Are people born homosexual ?

[aprilfloyd]

The Catechism refers to the homosexual act as intrinsically evil.

Come on homosexuality is not evil, it exists in the same way heterosexuality exists

 

[edwest2]

The hatred argument. Sorry. Don’t try to paint an entire group with the hate label. How often do you see this in the news?

“Agnostic held in store robbery.”

“Lesbian assaults straight neighbor over loud noise at party.”

“Gay man held in assault case.”

And everything will magically change once LGBT people get their “rights.”

Human beings will continue to belittle and harm other human beings. I suggest that some of those who think hate is behind it all should take a walk or drive on the east side of Detroit. They won’t care about your sexual orientation when they pull out a gun and carjack you or rob you or beat you to a pulp because hey, they’re high and bored and need to beat on someone.

And there really are gay people out there who want something else:

pfox.org/default.html

Peace,
Ed

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

The Catechism refers to the homosexual act as intrinsically evil.

To be precise, the Catechism says that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.

It also says, in 2358: They [those with SSA] must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.

Nowhere in the Catechism do I see a call to hate individuals with SSA, nor is there even a call to hate homosexuals. Nor does it say that people with SSA are ‘evil’, nor even that homosexuals are ‘evil.’ They may think about/have done/be doing evil things, but that does not give you license to hate them.

Here is the Catechism:

#2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

#2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

#2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

edwest:

The hatred argument. Sorry. Don’t try to paint an entire group with the hate label. How often do you see this in the news?

So now you are opposed to generalizing? Opposed to labeling?

 

[edwest2]

Come on homosexuality is not evil, it exists in the same way heterosexuality exists

This is a Catholic Forum. When Church teaching is clear, other opinions are just that, opinions, and carry no weight.

Best,
Ed

 

[epan]

When my doctor is talking to me about my smoking habit, he doesn’t say “Try low-tar cigarettes” or “Buy water filters to reduce the nicotine”. He tells me to STOP. Doctors who give “prophylactic assistance” to people engaging in risky behavior without trying to get them to stop that behavior are thinking more of their own wallets than the patient.

I’ll just take a guess, and correct me if I am wrong. But I think that your physician will treat you if you contract cancer, respiratory problems, or any of the myriad of other problems associated with cigarette smoking. He or she will advise you to quit smoking, but will not condemn you for becoming ill because you smoke. Instead, your doctor will have enough compassion and charity to treat, try to cure your disease, and try to make you as comfortable as possible… even if you continue to smoke.

 

[buffalo]

Come on homosexuality is not evil, it exists in the same way heterosexuality exists

The homosexual act is intrinsically evil, not same sex attraction.

 

[epan]

** HIV Infection and a New Look at Gay Bowel Syndrome**

%between% conservapedia.com/skins/common/images/magnify-clip.png
Stylized rendering of a cross-section of the Human Immunodeficiency Virus

A September 2010 report of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) declared : “Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) represent approximately 2% of the US population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV and are the only risk group in which new HIV infections have been increasing steadily since the early 1990s. In 2006, MSM accounted for more than half (53%) of all new HIV infections in the United States…”[12] In August of 2009, LifeSiteNews reported: “An official with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announced the CDC’s estimate Monday that in the United States AIDS is fifty times more prevalent among men who have sex with men (‘MSM’) than the rest of the population.”[13] On March 15, 2004 Medscape published an article entitled New Look at “Gay Bowel Syndrome” by John G. Bartlett, M.D. which commented on the 2004 journal article Etiology of clinical proctitis among men who have sex with men published by JD Klausner and C. Kent in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases. The Medscape article declared:
“ There were multiple studies of the newly recognized “gay bowel syndrome” in the late 1970s and early 1980s. However, subsequent attention and study has been sparse, in part attributed to reduced frequency thought to reflect changing practices by gay men in response to the HIV epidemic. This study clearly indicates that it is still an issue, since the cases were studied in 2001-2002. Also, the etiology is about the same as previously, although HSV is newly recognized as an important component. This finding not only affects management but also has HIV prevention implications. The authors note that two thirds of the participants were HIV negative and that proctitis increases the risk of HIV by up to 9-fold.[14]

I think you are beating a dead horse. It is acknowledged that anal sex, promisuity, etc… are risky behaviors.

I for one, will not turn a patient away, because he or she engaged in risky behavior. Is your point that we should do that? Or do you agree that people should be provided medical care when they become ill? Or do you reserve special malice for a gay man who contracts HIV, and say that he should not receive medical care? I believe that the obese midwesterner who smokes a pack of cigarettes per day, eats a high fat diet, fails to exercise, and has a “heart attack” should get medical treatment. It doesn’t matter to me that his own choices contributed to his medical condition, any more than it would the gay man with HIV. I don’t approve of either lifestyle choice. But I reserve the right to treat each of them with dignity and compassion.

I am not sure what your point is? There are many high risk activities. Eating bacon, for example.

Does the Church say that homosexual activity is sinful? yes. Do risky activities have potential health consequences? yes. Maybe it is time to move on.

 

[buffalo]

I’ll just take a guess, and correct me if I am wrong. But I think that your physician will treat you if you contract cancer, respiratory problems, or any of the myriad of other problems associated with cigarette smoking. He or she will advise you to quit smoking, but will not condemn you for becoming ill because you smoke. Instead, your doctor will have enough compassion and charity to treat, try to cure your disease, and try to make you as comfortable as possible… even if you continue to smoke.

Sure he will, but who pays the bill?

 

[epan]

Sure he will, but who pays the bill?

I agree with you. But, as a society, we do provide medical care to those who need it. I don’t approve of lifestyle choices which promote ill health, and there are many of them. The obesity problem in the US is far more costly to the healthcare system than any sexual activity.

 

[buffalo]

I agree with you. But, as a society, we do provide medical care to those who need it. I don’t approve of lifestyle choices which promote ill health, and there are many of them. The obesity problem in the US is far more costly to the healthcare system than any sexual activity.

Would you agree then to an health insurance risk pool?

 

[epan]

Would you agree then to an health insurance risk pool?

I don’t think this thread is the place to get into a discussion of medical risks and cost management. I happen to work in healthcare, and I am rather opinionated on this topic. But I will leave that to another thread sometime, if you don’t mind. I am not evading your question. I think that it is a controversial, and important issue, as to who should bear the healthcare costs of the behavior of others. There are many examples where this calculus could apply:

Risky sexual behavior
IV drug usage
Motorcycle riders
Overweight and obese people
Alcoholics and other substance users

etc…

How do you assign risk and cost?

 

[buffalo]

I don’t think this thread is the place to get into a discussion of medical risks and cost management. I happen to work in healthcare, and I am rather opinionated on this topic. But I will leave that to another thread sometime, if you don’t mind. I am not evading your question. I think that it is a controversial, and important issue, as to who should bear the healthcare costs of the behavior of others. There are many examples where this calculus could apply:

Risky sexual behavior
IV drug usage
Motorcycle riders
Overweight and obese people
Alcoholics and other substance users

etc…

How do you assign risk and cost?

I agree, we are getting off track. I was only pointing out another aspect of the homosexual act and its medical costs.

Life insurance companies seem to have it all figured out.

People just may avoid risky behaviors if it costs them directly.

 

[epan]

Doctors who give “prophylactic assistance” to people engaging in risky behavior without trying to get them to stop that behavior are thinking more of their own wallets than the patient.

That is a leap, in my opinion. Providing prophylactic assistance does not preclude advice on how to stop risky behavior.

My patient population is largely young adult males. They ask for my advice on the risks of various sexual practices. I answer their questions directly, and as honestly as I can, without imposing any moral coloration to my advice. I have seen an increase in questions about gay sex, with the repeal of DADT. Military medical records are not confidential. I would also never make a notation that a patient asked for information about the risks of sexual behavior, and I make it clear to the patient that the conversation will remain confidential. I prefer that a person be well informed as to risk, than afraid to ask me for my opinion.

Oh, and by the way, I get paid the same, regardless. My concern is treating patients, and not the shape that my wallet is in. You might find that this is true of most physicians. Did you know that an anesthetist nurse practitioner makes more money on an hourly basis than an orthopedic surgeon? only the surgeon works longer hours, and spends a lot more time and money on education.

I seriously doubt that anything that I say will stop a 20 year old Marine or soldier from having whatever sort of sexual relations that he is going to have. I can also advise the same person to stop smoking, while also suggesting ways for him to cut back on his smoking.

 

[TimeEntrance]

I for one, will not turn a patient away, because he or she engaged in risky behavior. Is your point that we should do that? Or do you agree that people should be provided medical care when they become ill? Or do you reserve special malice for a gay man who contracts HIV, and say that he should not receive medical care? I believe that the obese midwesterner who smokes a pack of cigarettes per day, eats a high fat diet, fails to exercise, and has a “heart attack” should get medical treatment. It doesn’t matter to me that his own choices contributed to his medical condition, any more than it would the gay man with HIV. I don’t approve of either lifestyle choice. But I reserve the right to treat each of them with dignity and compassion.

This is what I like about people in the medical fields. Even the lowly nurses aids. I used to be irked by doctors until I ended up in the ER and ICU. I did encounter–and endure–a couple uncharitable nurses and one psycho nurses aid. But 97% or 98% or so of everyone doing their part in the hospital and treating and taking care of me were great.

It really left an impression on me.

Monkey1976, the use of condoms, especially among certain segments of society, is not the worst thing on earth. It is smart. And consider a person could be carrying a disease and not know it. They have sex and give it to someone else.

But disease themselves cause misery. If there were a condom for cigarette smoking that would likely prevent lung cancer than I’m pretty sure primary care physicians would prescribe them.

Brazil was on a the verge of having a huge HIV/AIDS problem many years ago and dramatically turned things around by the government promoting (and I thinking giving out freely) condoms, especially targeted at the prostitutes. Now Brazil has an HIV rate basically the same as that of the United States. And if I remember correctly this policy change occurred under President Lula who is described in a biography I have of him of as having been very devoted to his Catholic faith.

Basically, I’m saying that Lula may have saved millions of lives in Brazil. And some U.S. lives too since U.S. and European men are known to travel to Brazil for sexual tourism.

 

[epan]

This is what I like about people in the medical fields. Even the lowly nurses aids. I used to be irked by doctors until I ended up in the ER and ICU. I did encounter–and endure–a couple uncharitable nurses and one psycho nurses aid. But 97% or 98% or so of everyone doing their part in the hospital and treating and taking care of me were great.

It really left an impression on me.

Monkey1976, the use of condoms, especially among certain segments of society, is not the worst thing on earth. It is smart. And consider a person could be carrying a disease and not know it. They have sex and give it to someone else.

But disease themselves cause misery. If there were a condom for cigarette smoking that would likely prevent lung cancer than I’m pretty sure primary care physicians would prescribe them.

Brazil was on a the verge of having a huge HIV/AIDS problem many years ago and dramatically turned things around by the government promoting (and I thinking giving out freely) condoms, especially targeted at the prostitutes. Now Brazil has an HIV rate basically the same as that of the United States. And if I remember correctly this policy change occurred under President Lula who is described in a biography I have of him of as having been very devoted to his Catholic faith.

Basically, I’m saying that Lula may have saved millions of lives in Brazil. And some U.S. lives too since U.S. and European men are known to travel to Brazil for sexual tourism.

Correct me, if I am wrong, but it seems that while the Church would be opposed to condom use within a marriage, that it would not be opposed to condom use otherwise? I am not saying that the Church does not oppose sexual activity outside of marriage. But in my reading of Benedict’s now famous statement, in his book, that he admitted that there are times when condom use has a higher moral standing than failure to use a condom.

 

[andrewstx]

The Health Risks of Gay Sex

**JOHN R. DIGGS, JR., M.D.

****The Health Risks of Gay Sex **
Introduction
I. Differences between homosexual and heterosexual relationships
A. Promiscuity
B. Physical health

1. Male Homosexual Behavior
   a. Anal-genital
   b. Oral-anal
   c. Human Waste
   d. Fisting
   e. Sadism
   f. Conclusion
2. Female Homosexual Behavior
   C. Mental health
3. Psychiatric Illness
4. Reckless Sexual Behavior
   D. Life span
   E. Definition of “monogamy”
   II. Cultural Implications of Promiscuity
   
   Conclusion
   Appendix A
   Definitional Impediments to Research
   Endnotes

Of course individuals are born homosexuals, who would choose to be hated and disinherited by their own families? Obviously not all are born with an attraction to the opposite gender, and not all are born heterosexual.

I am chaste, period but for a time I was a sexually active homosexual, but I despaired of finding love from another man. Most of them are not looking for love, just a conquest for the evening.

But in my time as an active homosexual I never saw the majority of the things on the list, apparently those things are practiced by a tiny minority even in San Francisco where I spent time.

Even chastity is not good enough for my family, they still hate me (they are not Catholics though).

Chaste I do and have done for years, homosexuals are very immoral, but I can’t flip a switch in my mind and become attracted to women.

 

[epan]

Of course individuals are born homosexuals, who would choose to be hated and disinherited by their own families? Obviously not all are born with an attraction to the opposite gender, and not all are born heterosexual.

I am chaste, period but for a time I was a sexually active homosexual, but I despaired of finding love from another man. Most of them are not looking for love, just a conquest for the evening.

But in my time as an active homosexual I never saw the majority of the things on the list, apparently those things are practiced by a tiny minority even in San Francisco where I spent time.

Even chastity is not good enough for my family, they still hate me (they are not Catholics though).

Chaste I do and have done for years, homosexuals are very immoral, but I can’t flip a switch in my mind and become attracted to women.

I find this interesting, that it is common for gay people to express the opinion that they were born with their sexual orientation. The most respected psychiatry professor which I have known says that sexuality is determined by the age of 2-3 years. There is a sense that it is not a chosen orientation.

 

[andrewstx]

I find this interesting, that it is common for gay people to express the opinion that they were born with their sexual orientation. The most respected psychiatry professor which I have known says that sexuality is determined by the age of 2-3 years. There is a sense that it is not a chosen orientation.

It was most certainly not chosen by me. Perhaps it was not true at birth but soon afterward. I have never been attracted to women at all though, but I do remember having a crush on my pediatrician. Of course I didn’t understand it at the time.

I fit the stereotypes, raised in a split family by a step father and mom who hated me and allowed no contact with my biological father. No wonder I have always craved for love from another male.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

The homosexual act is intrinsically evil, not same sex attraction.

I didn’t see the word ‘evil’ anywhere. I did find ‘intrinsically disordered.’

I posted the relevant Catechism sections earlier and will do so again:

#2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

#2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

#2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

 

[buffalo]

Of course individuals are born homosexuals, who would choose to be hated and disinherited by their own families? Obviously not all are born with an attraction to the opposite gender, and not all are born heterosexual.

I am chaste, period but for a time I was a sexually active homosexual, but I despaired of finding love from another man. Most of them are not looking for love, just a conquest for the evening.

But in my time as an active homosexual I never saw the majority of the things on the list, apparently those things are practiced by a tiny minority even in San Francisco where I spent time.

Even chastity is not good enough for my family, they still hate me (they are not Catholics though).

Chaste I do and have done for years, homosexuals are very immoral, but I can’t flip a switch in my mind and become attracted to women.

Nicolosi helps those who want help. Before you jump to conclusions hear what he has to say and the successes.