Being gay is in your genes

[livingwordunity]

Certainly people can have SSA and worse and be with God. That does not mean that is God’s will.

Good point. SSA is just like how we all struggle with various inclinations to sin. And just like all inclinations to any sin, it only becomes personal sin when it is acted upon.

 

[frobert]

Real science has taught us it cannot be genetic. Furthermore, there isn’t one definitive gene that can cause a person to sin. Lay people in the sciences with an agenda take suggestive and preliminary studies and promote them as fact.

Can you provide us with several publications that promote ‘real science’ without any agenda expect pure education?

I am sure it will be helpful to many of us to be on the same page as you.

Thank you in advance.

 

[EIF5A]

Not one person here has stated that God causes homosexuality. But homosexual orientation is allowed. If God allows it so that virtue may triumph over human disposition to sin, who are you to say SSA isn’t God’s will so that person’s soul may have an opportunity of merit against such temptations?

God may allow SSA for the entire life.

Insisting that one must be free of SSA to be reconciled fully with God is not Church teaching.

 

[Catolico65]

Not one person here has stated that God causes homosexuality. But homosexual orientation is allowed. If God allows it so that virtue may triumph over human disposition to sin, who are you to say SSA isn’t God’s will so that person’s soul may have an opportunity of merit against such temptations?
.

They most certainly have.

Insisting that one must be free of SSA to be reconciled fully with God is not Church teaching.

I see you are perpetually confused, ie constantly making baseless claims.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

I find that given that the Jones and Yarhouse study which was funded by Exodus International and conducted by two evangelical Christians who set out to prove it can change found substantially less than half experienced complete orientation change over a decade with a sample that very much wanted to change it is highly unlikely that a substantial percent of gay people can change. The only group who have been really found to “change” “sexuality” is women and that is more of changing identity than an actual change of attractions. When men have claimed change it is usually seen to be them claiming to be straight, but then they are often exposed as not actually having changed, see Michael Bussee, Gary Cooper and John Paulk.

It can be rather harmful to go in with overly optimistic as you have young men who are attracted to the same sex, thinking they can change because people tell them they can, that God will “heal” them get married. And then you get toxic situations where the husband isn’t attracted to the wife, never was and she was duped into it, toss in kids which are likely by the time the man realizes he has been duped. This is one ugly situation that will likely lead to a rather ugly divorce and hurt everyone involved.

I don’t think it is impossible for sexuality to change, but we need to be honest and realistic about it instead of claiming that it will happen if they pray enough or go to some therapy. In the former case when it doesn’t work it lead to people thinking that they must be bad people for being attracted to the same sex, that God hates them, that they are unlovable, etc. and none of those are theologically sound or healthy. It is possible for LGB people to be happily married to someone of the opposite sex, it requires honest and openness from the beginning, Kyle Keating and Melinda Selmys are good examples, IIRC the latter has been on Catholic Answers live.

The problem is the bulk of mental health professionals are held by and beholden to APA which is vested in expressed homosexuality. Ever since homosexuality was removed as a disorder in the DSM (by political pressure), there has not been any bias free and balanced investigation of the etiology of same sex attraction and management / treatment modalities for unwanted SSA. The APA has already dictated that homosexuality is not changeable and attempts to change is commonly and inherently harmful. Would any practicing mental health professional under APA risk doing or saying anything openly that is a departure from the official line?

You mentioned Jones and Yarhouse, focusing on the failures of sexual orientation change therapy, ignoring that their study do not prove that categorical change in sexual orientation is possible for everyone or anyone, but rather that meaningful shifts along a continuum that constitute real changes appear possible for some. They also noted that attempts to change do not appear to be harmful on average or inherently harmful. There is some capacity for some people to shift their sexual orientation in a way that has personal meaning to them.

Given a culture surrounding a same sex attracted person with suggestions and prompts right and left to go ahead and act on his or her homosexual inclination, a gay affirming APA, gay themed tv programs, a current President joining in, with public congratulations to sports figures who come out, etc., is it a wonder that failure in changing homosexual behavior and orientation is high?

Ask yourself if you are letting yourself swept away by the culture too. You seem to discount prayer and change therapy as helpful aids to struggling homosexuals. Indeed, there are lots of naysayers who come onto this site, even Catholics, who badmouth the good work of the few who remain standing, counter cultural if you will, like Dr. Rick Fitzgibbons, Dr. Nicolosi and company, the Courage apostolate, Catholic Therapists, JONAH, mormonandgays.org, and other organizations in this list.

George Bernard Shaw:
*People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.
*

Currently we (not the Catholic Church) teach them (especially males) they can’t have close friends of the same sex because that is a “near occasion of sin” and they can’t have close friends of the opposite sex because that is “unseemly” which leaves them unable to have close friends, given that, they can’t marry and few people seem inclined to open their hearts and hoes to them it leaves them profoundly alone. Man doesn’t need sex, but he does need to belong and love; it is not good for man to be alone.

I don’t agree that a person with same sex attraction need to avoid close friendships with members of his / her sex.

There is nothing wrong unless the same sex friend is also a sexual and romantic partner.

By all means, keep and enjoy your friend or friends. Who would begrudge you this?
,

 

[InSearchofGrace]

At Brief History NARTH’s Melthdown:

In 2006, NARTH had a meltdown after two major controversies. In the first, psychiatrist Joseph Berger, MD, a member of their “Scientific Advisory Committee,” wrote a paper encouraging students to “ridicule” gender variant children. “I suggest, indeed, letting children who wish go to school in clothes of the opposite sex–but not counseling other children to not tease them or hurt their feelings,” Dr. Berger wrote on NARTH’s website. “On the contrary, don’t interfere, and let the other children ridicule the child who has lost that clear boundary between play-acting at home and the reality needs of the outside world. Maybe, in this way, the child will re-establish that necessary boundary.”

That is from Truth Wins Out.

TWO is a rabidly pro-gay site, propagating that homosexuality is normal, denying what Scripture says on homosexuality, endorsing only pro-gay science and research. How shocking that it criticizes NARTH! It also lambasts Courage, the apostolate endorsed by the Church to which you belong, by the way.
,

 

[EIF5A]

Catolico65, you make it seems as though changing deep-seated orientation is so easy, most people can do it! Empirical evidence suggests it is not.

There’s a reason why the Church says it’s “deep-seated”. Because it’s not easy to change with the click of a button for most people with prolonged homosexual attraction.

The Church does not exclude a biological component to sexual orientation.

You use Romans 1 and interpret in a way that the Church does not teach.

This conversation, once again, turned out to be futile.

The only reason I replied is in case some unfortunate person would come along and think what you tout is Church teaching.

 

[pnewton]

This phrase:

2357… Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained.

… does not mandate this meaning.

The Catechism says SSA is psychological in origin. FACT.

Diagram it. Same-sex attraction is not the subject. The subject is the* genesis* (beginning, onset), and only the* psychological* beginning, of same-sex attraction.

 

[pnewton]

The Church does not exclude a biological component to sexual orientation.
.

The Church neither teaches, nor precludes a biological (specifically genetic) component. Biology is a matter of science, a different way to search for truth. I personally believe very little pure scientific research has been done in this area. By that I mean, that a scientist that sets to prove a point to which he is vested, is not a good scientist. I like to look up the people who are involved in different research finds that pop up in the news. It is no surprise that many are also involved in the gay rights movement. Likewise, many of those on the other side are often involved in some religious movement involving homosexuals. It is such a hot topic it is hard to find good research that was not designed to spin.

There’s a reason why the Church says it’s “deep-seated”. Because it’s not easy to change with the click of a button for most people with prolonged homosexual attraction.

Oh, this is good. I like the phrase “deep-seated” and your elaboration. Is it really all that important the cause? The effect is that sexual attraction gets to be very ingrained in our whole being. This is why child molesters almost always repeat their crime if they can. This is why pornography is such big business.

I understand why the Holy Father is so often misunderstood on this. He is looking with pity on those caught betwixt a rock and a hard place. Or as St. Paul put it, “For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate.” He says he is a wretched man. He says this is a war, a war that takes place in within our own body. The Holy Father wants us to bring the gospel to these people.

*For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, 23 but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. 24 Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? *25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin (Romans 7).

The two things we need to avoid. One is a compromise that denies the reality of this war, because denying sin leads to no hope for salvation. The second (what do too much) is cheering on one side while people are torn up inside.

 

[pnewton]

The lie of pretending to not be attracted/tempted to the same sex. A non-heterosexual husband may not cherish/love the wife as much as a heterosexual husband would. It would be best to be honest upfront, instead of hiding and falling to temptation and causing emotional pain for the wife when she finds out her husband had same-sex extramarital incidences.

Without doubt, honesty is always essential. However, this lie you describe is not limited to homosexuality. Many married people struggle attraction to another woman, or other women, pornography, some immoral sexual practice, some immoral and illegal sexual practice… Yes, honesty with the spouse remains essential.

 

[frobert]

That is from Truth Wins Out.

TWO is a rabidly pro-gay site, propagating that homosexuality is normal, denying what Scripture says on homosexuality, endorsing only pro-gay science and research. How shocking that it criticizes NARTH! It also lambasts Courage, the apostolate endorsed by the Church to which you belong, by the way.
,

My post contained nothing about propagating homosexuality as normal or endorsing pro gay science. It did not mention homosexuality or gay science. Nothing in my post was about Courage. It did not mention Courage. The post was based on fact which could be gotten in several places on the internet.

I can understand your frustration when a site you dislikes prints the truth. Not one thing in what I posted is false. What confuses me is that Instead of reading it and commenting on what NARTH is all about you chose to make ad hominem attack instead. Do you believe in NARTH and wish to defend NARTH?

By not doing so you are implicitly condoning:

Dr. Berger statement on ridiculing children: “On the contrary, don’t interfere, and let the other children ridicule the child who has lost that clear boundary between play-acting at home and the reality needs of the outside world. Maybe, in this way, the child will re-establish that necessary boundary.”

Condoning Schoenwolf’s statement on slavery: “It could be pointed out, for example, that Africa at the time of slavery was still primarily a jungle, as yet uncivilized or industrialized. Life there was savage, as savage as the jungle for most people, and that it was the Africans themselves who first enslaved their own people. They sold their own people to other countries, and those brought to Europe, South America, America, and other countries, were in many ways better off than they had been in Africa. But if one even begins to say these things one is quickly shouted down as though one were a complete madman.”

In stead arguing the merits of the content you choose to attack the messenger TWO and give NARTH a free ride. You are making multiple mistakes solely on the bases prejudice against TWO based on an ad hominem argument , in doing so you have diminished your credibility and are not doing the CC any favors.

**Do you agree that children should be ridiculed and that slaves where better off in many ways? **

An ad hominem (Latin for “to the man” or “to the person”), short for argument ad hominem, is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument

 

[livingwordunity]

The Church neither teaches, nor precludes a biological (specifically genetic) component. Biology is a matter of science, a different way to search for truth. I personally believe very little pure scientific research has been done in this area. By that I mean, that a scientist that sets to prove a point to which he is vested, is not a good scientist. I like to look up the people who are involved in different research finds that pop up in the news. It is no surprise that many are also involved in the gay rights movement.

This.

 

[EIF5A]

Oh, this is good. I like the phrase “deep-seated” and your elaboration. Is it really all that important the cause? The effect is that sexual attraction gets to be very ingrained in our whole being. This is why child molesters almost always repeat their crime if they can. This is why pornography is such big business.

If you don’t acknowledge that homosexual attraction is long-lasting and prolonged for many people, you don’t acknowledge reality. You instead choose to believe an idealistic vision of what should be in your mind.

“Deep-seated” has nothing to do with cause, whether it’s purely psychological/neurological/genetic/social/environmental/mix-of-everything.

Sexual attraction “gets to be very ingrained” because that is part of human nature in this age. The temptation of lust will always be there. Even saints fought the battle their entire lives (but won at the end).

Sexual attraction “gets to be very ingrained” because marriage and family are all around us. There’s physical attraction involved in finding a mate and procreating.

Sexual attraction “gets to be very ingrained” because of internalized self-hatred that God made people lesser than heterosexuals who fit the perfect mold of God’s will while those with homosexual attraction are outside of God’s sheep pen.

Wouldn’t it be nice if we could just voluntarily turn on/off all processing of information dealing with sexuality? Except we can’t. It’s there, and we have to deal with it.

 

[Catolico65]

The Church does not exclude a biological component to sexual orientation.

You use Romans 1 and interpret in a way that the Church does not teach.

This conversation, once again, turned out to be futile.

The only reason I replied is in case some unfortunate person would come along and think what you tout is Church teaching.

You are very confused. The catechism explains SSA is psychological in origin. While there are some pastoral letters that do not discount a possible biological origin because of deference to science these will be rescinded in the future because of the latest research in the area. Unlike you and many others on CAF the Catholic Church is not beholden to the gay lobby, and in fact sees them for what they are and obviously will question anything they promote.

 

[Catolico65]

This phrase:

… does not mandate this meaning.
Diagram it. Same-sex attraction is not the subject. The subject is the* genesis* (beginning, onset), and only the* psychological* beginning, of same-sex attraction.

Homosexuality’s origin as psychological is clear in the catechism.

But just in case to leave no doubt to the contributors here the Spanish version clearly says “psychological origin”.

“Su origen psíquico permanece en gran medida inexplicado.”

vatican.va/archive/catechism_sp/p3s2c2a6_sp.html

 

[EIF5A]

The Church neither teaches, nor precludes a biological (specifically genetic) component. Biology is a matter of science, a different way to search for truth. I personally believe very little pure scientific research has been done in this area. By that I mean, that a scientist that sets to prove a point to which he is vested, is not a good scientist. I like to look up the people who are involved in different research finds that pop up in the news. It is no surprise that many are also involved in the gay rights movement. Likewise, many of those on the other side are often involved in some religious movement involving homosexuals. It is such a hot topic it is hard to find good research that was not designed to spin.

I’ve always wondered about that for Catholics and conservative Christians.

Why does it matter what the cause is? The goal is chastity regardless of the cause.

Even if it’s entirely physiological, the Church won’t change and say, “OK, homosexuals can get married now since it turned out to be all neurological.”

Why this impetus to diminish/deny as much as possible (at least some people anyway) that there might be a biological component to human sexuality?

Not much pure scientific research with humans can be done. With cancer, you can at least take out the tumor, study it, and genetically and pharmacological manipulate it to figure out why they’re growing out of control.

With sexuality, there’s also the psychosocial aspect that can’t be manipulated in a lab setting. (And I guess you can’t make mutant humans to form a causal link.)

---

And dis/proving a hypothesis is how science is done. Make a “prediction” (hypothesis) based on previously known information. Conduct experiments or analyze data. Then conclude that the results either give credence to your hypothesis or don’t support your hypothesis.

 

[frobert]

The problem is the bulk of mental health professionals are held by and beholden to APA which is vested in expressed homosexuality. Ever since homosexuality was removed as a disorder in the DSM (by political pressure), there has not been any bias free and balanced investigation of the etiology of same sex attraction and management / treatment modalities for unwanted SSA.

Is Scientific American balanced and non-biased?

Psychotherapists trying to “treat” patients for homosexuality
Mar 26, 2009 |By Coco Ballantyne

One in 25 British psychiatrists and psychologists say they would be willing to help homosexual and bisexual patients try to convert to heterosexuality… researchers report this week in BMC Psychiatry.

Can Psychiatrists Really “Cure” Homosexuality?
Masters and Johnson claimed to convert gays to heterosexuality in a 1979 book…

Can the reason we don’t read about studies on treatment modalities for unwanted SSA be because the results have not been positive? Researchers do not normally publish negative results because a negative can not be proven scientifically.

On the etiology: There is quite a bit of excitement on new areas of investigation.

Here is one that I am excited about, even though the author had at one time associated himself with an organization I disprove of–[NARTH](research. http://www.narth.org/docs/whitehead.html), I am still excited about this because it has turned a long held belief of mind on its head.

Neither Genes nor Choice:
Same-Sex Attraction Is Mostly a Unique Reaction to Environmental Factors
[Journal of Human Sexuality 3:81-114 (2011)]
by Neil E. Whitehead

You mentioned Jones and Yarhouse, focusing on the failures of sexual orientation change therapy, ignoring that their study do not prove that categorical change in sexual orientation is possible for everyone or anyone, but rather that meaningful shifts along a continuum that constitute real changes appear possible for some. They also noted that attempts to change do not appear to be harmful on average or inherently harmful. There is some capacity for some people to shift their sexual orientation in a way that has personal meaning to them.

Questions for Jones and Yarhouse: To whom do “attempts to change not appear to be harmful on average or inherently harmful.”? What follow up have you done to support your statement on non-harmful effects?

 

[Catolico65]

I’ve always wondered about that for Catholics and conservative Christians.

Why does it matter what the cause is? The goal is chastity regardless of the cause.

With all due respect you are either very naive, don’t understand logic or are purposely misleading us.

As I and many others have explained, whether you acknowledge it or not, is that the gay lobby has recruited millions of Christian and Catholics to their cause by convincing them that homosexuality is innate or very likely innate. Millions of persons have applied simple logic and this false pretense that SSA is biological and have embraced homosexuality as good.

Furthermore, the same tactic used by the gay lobby is seen frequently on this forum and used none other than yourself, ie taking liberal interpretations of some pastoral letters, in spite of Scripture and the catechism, and PROMOTING the UNSUPPORTED FALLACY that SSA is more than likely BIOLOGICAL, thus causing many people to have doubt.

There is no point in denying this. All you arguments on this board are for an innate origin of SSA, in spite of nothing in CC stating this is as fact.

 

[frobert]

As I and many others have explained, whether you acknowledge it or not, is that the gay lobby has recruited millions of Christian and Catholics to their cause by convincing them that homosexuality is innate or very likely innate. Millions of persons have applied simple logic and this false pretense that SSA is biological and have embraced homosexuality as good.

Can you and others who have made such claims be more specific as to how you reached the conclusion that “the gay lobby has recruited millions of Christian and Catholics to their cause?” Do you have any non-biased sources to back it up?

 

[EIF5A]

With all due respect you are either very naive, don’t understand logic or are purposely misleading us.

As I and many others have explained, whether you acknowledge it or not, is that the gay lobby has recruited millions of Christian and Catholics to their cause by convincing them that homosexuality is innate or very likely innate. Millions of persons have applied simple logic and this false pretense that SSA is biological and have embraced homosexuality as good.

Furthermore, the same tactic used by the gay lobby is seen frequently on this forum and used none other than yourself, ie taking liberal interpretations of some pastoral letters, in spite of Scripture and the catechism, and PROMOTING the UNSUPPORTED FALLACY that SSA is more than likely BIOLOGICAL, thus causing many people to have doubt.

There is no point in denying this. All you arguments on this board are for an innate origin of SSA, in spite of nothing in CC stating this is as fact.

Even if it is innate, the Church will not change her stance. The Church has always taught chastity/celibacy for gays. That is set in stone.

Alcoholism and drug use have a biological component. (Rewarding of the brain). Giving into lustful acts has a physiological component. Yet, that doesn’t mean it is allowed.

The Church never taught homosexual attraction is caused by psychological reasons alone. A biological cause or factor does not mean it’s acceptable to act upon such impulses. If Catholics (or anyone for that matter) equate biology with acceptability, blame poor catechesis, not biology. This signifies a world without absolute moral law (beyond homosexuality), which is an even larger issue to deal with.

The Church never excluded there could be biological component to homosexual attraction.

I don’t have time for your labyrinthine logic, nor do I want to enter into occasions of sin by continuing this aggravating discussion. I’ve been trying to be patient and chocking it up to differences in interpretation of nuances of the English language , but I’m sick of your libel.

(If I don’t reply, it’s because you’re on my ignore list.)