the Church teaches the same thing science does: nobody knows the cause of the homosexual inclination, it appears to have multiple causes, some possible the result of influences before birth, some rooted in the child’s upbringing. Science so far has proven no genetic link whatever although there is some evidence of prenatal influence such as hormones that might play a role. The Church does not presume to teach science its job.
The Church has no teaching on whether someone who experiences same-sex attractions came to experience those attractions. This is a matter for science, if biology and psychology could start cooperating
.. As it happened, I discovered that there were barriers that prevented me from being emotionally open with men, and that it was possible for those barriers to be overcome, and that once they were overcome sexual attraction was possible. I went through this via a relationship with a close male friend who slowly transformed into a husband (as opposed to going through it via psychotherapy). Other people I know who have left a homosexual life in order to become Catholic have had different experiences: some have found that Courage and other support groups have allowed them to find heterosexual love, others have pursued a life of chastity, one is very happily living as a member of a lay religious community. The truth is I think that most of us will probably continue to experience some level of same-sex attraction throughout the rest of our lives: how much, and how great a Cross that will be, depends on what caused us to ID as gay or lesbian in the first place. I, for example, have a lot of traits which I think are innate, possibly even genetic, that are considered “masculine,” and that it make it more difficult for me to relate to my own femininity than it is for other women. I’ve realized however that these traits are not the be all and end all of my sexual identity: I’ve now been happily married for over ten years, I have six kids.It isn’t. the population of homosexual ppl in NYC and San Francisco is far higher than it is in most other parts of the US. That whole 10% statistic is a myth perpetuated by the gay agenda folks.
the actual amicus brief is found at supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/briefs/02-102/02-102.mer.ami.hrc.pdf the referenced study is in footnote 42
The actual figure is 2%, and I’m talking about countries/continents here, not localities.
The Church teaches that we are all called to self-control.
Is that true? I’m not saying it is or isn’t. But for example if you go to Iran you will probably not find many people willing to admit if they are (and I think the government of Iran claims there aren’t any homosexuals there). I would also guess that different cultures (including different locales, and different eras) have differing understanding of the term “homosexual”, as a more-or-less fixed personality trait, attraction, or orientation, vs a particular behavior. Even the “debate” you hear about whether Lincoln might have been homosexual is projecting a modern 20th/21st century understanding of the term onto 19th century American culture.
In post #7, you said, “1. Why is the population of homosexual people the same percentage wherever you go?”
That’s a good point. There are undoubtedly a number of young people who are confused about their sexuality and through a variety of influences experiment with homosexuality. I’d think these folks would fall into a different catagory than those who have grown up with a SSA.
Why is it that you would argue with two people on this thread who have in fact abandoned this former lifestyle, and would know possibly better than you that “that can change” ? (One person has not necessarily changed the attraction, but definitely the behavior; the other has changed, and knows people who, like herself, no longer identify as that. There are two other posters like her also on CAF, who have come forward.)
I used to suffer from SSA. I changed. But then I know people who can definately never change. If you quoted the other part of my post, you would have noted that I acknowledged this.Why is it that you would argue with two people on this thread who have in fact abandoned this former lifestyle, and would know possibly better than you that “that can change” ? (One person has not necessarily changed the attraction, but definitely the behavior; the other has changed, and knows people who, like herself, no longer identify as that. There are two other posters like her also on CAF, who have come forward.)
Do you not understand that such changed people would have more expertise on this very subject than you would? (Since I believe that you do not have SSA.)
No, you don’t “know” that.
Unless you are God or equal with God, and if so, God has not disclosed this wonderful news to us yet. 
to add to Elizabeth’s fine post, unwilling to change and unwilling/refusing to accept God’s teachings are NOT synonymous with cannot.No, you don’t “know” that.
And I will add that even God does not close the door. His mercy, and our ability to change, continues until our death. His mercy makes possible our perpetual opportunity to change.
History, including very contemporary history, is filled with examples of people who believed they “couldn’t change,” and/or were “believed” (by others) or “known” (by supposedly omniscient other perons) to be “unable to change” or “definitely couldn’t” change.
