Can Homosexuality Be Proved Wrong From Natural Law

[antroji]

Exodus International (1978): The ministry selected 30 of their 800 members as having changed from exclusively homosexual to exclusively heterosexual in orientation. Two outside psychiatrists interviewed the 30 and found that only three were actually heterosexual.

Subsequent to the study, two of the male founders of Exodus fell in love and were united in a union ceremony. They claimed that the Exodus program was “ineffective…not one person was healed.” The conversion rate, based on the study is 3 in 800, on the order of 0.4%

Masters and Johnson (1979): This study claimed an impressive conversion rate of 50 to 60% which was maintained for 5 years after treatment. Unfortunately, only five of the 67 participants (7%) began the study with a homosexual orientation. From the available data is quite possible that none of these five converted to heterosexuality. No estimate of the conversion rate can be obtained from this study.

NARTH (1997): They studied 860 clients whose data was sent by 200 therapists who were members of the organization. When the subjects entered therapy, 68% identified themselves as totally or almost exclusively homosexual. It is not clear whether this referred to sexual behavior or sexual orientation. The actual percentage of homosexuals was not reported; most of the subjects might have been bisexual. When they left therapy, 33% said they were exclusively or almost entirely heterosexual. Again, it is unclear whether this refers to behavior or orientation. Again, the percentage of heterosexuals is unknown. Unfortunately, 63% of the subjects were still undergoing therapy at the time of the survey. Of greater interest would be the percentage of subjects who entered with a homosexual orientation, converted to bisexuality or heterosexuality, and were able to sustain their sexual orientation for, say, two years following therapy. The NARTH report did not track the results of those clients after therapy. It is possible that none of the subjects who entered therapy with a homosexual orientation was able to change their orientation. No estimate of the conversion rate can be obtained from this study.

Schroeder & Shidlo: This study is aiming at analyzing the experience of 202 people who have undergone conversion therapy. Eight of their subjects reported a change in sexual orientation. Unfortunately, seven of the eight were ex-gay counselors or leaders who statements may have been false. They are fairly certain that one of the 202 was able to change his/her sexual orientation They reported a conversion rate of 0.5%.

OCRT pilot study (2000): The sponsors of this web site surveyed each of the 36 websites of the GayChange WebRing. 3 These are mainly Internet sites created by individuals or small Christian ministries. From the sites’ content, all appear to be Evangelical Christian in outlook. Of the 28 accessible web sites, only one reported what they felt were conversion success. They had two clients who entered therapy with a homosexual orientation, and decided during therapy to remain celibate. One entered therapy as a bisexual and has developed a relationship with a person of the opposite sex. Neither actually changed their sexual orientation. The conversion rate of the Christian ministries sampled was 0%.

Exodus International (2000): On 2000-JAN-21, the board of directors of the National Association of Social Workers issued a statement which condemned all therapies which attempt to change a person’s sexual orientation. Exodus International (EI) offered a rebuttal to that statement. In his rebuttal, Bob Davies, North American director of EI wrote that:

1. Over 250,000 individuals have contacted various EI offices inquiring about a sexual orientation change. This includes “gays, lesbians, family members, friends, counselors and pastors.”
2. Thousands of men and women have stopped homosexual behavior. That is, they have decided to become celibate. These are now “in the process of seeking deeper change in their sexual feelings and attractions.”

Unfortunately, he does not estimate how many of these thousands of clients have actually changed their sexual orientation. Asking for additional information yielded no response.

Davies does mention that some “are now happily married and raising children.” However he does not give estimates of their number, nor does he indicate how many were entered EI as bisexuals and have remained with that sexual orientation. No estimate of the conversion rate can be obtained from this study.

Spitzer (2000): Dr. Robert Spitzer conducted a study of 143 “ex-gays” and 57 “ex-lesbians” who had reported that they had become “straight.” In fact, the data shows that few are now heterosexual. He reported that 89% of the men and 63% of the subjects emerged from therapy still having feelings of attraction to persons of the same-sex. 16 (11%) of the men and 21 (37%) of the women report that they now have a heterosexual orientation. Again, it is not known how many entered therapy as bisexuals or as homosexuals.

A total of 86 of the 200 subjects were referred to Dr. Spitzer by conservative Christian groups specializing in homosexual ministry; NARTH referred 46 subjects; other sources provided 68. It is apparent that the individuals that Dr. Spitzer interviewed were hand-selected from a very large group of persons who had either a homosexuals or a bisexual orientation. The 46 subjects from NARTH might have been chosen as the most successful patients from as many as 250,000 individuals who entered therapy. Unfortunately, no data has been reported about the total number of persons from whom the 200 carefully selected patients were provided. Assuming that only 100,000 subjects were involved – a VERY conservative figure, then 37 “success stories” represents a conversion rate of 0.04%

 

[antroji]

More details on this study.

Nicolosi (2005): Dr. Nicolosi, the founder of NARTH who coined the term “reparative therapy” said in an interview with the Washington Post that of the patients at the Thomas Aquinas Psychological Clinic, of which he is founding director:

A) One third experience “significant improvement – they understand their homosexuality and have some sense of control.” However, they may engage in same-sex sexual behavior.

B) Another third are “cured;” they refrain from same-sex behavior and the strength and frequency of their same-sex desires is diminished, but not necessarily gone.

C) The other third fail to change.

It would seem that he is admitting that reparative therapy has a nearly 100% failure rate in terms of converting persons with a homosexual orientation to heterosexual. He does imply that some of his second group may become either asexual – suffer a complete loss of sexual desire – or successfully decide to remain celibate. All or almost all of his clinic’s patients retain same-sex desires; they remain either with a homosexual or bisexual orientation.

Conclusion:

From the available data, four studies reported a “success” rate during conversion therapy of 0.4%, 0.0%, 0.5 and 0.04%. That is, conversion therapy has a failure rate in excess of 99.5% during each study. Considering the anecdotal data which indicates a large percentage of extremely depressed and suicidal clients emerging from conversion therapy, it would appear that this form of therapy is worthless. It my well result in the death by suicide of more gays and lesbians than it “converts” to a heterosexual orientation. Unfortunately, we cannot be certain of this. The quality of the studies is extremely poor.

Jack Drescher is a New York psychiatrist and chairperson of the American Psychiatric Association’s committee on gay, lesbian and bisexual issues told a Washington Post reporter in 2005: “There are probably a small number of people with some flexibility in their sexual identity who can change. Out of the hundreds of gay men I’ve treated, I’ve had one.” If we assume that his term “sexual identity” is a synonym for “sexual orientation,” and that Dr. Drescher has treated 200 gay men, then he would seem to estimate that about 99.5% of gay men have a fixed sexual orientation, and that only about 0.5% can change their orientation.

 

[PatrickSebast]

Not only have most studies shown that conversion therapy is very limited in its use, but the Church also declared in its letter to the clergy on how to deal with homosexuals that though we do not yet have a certain cause for homosexuality, it is not something a person can change in most cases. So claiming that anyone can just go to therapy to become straight is contrary to the Church as well as the vast majority of psychologists.

 

[brumano]

obviously it is proven wrong in natural law; in the presentation of physicality of (human) beings as male and female. Certainly it is proven wrong in nature in that it opposes the procreative force in nature. Natural Law is really God’s Law in nature. Nature belongs to God. We see definitely in Holy Scripture and in Sacred Teaching…severe prohibitions against those who “…having forsaken the natural use of their of their bodies”…and those who “…transgress the natural laws”…even our Lord would not even speak of these things;referring to them only as “all manner of uncleanness.”

 

[PatrickSebast]

obviously it is proven wrong in natural law; in the presentation of physicality of (human) beings as male and female. Certainly it is proven wrong in nature in that it opposes the procreative force in nature. Natural Law is really God’s Law in nature. Nature belongs to God. We see definitely in Holy Scripture and in Sacred Teaching…severe prohibitions against those who “…having forsaken the natural use of their of their bodies”…and those who “…transgress the natural laws”…even our Lord would not even speak of these things;referring to them only as “all manner of uncleanness.”

That really isn’t what the OP was asking though.

 

[larkin31]

obviously it is proven wrong in natural law; in the presentation of physicality of (human) beings as male and female. Certainly it is proven wrong in nature in that it opposes the procreative force in nature. Natural Law is really God’s Law in nature. Nature belongs to God. We see definitely in Holy Scripture and in Sacred Teaching…

(1) There is no “procreative force in nature.” There are both procreative behaviors, and non-procreative behaviors. But this is no “force” whatsoever.

(2) The injunction against non-procreative sex exists only in religious and cultural rules made by some men (mostly men). This injunction exists nowhere in nature and is now primarily strictly taught only by the CC and a few other fundamentalist religious groups.

 

[dchezik]

Please provide a single case where a homosexual (not a bisexual!) has changed their sexual preference from 100% homosexual to heterosexual.

 

[antroji]

Since some here aprppear to not read the news, y’all can go here to read the source article for the quote below, or here to read a review of a book containing other such research.

“Sexual orientation is too complex to be determined by a single gene,” said Dr. Dean H. Hamer of the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Md., the lead author of the new report. “The main value of this work is that it opens a window into understanding how genes, the brain and the environment interact to mold human behavior.”

In the new work, the scientists studied the genetic material from 40 pairs of gay brothers and found that in 33 of the pairs, the brothers had identical pieces of the end tip of the X chromosome. Under ordinary circumstances ruled by chance alone, only half of the pairs should have shared that chromosomal neighborhood in common, a region designated Xq28. The odds of Dr. Hamer’s results turning up randomly are less than half a percent, indicating that the chromosomal tip likely harbors a genetic sequence linked to the onset of the brothers’ homosexuality. (italics mine)

 

[larkin31]

Since some here aprppear to not read the news, y’all can go here to read the source article for the quote below, or here to read a review of a book containing other such research.

“Sexual orientation is too complex to be determined by a single gene,” said Dr. Dean H. Hamer of the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Md., the lead author of the new report. “The main value of this work is that it opens a window into understanding how genes, the brain and the environment interact to mold human behavior.”

In the new work, the scientists studied the genetic material from 40 pairs of gay brothers and found that in 33 of the pairs, the brothers had identical pieces of the end tip of the X chromosome. Under ordinary circumstances ruled by chance alone, only half of the pairs should have shared that chromosomal neighborhood in common, a region designated Xq28. The odds of Dr. Hamer’s results turning up randomly are less than half a percent, indicating that the chromosomal tip likely harbors a genetic sequence linked to the onset of the brothers’ homosexuality. (italics mine)

Thanks

very interesting

 

[Charlemagne_II]

dchezik

*Please provide a single case where a homosexual (not a bisexual!) has changed their sexual preference from 100% homosexual to heterosexual. *

Please provide a single case in which a homosexual gene was found. That’s really the bottom line, isn’t it?

Show us the gene. Never mind the cock-eyed theories.

brighthub.com/science/genetics/articles/7033.aspx

 

[Charlemagne_II]

PatrickSebast

Not only have most studies shown that conversion therapy is very limited in its use, but the Church also declared in its letter to the clergy on how to deal with homosexuals that though we do not yet have a certain cause for homosexuality,* it is not something a person can change in most cases**. So claiming that anyone can just go to therapy to become straight is contrary to the Church as well as the vast majority of psychologists. *

Could you please provide the specific document if it’s online?

Naturally, the church has not taught that homosexuals living in sin cannot be converted away from their sinning.

 

[Abu]

Charlemagne II
Please provide a single case in which a homosexual gene was found

Of course only loose “feelings”.

NOT BORN THAT WAY
A number of researchers have sought to find a biological cause for same-sexual attraction. The media has promoted the idea that a “gay gene” has already been discovered (Burr 1996 3 ), but in spite of several attempts none of the much publicized studies (Hamer 1993 4 ; LeVay 1991 5 ) have been scientifically replicated. (Gadd 1998) A number of authors have carefully reviewed these studies and found that they not only do not prove a genetic basis for same-sex attraction, they do not even claim to have scientific evidence for such a claim. (Byne 1993 6 ; Crewdson 1995 7 ; Goldberg 1992; Horgan 1995 8 ; McGuire 1995 9 ; Porter 1996; Rice 1999 10

Researchers Peter Bearman and Hannah Brückner, from Columbia and Yale respectively, studied data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, and found even lower concordance rates of only 6.7% for male and 5.3% for female identical twins. In fact, their study neatly refuted several of the biological theories for the origin of homosexuality, finding social experiences in childhood to be far more significant.
If it was not clear in the 1990’s, it certainly is now—no one is “born gay.”
[Peter S. Bearman and Hannah Brückner, “Opposite-Sex Twins and Adolescent Same-Sex Attraction,” American Journal of Sociology Vol. 107, No. 5, (March 2002), 1179-1205].

If it was not clear in the 1990’s, it certainly is now—no one is “born gay.”

CCC #2357 teaches: …“Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity [Cf Gen 19:1-29; Rom 1:24-27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tim 1:10], tradition has always declared the ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.’…Under no circumstances can they be approved.”

CCC #2358 teaches: …“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.”

 

[larkin31]

PatrickSebast

Not only have most studies shown that conversion therapy is very limited in its use, but the Church also declared in its letter to the clergy on how to deal with homosexuals that though we do not yet have a certain cause for homosexuality,* it is not something a person can change in most cases***. So claiming that anyone can just go to therapy to become straight is contrary to the Church as well as the vast majority of psychologists.

Could you please provide the specific document if it’s online?

Naturally, the church has not taught that homosexuals living in sin cannot be converted away from their sinning.

I read the same document. It was linked here by a Catholic poster. It recognized that therapy was not always productive, and it acknowledged the possibility of “biological” factors in human sexual orientation.

You can find it if you don’t believe it, or perhaps that poster, if he/she is reading this, can post the link again. There are several anti-gay threads here, and I cannot even remember which one it was linked in. I think it was a Bishops’ letter dated 2006 on homosexuality.

 

[antroji]

Could you please provide the specific document if it’s online?

And you want me to do your research for you too?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

antroji

*And you want me to do your research for you too? *

I routinely supply my sources when they are requested. Thought you might too. I was wrong. Thanks, anyway.

 

[larkin31]

antroji

*And you want me to do your research for you too? *

I routinely supply my sources when they are requested. Thought you might too. I was wrong. Thanks, anyway.

I have given the name of my source about 5 times

here is the link, and I have quoted the relevant passage for this present discussion:

Therapy for Homosexual Inclinations?
A considerable number of people who experience same-sex attraction experience it as an
inclination that they did not choose. Many of these speak of their homosexual attractions as an unwanted burden. This raises the question of whether or not a homosexual inclination can be changed with the help of some kind of therapeutic intervention.

There is currently no scientific consensus on the cause of the homosexual inclination.17 There is no consensus on therapy. Some have found therapy helpful. Catholics who experience homosexual tendencies and who wish to explore therapy should seek out the counsel and assistance of a qualified professional who has preparation and competence in psychological counseling and who understands and supports the Church’s teaching on homosexuality. They should also seek out the guidance of a confessor and spiritual director who will support their quest to live a chaste life.

I have bolded the parts that I was summarizing, and that others have referred to.

from here: usccb.org/doctrine/Ministry.pdf

 

[larkin31]

This is from NARTH:

Latest Twin Study Confirms
Genetic Contribution To SSA Is Minor

As in previous studies, identical twins usually differ for SSA.

By N.E. Whitehead, Ph.D.

Twin studies are favorites of mine because of the potential light they throw on the origins of same-sex attractions (SSA). The latest one (Santtila et al., 2008) is three times larger than any previous study - in fact, larger than all the rest put together.

Does this latest study teach us something new? Quick answer: No. It confirms the best recent studies, which tell us that genetic factors are minor; non-genetic factors are major.

Here: narth.com/docs/isminor.html

 

[Leela]

Of course only loose “feelings”.

NOT BORN THAT WAY
A number of researchers have sought to find a biological cause for same-sexual attraction. The media has promoted the idea that a “gay gene” has already been discovered (Burr 1996 3 ), but in spite of several attempts none of the much publicized studies (Hamer 1993 4 ; LeVay 1991 5 ) have been scientifically replicated. (Gadd 1998) A number of authors have carefully reviewed these studies and found that they not only do not prove a genetic basis for same-sex attraction, they do not even claim to have scientific evidence for such a claim. (Byne 1993 6 ; Crewdson 1995 7 ; Goldberg 1992; Horgan 1995 8 ; McGuire 1995 9 ; Porter 1996; Rice 1999 10

Researchers Peter Bearman and Hannah Brückner, from Columbia and Yale respectively, studied data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, and found even lower concordance rates of only 6.7% for male and 5.3% for female identical twins. In fact, their study neatly refuted several of the biological theories for the origin of homosexuality, finding social experiences in childhood to be far more significant.
If it was not clear in the 1990’s, it certainly is now—no one is “born gay.”
[Peter S. Bearman and Hannah Brückner, “Opposite-Sex Twins and Adolescent Same-Sex Attraction,” American Journal of Sociology Vol. 107, No. 5, (March 2002), 1179-1205].

If it was not clear in the 1990’s, it certainly is now—no one is “born gay.”

CCC #2357 teaches: …“Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity [Cf Gen 19:1-29; Rom 1:24-27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tim 1:10], tradition has always declared the ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.’…Under no circumstances can they be approved.”

CCC #2358 teaches: …“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.”

No, there is no gay gene, but this is all beside the point. We still don’t decide what we are sexually attracted to anymore than we decide to prefer chocolate over vanilla and hate olives while another person prefers vanilla and loves olives. The factors that influence sexual orientation are very complex and not explained by any single gene or particular experience.

You ought to also consider the phenotype/genotype distinction in thinking about why one of a set of identical twins is straight and the other is gay.

What needs to be explained is why we ought to regard same sex attraction as a problem that needs to be corrected any more than differences in preferences with regard to chocolate and vanilla is a social problem. I doubt you can do that without making a purely religious argument about what God likes and hates which there is no reason to think could convince anyone who does not subscribe to your religion. I don’t think you have any special access to God’s preferences with regard to human sexuality.

 

[larkin31]

No, there is no gay gene, but this is all beside the point. We still don’t decide what we are sexually attracted to anymore than we decide to prefer chocolate over vanilla and hate olives while another person prefers vanilla and loves olives. The factors that influence sexual orientation are very complex and not explained by any single gene or particular experience…

Indeed

Here is more:

M]ost scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors. In most people, it is shaped at an early age. There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person’s sexuality… American Psychological Association, Answers to Your Questions About Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality, July 1998

here: fortunatefamilies.com/faq.htm

 

[davidv]

No, there is no gay gene, but this is all beside the point. We still don’t decide what we are sexually attracted to anymore than we decide to prefer chocolate over vanilla and hate olives while another person prefers vanilla and loves olives. The factors that influence sexual orientation are very complex and not explained by any single gene or particular experience.

You ought to also consider the phenotype/genotype distinction in thinking about why one of a set of identical twins is straight and the other is gay.

What needs to be explained is why we ought to regard same sex attraction as a problem that needs to be corrected any more than differences in preferences with regard to chocolate and vanilla is a social problem. I doubt you can do that without making a purely religious argument about what God likes and hates which there is no reason to think could convince anyone who does not subscribe to your religion. I don’t think you have any special access to God’s preferences with regard to human sexuality.

If you happen to prefer chocolate over vanila, but are extremely allergic to chocolate, what do you do? You refrain from chocolate. If you don’t have the will power to do so, you will die. The parallel exist for sin. You may prefer sin, but to indulge in it is to die.