Columnist argues false dichotomy for nature vs nuture debate on gays

[Riley259]

The dichotomy presented in this article regarding the nature vs nuture debate on homosexuality is totally false. There’s good evidence that homosexuality is not likely completely biologically based but instead is probably more a product of environment, psycho-sexual development problems (ex., same-sex parent relationship; lack of masculine identity for gay men, etc) and perhaps some pre-disposition in some cases (gender non-conformity issues). Virtually no one is suggesting that homosexuals choose their condition (except in minority cases such as adolescent fads or women looking for more emotional bonding that they feel they can’t receive with male partners). The writer totally misrepresents the church’s position on gays in the priesthood.

boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/12/02/nature_or_nurture/

 

[BillP]

Riley259:

The dichotomy presented in this article regarding the nature vs nuture debate on homosexuality is totally false.

Maybe we read different articles. The one I read said:

Let’s remember that the evidence is with those on the nature side of the dividing line. While we don’t know the precise biology, the weight of research suggests that sexual orientation is indeed something we are born with.

That sounds like a pretty fair assessment of the current state of informed scientific opinion. In fact it sounds kind of like what you said:

Riley259:

There’s good evidence that homosexuality is not likely completely biologically based but instead is probably more a product of environment, psycho-sexual development problems… Virtually no one is suggesting that homosexuals choose their condition

Riley259:

The writer totally misrepresents the church’s position on gays in the priesthood.

How?

The article reports that the Church’s position is:

“On Tuesday, the much-leaked and much-awaited document from the Vatican said the church ''cannot admit to the seminary or to Holy Orders those who practice homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies, or support the so-called gay culture.”"

Again, I think that’s a pretty accurate assessment of what the Church says.

What’s your problem with this article??

 

[Rob_s_Wife]

The entire “nature” “nurture” issue is moot.

It presumes that the way we are born is always normal and healthy - when in fact it is not always that way. For example, if a child is born with either 1 leg or a 3rd leg or a severely deformed leg. The child was born that way, but it is not the natural formation of the body in nature. IF homosexuality is something some are born with - that in itself does not make it natural. Homosexuality would be an abnormality from birth. And just like a person born with a crippled leg, we would love the child - but we would certainly not ignore the serious need for them to recieve rehabilitive care to correct the problem and allow them to live as natural and normal a life as possible.

---

In the nurture arguement, it confuses inclination to act/think a certain manner with being controled by the influences in our world. We are all influenced by the world around us, but we are certainly able to make our own decisions as to what is right and wrong. If a woman grew up with a mother who had affairs and wasn’t even a little bit maternal, does that mean she will follow the same path? the opposite path? or find her own path? Humans are not blank slates upon which we have no control over our own minds and bodies. We are not just animals. We have the ability to make choices for ourselves and to seek truth in the world around us.

---

How we are born and how we are raised are not our sins. But the choices we make can be a sin. Homosexuality is a sin and just like hetrosexuals - homosexuals can choose not to commit sins of a sexual context.

 

[Starsweeper]

Typical Anti-Catholic article from the Globe. Surprise, Surprise. It’s amazing how they take the truth and twist it just ever so slightly to make it look like it’s the real deal. I’ve stopped reading the Globe, it’s too infuriating. They are completely and totally incapable of reporting without bias.

 

[BillP]

Homosexuality is a sin and just like hetrosexuals - homosexuals can choose not to commit sins of a sexual context.

Which is it? You sentence is self-contradictory. Do you believe:

A) Homosexuality (i.e. a Homosexual inclination) is a sin

or

B) That Homosexuality itself is not a sin that it is Homosexual ACTS are sins.

Guess which one is the position of the Catholic Church.

 

[BillP]

Starsweeper:

Typical Anti-Catholic article from the Globe. Surprise, Surprise. It’s amazing how they take the truth and twist it just ever so slightly to make it look like it’s the real deal. I’ve stopped reading the Globe, it’s too infuriating. They are completely and totally incapable of reporting without bias.

I am astonished. I foudn nothing in that article to be Anti-Catholic or biased. Please enlighten me.

 

[mlchance]

BillP:

Maybe we read different articles. The one I read said:

Let’s remember that the evidence is with those on the nature side of the dividing line. While we don’t know the precise biology, the weight of research suggests that sexual orientation is indeed something we are born with.

That sounds like a pretty fair assessment of the current state of informed scientific opinion.

There is very little scientific evidence at all that homosexuality is something anyone is “born with.” Even researchers delving into a heretofore undemonstrated genetic cause for homosexuality frequently admit that influences from childhood environment cannot be discounted.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Rob_s_Wife]

BillP:

Which is it? You sentence is self-contradictory. Do you believe:

A) Homosexuality (i.e. a Homosexual inclination) is a sin

or

B) That Homosexuality itself is not a sin that it is Homosexual ACTS are sins.

Guess which one is the position of the Catholic Church.

Pardon my error in writing. I should have typed:

---

The act of homosexuality is a sin and just like hetrosexuals, homosexuals can choose to not commit sins of a sexual context.

---

We are ALL inclined towards sin, such is our fallen state. Each of us has various inclinations or crosses which are harder to carry the burden of than other sins, but that does not dismiss our ability to choose to not give in to those sins.

 

[BillP]

****
The act of homosexuality is a sin and just like hetrosexuals, homosexuals can choose to not commit sins of a sexual context.

I agree and I think that is what the Church teaches.

So what is the problem with ordaining men who have the inclination but don’t act on it?

 

[Ddot]

The Church believes that homosexuality is intrinsically disordered. While it is not in itself sinful to have homosexual inclinations, those are still disordered.

Only by overcoming this disorder can and should men be allowed to enter the seminary and ultimately the priesthood. This all has to do with strengthening the priesthood and making it a vocation for the best possible candidates.

 

[BillP]

Ddot:

The Church believes that homosexuality is intrinsically disordered. While it is not in itself sinful to have homosexual inclinations, those are still disordered.

Only by overcoming this disorder can and should men be allowed to enter the seminary and ultimately the priesthood. This all has to do with strengthening the priesthood and making it a vocation for the best possible candidates.

Aren’t ALL humans intrinsically disordered by their inclination to sin that results from original sin?

What makes SSA worse?

 

[Rob_s_Wife]

I agree with Ddot.

---

BillP wrote:
Aren’t ALL humans intrinsically disordered by their inclination to sin that results from original sin?

Yes, indeed we all are. I think what Ddot is trying to convey is that those who enter the priesthood should have clearly demonstrated their ability to overcome and defeat this inclination before entering the priesthood.

 

[mlchance]

BillP:

I agree and I think that is what the Church teaches.

So what is the problem with ordaining men who have the inclination but don’t act on it?

There is no problem with doing so if the Church says there is no problem with doing so. If the Church, OTOH, says homosexual men cannot be ordained, then they cannot be ordained.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Riley259]

BillP:

Maybe we read different articles. The one I read said:

Let’s remember that the evidence is with those on the nature side of the dividing line. While we don’t know the precise biology, the weight of research suggests that sexual orientation is indeed something we are born with.

That sounds like a pretty fair assessment of the current state of informed scientific opinion. In fact it sounds kind of like what you said:

How?

The article reports that the Church’s position is:

“On Tuesday, the much-leaked and much-awaited document from the Vatican said the church ''cannot admit to the seminary or to Holy Orders those who practice homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies, or support the so-called gay culture.”"

Again, I think that’s a pretty accurate assessment of what the Church says.

What’s your problem with this article??

Please re-read the article carefully. As I stated and explained in my initial post, the writer presents a false dichotomy of biological vs. choice causes of homosexuality. Most people (including the Catholic church) don’t believe that people choose their same-sex attractions, so her stating that upfront at the beginning of the article immediately implies that the church does advocate a “choice” model and this is deceptive. I disagree with the assessment that the body of evidence points towards an exclusive biological origin (i.e., gay gene). In fact, a careful examination of research would suggest otherwise. I encourage you to read the critiques of the studies of LeVay, Hamer and the other twin studies - no solid evidence at all that there is a “gay gene”. The work of Nicolosi and NARTH will show you how much environment actually plays into this disorder - it seems to be a constellation of factors including in some cases some predisposition. I also encourage you to check out a book by Neil and Briar Whitehead entitled “My Genes made me do It” for further evidence of environmental and psycho-sexual influences of SSA disorder. This writer from the Boston Globe (and others like her) are notoriously anti-catholic in their sentiments and seem to often take advantage of situations like this to paint the Church in an unfavorable light.

 

[Aaron_I]

A “gay gene” proves nothing besides concupiscence, so that’s a moot point.

 

[BillP]

Riley259:

I disagree with the assessment that the body of evidence points towards an exclusive biological origin (i.e., gay gene).

This is what’s called a “straw man” argument. No one is claiming that homosexuality is exclusively biologically based.

In the final analysis, if we agree that homosexuals don’t choose their oreientation, it doesn’t really matter how they get it. They can’t helphaving it

Riley259:

In fact, a careful examination of research would suggest otherwise. I encourage you to read the critiques of the studies of LeVay, Hamer and the other twin studies - no solid evidence at all that there is a “gay gene”. The work of Nicolosi and NARTH will show you how much environment actually plays into this disorder - it seems to be a constellation of factors including in some cases some predisposition. I also encourage you to check out a book by Neil and Briar Whitehead entitled “My Genes made me do It” for further evidence of environmental and psycho-sexual influences of SSA disorder.

I have examined these sources and others and found them to be outside the mainstream of scientific and psychological thought. In short, these folks have an axe to grind and it gets in the way of dispassionate analysis.

Riley259:

This writer from the Boston Globe (and others like her) are notoriously anti-catholic in their sentiments and seem to often take advantage of situations like this to paint the Church in an unfavorable light.

I think some servants of the Church (especially in Boston) have done a pretty good job of painting the Church in an unfavorable light without any help at all from the Globe.

 

[BillP]

Aaron I.:

A “gay gene” proves nothing besides concupiscence, so that’s a moot point.

Exactly. If they don’t choose to have homosexual inclinations they can’t be held responsible for having them.

 

[BillP]

mlchance:

There is no problem with doing so if the Church says there is no problem with doing so. If the Church, OTOH, says homosexual men cannot be ordained, then they cannot be ordained.

– Mark L. Chance.

Unless the Church can articulate a reason for this exclusion, I remain unconvinced of the validity of the exclusion.

 

[mlchance]

BillP:

Unless the Church can articulate a reason for this exclusion, I remain unconvinced of the validity of the exclusion.

So much for the virtues of obedience and humility.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Riley259]

BillP:

This is what’s called a “straw man” argument. No one is claiming that homosexuality is exclusively biologically based.

In the final analysis, if we agree that homosexuals don’t choose their oreientation, it doesn’t really matter how they get it. They can’t helphaving it

I have examined these sources and others and found them to be outside the mainstream of scientific and psychological thought. In short, these folks have an axe to grind and it gets in the way of dispassionate analysis.

I think some servants of the Church (especially in Boston) have done a pretty good job of painting the Church in an unfavorable light without any help at all from the Globe.

What’s your definition of the mainstream of scientific and psychological thought … a liberalized, secular viewpoint? Nicolosi has worked with scores of homosexuals and has done significant research in this area - are you dismissing it because it runs counter to your liberalized view of homosexuality and it’s origins?
What axe could Dr. Nicolosi possibly have to grind - he just wants to help people live a authentic, fulfilled life. Are you criticizing him because he doesn’t accept the view that the “gay lifestyle” is authentic and capable of bringing about true happiness? Have you read the LeVay and Hamer studies on homosexuality and the critiques of them - well if you had, you’d realize that even they don’t think that there is a “gay gene”. Neither of those studies (which are so often cited as mainstream scientific thought) were replicable and both were fundamentally flawed in their methodology. Researchers trying to replicate the Hamer study actually had an opposite finding. Do you actually think that the American Psychological Associations reversal of homosexuality as a psychiatric disorder was balanced and dispassionate? Please refer to some of Robert Spitzer’s (who was a catalyst for the APA’s reversal in 1973) findings on reparative therapy for some interesting insights into how environmental conditions and motivation can play a big part in same-sex attraction - in other words, he changed his mind - are you going to call him a quack, too. I might be wrong but your comments sound suspiciously liberal on this subject.