oftentimes, homosexuals deeply want to impose “normality” on their action. This may be conscious or unconscious; I suppose we all want to be considered normal, healthy, human beings. (This can cause homosexuals to make harsh comments).

2.) the relationship dynamics between heterosexual and homosexual couples are different.

3.) there really seems to be no definitive answer about how homosexuality occurs; unfortunately, the whole conversation is marred by many erroneous beliefs that came from “old science,” (e.g., Kinsey, genetic bases, nancy boy theories)

4.) there’s, of course, a judgmental thing. This splits in a number of ways (a) judgments about premarital sex in general, (b) judgments about the immorality of homosexuality, (c) judgments about the noted concurrence of pedophilia and homosexuality, (d) judgments about “these evil times in which we live, in which the poisonous, damned liberals have wrecked our society.”

5.) there’s, overall, a deep need for us all to sit back, take a breath, and say, “hey, this isn’t that big a problem. Homosexuals are a tiny, tiny fraction of the population.” Instead, there is a kind of large pressure over all our heads, foisted there by activists pushing along this issue, day in and day out, so we think it’s more important than it really is and feel a more urgent need to dispel their pressure.

6.) Finally, it’s always humorous for me to see the “trot out the barnyard animal” argument; hey it “appears in nature” therefore it’s justified. This is a twist on the fact/value distinction, but one we all should recognize as a fraudulent argument. You don’t take a pee on the elevator even if you have to, and even if a dog would do so in that situation. People can control their behavior. Even lust.

7.) (forgot this, tied to above) There’s the scurrilous old idea that human beings are frantic and panting for sex all the time, that we’re all hormonally-driven teenagers with a perpetual drive ready to go at a moment’s notice. This ain’t true.

 

[mdrummer5]

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.

FYI when you type in all boldface and change colors to add weight to certain words you appear to not have a strong enough command of the language to get your point across… AKA you make yourself appear stupid. I’m not saying you are, in fact I didn’t bother reading your post as I couldn’t get past the visual distraction it presented to actually see if you made a valid point.

On topic I have no argument one way or the other as it’s already been pointed out a few times that nobody knows for sure the answer to the actual topic, there is no definitive research one way or the other. There is no “yes or no” answer here unfortunately.

 

[Kaytu]

It doesn’t surprise that me males in our society are the most likely to exhibit these problems ; after all, male dress is still firmly masculine :** it is the women who cross-dress in our society** en masse. It really shouldn’t be a surprise that the modern woman’s indoctrination to act like men, to be careerists and to directly compete (rather than support and compliment) men, has destroyed authentic feminity in our culture, and by consequence sexualized masculinity. It shouldn’t be a surprise that men have become more effeminate, as by-and-large they have been emasculated by society and stripped of all authority.

What in the world does cross-dressing have to do with homosexuality? They are entirely different subjects. I have no idea what point you’re trying to make here. And furthermore, there hasn’t been an increase in homosexuality as of late. It’s simply a matter of people being more willing to come out and speak openly about it. Regardless of what one’s opinion on homosexuality is, this should be considered a good thing. If more people admit they have same-sex attractions, the Catholic church can help them.

Cross-dressing and homosexuality are entirely different conversations, and quite frankly, most cross-dressers are heterosexual. And just because the media likes to portray gay men as feminine and lesbian women as masculine doesn’t mean that’s the case. In fact, that’s hardly the case. Gay men are masculine. Lesbian women are feminine. Anyone who tries to say otherwise does not understand sexuality.

Timothy17:

This is like saying jeuvenile behaviour should not be clumped together with jeuvenile crime or psychotic behaviour with psychopaths or murderous behaviour with murder.

No, it’s not like that at all. Murderous behavior, unless I’m misunderstanding you (I’m not exactly sure what the heck murderous behavior entails), is the exact same thing as committing murder. Juvenile behavior and juvenile crime are both behaviors. Homosexual attraction is not a behavior. It is not the same thing as having sex with someone of the same sex. Why can’t people get this through their heads?

As for psychopaths and psychotic behavior - I guess that could be an analogy. Someone can’t help being a psychopath. But if they don’t do anything about it…it’s not sinful. Someone who lacks empathy and is amoral (amoral - lack of morals, not immoral - the opposite of moral), which is what a psychopath is, is not automatically in a state of sin. Similarly, having homosexual attractions does not equate to being sinful.

Timothy17:

Please note that willingly flirting with (entertaining, as it were) evil thoughts or desires constitutes sin, even if not actuated. Day-dreaming about murdering your boss, for example, is sin, and if your boss knew you were doing this, would rightly want to have you fired and, furthermore, jailed for his safety.

You are once again mistaken. You are suggesting that homosexuals are constantly daydreaming about sex. They are no more tempted than any heterosexual when it comes to lust. They are thinking about sex just as often as any heterosexual, and when it comes to Catholics with same-sex attractions, they abstain from any sexual behavior. How is this sinful? How is this living a life different than any unmarried heterosexual?

Timothy17:

Furthermore, you have conveniently removed yourself from reality in that statement. You have failed to consider what the implication is by not considering that you, yourself, are either the one fancying the attraction on one hand or the object of it on the other. I certainly would be both disgusted and offended by another man “eye-balling” me, especially if I have done absolutely nothing to invite such a trespass.

I’m sorry you would be offended if someone found you attractive. I think that’s more of a compliment than anything. Homosexuals are not “fancying” their attraction. They are stuck with their attractions, and they acknowledge they have them. All Catholics are tempted by lust, and all Catholics know what sex tempts them. You seem to be suggesting that homosexuals should somehow deny their same-sex attractions, which is outright impossible. Accepting that you have these attractions does not mean that you are lying in bed for hours every day fantasizing and day-dreaming about sex. Accepting these attractions is the first step to finding acceptance in the Catholic faith and following the right path.

Once again, there is nothing wrong with identifying your same-sex attractions. There is nothing wrong with having them, and no one chooses to have them, just as there is nothing wrong with being born with a propensity to be an alcoholic. The Church teaches that acting upon these propensities is sinful. To try and say otherwise goes directly against what the Church teaches, and it baffles me how so many Catholics could get this so wrong!

 

[edwest2]

Why are you baffled? Look at the posts here. Your choices are:

1. Nobody knows.
2. Some homosexual persons do know.
3. There is good science to look at.

narth.com/docs/hope.html

narth.com/docs/istheregene.html

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

Peace,
Ed

 

[Kaytu]

I’m not baffled by the fact that nobody knows. I’m just baffled by how some people attack homosexuality itself, as I explained in my earlier posts, as being sinful.

But I did read those “scientific” links, and once again none of those case studies seem to apply to me.

NARTH states that homosexuality is frequently a symptom of one or more of the following:

Alienation from the father in early childhood, because the father was perceived as hostile or distant, violent or alcoholic Nope.
Mother was overprotective (boys) Not at all.
Mother was needy and demanding (boys) Not at all.
Parents failed to encourage same-sex identification Not sure what this means, but I had exclusively same-sex friends until high school.
Lack of rough and tumble play (boys) I played baseball, football, and volleyball.
Failure to identify with same/sex peers Nope. Like I said, only same-sex friends.
Dislike of team sports (boys) Quite the opposite!
Lack of hand/eye coordination and resultant teasing by peers (boys) I was very athletic. I was never teased or bullied for anything.
Sexual abuse or rape Nope.
Social phobia or extreme shyness I’m a little bit shy, but not abnormally shy.
Parental loss through death or divorce I’ve yet to experience any loss in my life. My parents have been happily married for thirty years.
Separation from parent during critical developmental stages. Nope.

major depression No.
suicidal ideation No.
generalized anxiety disorder No.
substance abuse No.
conduct disorder in adolescents No.
borderline personality disorder No.
schizophrenia No.
pathological narcissism. Definitely no.

THAT is what baffles me. People seem to have the idea that homosexuality is caused by some kind of disruption or abnormality in childhood, but I had a completely healthy and normal childhood.

I think there has to be at least some kind of biological component.

 

[edwest2]

I would point out that your individual experience is indeed your individual experience. Scientists cannot base their research on one person or draw conclusions from just one person.

Peace,
Ed