Are homosexuals born with this disorder?

[JohnMPhilomena]

Homosexuals are born with an attraction to people of the same sex.

BUT, just as we are born inclined to sin, we are expected to do our best not to do so. Homosexuals are expected by the Church not ti give in to their desires, and sin.

But, just as the majority of heterosexuals do not remain Virgins till after they are married, most homosexuals do not remain inactive sexually either. The call of the Church is to stop behaving like that (either homosexually or heterosexually) to remain chaste, and to only have sexual relations within marriage between a man and a woman.

There is absolutely no sin in being attracted to ones own sex, just as there is no sin in being attracted to the opposite sex. It is only when you follow through on those attractions, to the point of sexual contact, that sin occurs.

And that applies to EVERYONE that is not married to a member of the opposite sex. It also applies to married people who have sex with others.

I agree with all that you have said except the first sentence. There is very little data to support the statement that homosexuals are born that way, and much data to support the argument that SSA (Same Sex Attraction) develops due to sets of circumstances (usually wounds due to parent - child and/or sibling relationships).

www.ssahope.com

 

[Jaymax]

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

Could you please give a link to “the scientific evidence” you are referring to? More and more, the scientific evidence has been mounting, that for most homosexuals, the causes are biological. I linked to a quite a nimber of studies from just the last 10 years. Can you link to any that support your statement?

 

[Jaymax]

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,
.

Just a correction. NARTH have not done **any **studies on homosexuality that have been published in reputable science journals. They do however make a habit of misrpresenting studies from reputable scientists. This is not a random unsupported claim. Anyone can read the actual studies they cite and see how they have misused them.
It’s very telling, that most people who would go to a website like NARTH, don’t bother to check the sources.

 

[Jaymax]

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.”

The 1973 decision was based on scientific evidence, but was instigated by social politics. The socio-political factor was that gay rights groups and gay psychiatrists within the APA etc had been trying for years to get the APA to review the scientific evidence.

As for the conservative Catholic Joseph Nicolosi -(who was one of the founders of the fringe group NARTH.) He claims that:

One third of the patients at the Thomas Aquinas Psychological Clinic, of which he is founding director, experience “significant improvement – they understand their homosexuality and have some sense of control.” However, they may engage in same-sex sexual behavior. He seems to be saying that this group of clients remain with a homosexual orientation.

Another third are “cured;” they refrain from same-sex behavior and the strength and frequency of their same-sex desires is diminished, although not necessarily gone. This appears to refer to their homosexual patients who either become asexual or decide to remain celibate.

The other third fail to change. They remain with a homosexual or bisexual orientation.

It would seem that he is admitting that reparative therapy has an almost 100% failure rate in terms of converting persons with a homosexual or bisexual orientation to heterosexual. He commented: “We say to patients, ‘Your true self is heterosexual’.” He tells male patients: “Look at your body: It was designed to fit a woman, not a man.”

So basically this means they have a 100% failure rate in trying to convert homosexuals to heterosexuals. His “cure” appears to be celibacy.

The APA 2009 task force review of Sexual Orientation Change Efforts can be read here:
apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf
They warn against “reparative” therapy for some very good reasons.

 

[Jaymax]

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.

What you quote is is a good example of a lack of education and understanding of genetics, developmental psychology and human sexuality. And some of the claims are outright misrepresentations. The 20% claim, and the claim that concordance between twins must be 100% for a trait to be influenced by genetics is a good example of misrepresentation of facts. Try looking up the concordance of left-handedness in twins. As well as “gene expression”.

As I posted before, going to NARTH for information on homosexuality is like going to a young earth creationist site for informartion on evolution.
How about trying the American Academy of Pediatrics -60,000 clinical members-with no anti-gay religious agenda, as opposed to a religious antigay fringe group with about 160 or so clinical members.
aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;113/6/1827
Since it was published in 2004, there have been quite a number of studies (linked to earlier) that support biological causes for homosexuality, includomg hormones in-utero studies, birth order and much larger twin studies.

There are a lot of scholarly articles and books on this but here’s an easy to read explanation from a geneticist:

thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=155

Imagine the understanding and pain that could be relieved through education.

 

[Jaymax]

I agree with all that you have said except the first sentence. There is very little data to support the statement that homosexuals are born that way, and much data to support the argument that SSA (Same Sex Attraction) develops due to sets of circumstances (usually wounds due to parent - child and/or sibling relationships).

www.ssahope.com

Sorry, that is incorrect. Would you care to try to back up your statements with studies from peer-reviewed journals or statements by the major health organizations as I have already done? The only place you will find “opinions” like that are from religious based groups with an anti-homosexual agenda,

 

[Newbie2]

Here’s a clue. Every study I linked to was published in reputable peer-reviewed science Journals. NARTH have never published in any peer reviewed journals/ They had to self publish in their own non-peer reviewed journal - which only had 2 volumes. Narth cleverly write lots of articals and use what looks like impressive bibliographies…however if you read the actual studies they cite (and most people probably don’t) you will see how they have misrepresented the studies. Quite a number of scientists have protested the misuse of their studies by Narth,

My post wasn’t a data- dump from a propaganda website like yours is. They were links to indexes of studies in peer-reviewed journals. I have read every one of those studies and many more.

No major health organization or reputable scientist takes NARTH seriously.

Try and find a “study” of theirs in a reputable peer-reviewed journal.

They are a small fringe bunch of conservative “practitioners” who are opposed to homosexulity for religious reasons and promote “reparative” therapy which every major health organization warns against as being ineffective, unethical and harmful…

They have around 160 something clinical members. The American Psychiatric Association, the Americal Psychological Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association etc have over 480,000 clinical members - and are all opposed to Narth’s religiously bigoted, scientifically unsupported “ideas” about homosexuality.

You do the math.

Numbers and popular consensus don’t make you right. Throughout history there have been numerous examples of where the brightest scientific minds of the time turned out to be wrong. We are without a doubt limited by the technology and socio-political influences of our time, just as those in history were.

Exactly. Nazis outnumbered the Jews in Germany at one time…

No, it isn’t. This is one of those untruths I see bandied around from time to time.

**Homosexuals are born with an attraction to people of the same sex.**BUT, just as we are born inclined to sin, we are expected to do our best not to do so. Homosexuals are expected by the Church not ti give in to their desires, and sin.

But, just as the majority of heterosexuals do not remain Virgins till after they are married, most homosexuals do not remain inactive sexually either. The call of the Church is to stop behaving like that (either homosexually or heterosexually) to remain chaste, and to only have sexual relations within marriage between a man and a woman.

There is absolutely no sin in being attracted to ones own sex, just as there is no sin in being attracted to the opposite sex. It is only when you follow through on those attractions, to the point of sexual contact, that sin occurs.

And that applies to EVERYONE that is not married to a member of the opposite sex. It also applies to married people who have sex with others.

I agree with all that you have said except the first sentence. There is very little data to support the statement that homosexuals are born that way, and much data to support the argument that SSA (Same Sex Attraction) develops due to sets of circumstances (usually wounds due to parent - child and/or sibling relationships).

www.ssahope.com

Exactly. Not every homosexual person was born with the attraction.

On the other hand, not every homosexual person developed their attraction “later” in life.

Either way, theologically speaking, it’s a big SO WHAT? Doesn’t matter, as many have said how the attraction came about, it’s about whether or not one act upon it.

So, while people can argue back and forth, quoting this study and that, for the most part it’s what a friend of mine calls “intellectual masturbation”. It makes you feel good but doesn’t really accomplish anything beyond that.

The Church is crystal clear on homosexuality.

 

[Jaymax]

Exactly. Nazis outnumbered the Jews in Germany at one time…

Exactly. Not every homosexual person was born with the attraction.

On the other hand, not every homosexual person developed their attraction “later” in life.

Either way, theologically speaking, it’s a big SO WHAT? Doesn’t matter, as many have said how the attraction came about, it’s about whether or not one act upon it.

So, while people can argue back and forth, quoting this study and that, for the most part it’s what a friend of mine calls “intellectual masturbation”. It makes you feel good but doesn’t really accomplish anything beyond that.

The Church is crystal clear on homosexuality.

Speaking of “masturbation”, were you aware that 1 Corinthian 6-9, which is currently used to condemn homosexuals, was used for centuries to condemn “masturbators” - not homosexuals.

Apparently this was still mentioned in the Catholic Encylopedia until 1967.
The word “homosexuals” was first used (or misused) in an English translation (RSV) in the 1940’s.
Does anyone have access to a pre 1967 copy of the Catholic Encyclopedia to check this out?

 

[Jaymax]

Has a geneticist made a first-generation post on this forum yet with regard to this topic? Otherwise, wouldn’t this all be opinion?

gen

Here you go…
From a geneticist from Stanford University.

thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=155

 

[Newbie2]

Speaking of “masturbation”, were you aware that 1 Corinthian 6-9, which is currently used to condemn homosexuals, was used for centuries to condemn “masturbators” - not homosexuals.

Apparently this was still mentioned in the Catholic Encylopedia until 1967.
The word “homosexuals” was first used (or misused) in an English translation (RSV) in the 1940’s.
Does anyone have access to a pre 1967 copy of the Catholic Encyclopedia to check this out?

So you’re claiming that the Church’s stand on homosexuality didn’t exist prior to the 40’s?

Surely you know that the Church holds to a thing called “Natural law”, not just to Scriptural prohibitions?

Please. Stop trying to justify homosexual behavior. Ain’t gonna fly here.

 

[larkin31]

What you quote is is a good example of a lack of education and understanding of genetics, developmental psychology and human sexuality. And some of the claims are outright misrepresentations. The 20% claim, and the claim that concordance between twins must be 100% for a trait to be influenced by genetics is a good example of misrepresentation of facts. Try looking up the concordance of left-handedness in twins. As well as “gene expression”.

Indeed. I have made the same point several times at CA, particularly about gene expression. Clearly, many of these folks do not understand the genetic structures and processes of gene expression.

Not to mention the development of human sexuality (of whatever orientation).

 

[Jaymax]

So you’re claiming that the Church’s stand on homosexuality didn’t exist prior to the 40’s?

Surely you know that the Church holds to a thing called “Natural law”, not just to Scriptural prohibitions?

Please. Stop trying to justify homosexual behavior. Ain’t gonna fly here.

No of course not. There is a long history of the Church’s tradition against homosexual behaviour. I was pointing out that interpretations of scripture change depending on the current cultural mores and prejudices at the time.

 

[Hiskid1973]

These verses from the first book of Romans I would think, can give some good insight to the discussion…

24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

 

[Newbie2]

No of course not. There is a long history of the Church’s tradition against homosexual behaviour. I was pointing out that interpretations of scripture change depending on the current cultural mores and prejudices at the time.

OK.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Here you go…
From a geneticist from Stanford University.

thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=155

And here you go, Jaymax …

“I would not go so far as to suggest that any of the specific determining factors of handedness directly relate to sexual orientation. I simply feel that the comparison, as a way of studying genetics, is a good analogy with which to consider Pinker’s analysis. Amusingly, I am a bisexual person who spent a semester with a broken dominant hand, I learned comfortably to use my left. A gay classmate earlier broke his dominant hand and cried daily attempting to complete assignments. Perhaps I am more naturally adaptable to my environment than others. Perhaps it’s coincidental. In general, however, I support Pinker postulating that homosexuality is simply more complex than one single determining factor, be it nurture or nature. I celebrate the diversity of possibility, in the same way I celebrate the diversity of sexuality.” [italics / bold added]

The above is from a blog submitted by Starr, Barry. “Ask a Geneticist.” Understanding Genetics. 2004. The Tech Museum of Innocation. 1 March 2009. He posted Handedness and Homosexuality.

The same Dr. Starr in your linked article, discussing pheromones. All very nice and scientific sounding explanations. The PhD and Stanford credentials are also impressive.

Do you really think he is impartial?

You also put weight on APA. These psychologists comprise the working group in that organization:

• Dr. Armand Cerbone, who was inducted into the Chicago Gay and Lesbian Hall of Fame in 2003 and was awarded an award for distinguished service to the gay movement by the Society for the Psychological Study of Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Issues, which is Division 44 of the APA.
• Dr. Beverly Green, who served as editor of Psychological Perspectives on Lesbian and Gay Issues, published by Sage Publications in 2000.
• Dr. Kristin Hancock, who developed the APA’s ‘Guidelines for Psychotherapy with Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Clients,’ and is a founding member of APA’s Division 44, a group focusing on gay issues.
• Dr. Lawrence A. Kurdek, who serves on the editorial board of Contemporary Perspectives on Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Psychology.

Do you think gay advocates should be at APA?

Your posts come across as reasonable and sincere. But you’re waving the wrong flag. Importantly, you will not change Catholic teaching and Catholic minds of members in this forum. The position is not detached, however, from love for and acceptance of our gay brothers and sisters as no less than children of God.

Peace and blessings,
.

 

[larkin31]

Do you think gay advocates should be at APA?.

Yes, psychologists who study homosexuality should be allowed to be part of the APA and publish through the APA.

Why you think that a professional psychiatric association should exclude membership from those who study homosexuality is beyond me.

Are you suggesting that psychological studies of homosexuality should not be published? Or that publishing these studies should disqualify one from membership in their national professional association?

If any is Catholic, do you think that their church should reprimand them against studying and/or publishing psychological studies of homosexuality?

 

[mark_a]

Is this because you do not read studies on the topic?

I read short articles and listen to radio programs, but must admit most have a Catholic slant.

Interesting. But I am more interested in the empirical nature of the thread topic: are homosexuals born with the disorder? This question means that either in the genetics of the new-born or in the functioning of the organs of the body (tissues, nerves, blood, brain, etc), that there is already in that newborn the biological seed of the homosexual orientation. That is a great, empirical question. And some scientists are investigating it. IF you are interested, you should find some of the studies and read them.

How about posting some links for me? If you’d care to post them, I’d prefer many short articles to one long article.

 

[mark_a]

There is a lot of talk about a homosexual agenda, but the real elephant in the room is contraception which separates sexuality from its purpose.

Absolutely, sterilized sex started this sex-crazed, anything goes culture.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

*Yes, psychologists who study homosexuality should be allowed to be part of the APA and publish through the APA.

Why you think that a professional psychiatric association should exclude membership from those who study homosexuality is beyond me.

Are you suggesting that psychological studies of homosexuality should not be published? Or that publishing these studies should disqualify one from membership in their national professional association?

If any is Catholic, do you think that their church should reprimand them against studying and/or publishing psychological studies of homosexuality?*

larkin, you are on my Ignore List, as I advised you in another thread, for a reason. In fact, not trying to be unkind here, you have been suspended for committed infractions already, most likely reported by other posters.

You keep directing posts to me. Perhaps you have a short memory, but you need to respect my wish not to be engaged by you in discussion.

Your post above only needs this reply, though:

There is nothing wrong with psychological studies on homosexuality being published. What I brought up in my post to Jaymax, and where you rudely inserted yourself, is that psychologists in APA should not be advocating or promoting their own agenda, as in the gay adoption controversy. It is the advocacy by clearly a group of professionals who have something to gain for themselves and their cause. It is misuse and abuse of the position.

Now, if you will LEAVE ME ALONE alone please. You can engage other posters, go visit another thread, better yet, another forum, to spread your moral relativist views. IMO, you are engaging in proselytism at CAF, couched in sincere and reasonable language.
.

 

[larkin31]

Now, if you will LEAVE ME ALONE alone please. You can engage other posters, go visit another thread, better yet, another forum, to spread your moral relativist views. IMO, you are engaging in proselytism at CAF, couched in sincere and reasonable language.
.

I have never been suspended for a polite response on topic. Which I gave you, whether you like it or not, whether you appreciate it or not, whether you asked me or not.

Then I will answer your question directly, sincerely, and politely for cyberspace:

I see no reason why professionals in any field of study should be exempted from membership in their professional society because they have published their studies of homosexuality. This, to me, is like asking people their professional opinion on a topic (we accept the APA designation of “disorder” prior to 1973) and then punishing them for providing it (but afterward we reject it as if they are disqualified BECAUSE they have actually studied the behavior further.

And that, in all sincerity and politeness, just does not seem consistent or fair or reasonable.