Homosexuality- Nature and nurture but not a choice (?)

[Mary_Corley]

To YNGFVE:

You are the dear man I bless, as a mother of a gay son. My heart cries out for compassion and the wonderful straight to the point way you address the issue.

I just don’t know my way around this site yet…I’m 72 and feeling my age when it comes to computer-eeze!

If interested, try to find me.

 

[selylidne]

This is completely untrue. Morality falls within the Magesterium, not just ex cathedra proclamations. And, moral teachings are not “debatable”.

There is no “unless”. We may NOT act contrary to the moral teachings of the Church, period.

These opinions are not in accord with traditional Catholic belief. Most often one runs into people who take far too many liberties with the primacy of conscience, but it is equally an error to deny the primacy of conscience as above.

 

[fix]

These opinions are not in accord with traditional Catholic belief. Most often one runs into people who take far too many liberties with the primacy of conscience, but it is equally an error to deny the primacy of conscience as above.

Not sure of your point, but do you agree with this?:

**

1790

**

A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.

If you read other parts of the CCC, and references it cites, I have found no place that claims one’s conscience is above the truth or that rejecting moral teachings is morally licit because your conscience says so.

 

[fix]

Hi Everyone.

I don’t mean to be ironic, but I am glad that here are so many genetic graduates, molecular biology graduates or psychology graduates and therefore we all have a ‘really’ scientific debate on this issue.
I am aware that most of us say things that ourselves heard in church and read in news papers, that being of course second hand information.

Let’s be straight ( ) the church doesn’t have the smallest clue in dealing with this issue. It has always failed. As a result, gay people see the Church as a place where they can go and be blamed.

I am doing a PhD in molecular biology and have a B.Sc. in Chemistry and M.Sc. in Clinical Psychology and I am a practicing Roman-catholic. So, I usually don’t say much on issues I am not qualified in, but the gay issue is one of my primary interests.

First: There may be people that act as homosexuals because they might have been disillusioned in their marriage or previous relationship. However, these cases are rare and they can be ‘cured’ through therapy, though many don’t require that.

The vast majority of homosexuals are this way due to a set of conditions determined by the competition between nature and nurture, but a combination by both. i.e each gene comes with a promoter (a part which tells when the gene should or should not express itself). That’s why we don’t have red blood cells in our hair and hair on our liver. So due to some biochemical modifications that are or may be not induced by the environment, the promoter tells the gene that it should be transcribed.

There were studies trying to link homosexuality to a certain allele of a the chromosome X published in 1993. They managed to identify that 88% of the homosexuals have this gene and heterosexuals don’t. The study has been replicated with lower percentages, but still, it is mainstream accepted but needs improvement. There is not a single gay gene as there is not a single gene in determining hair or eye colour. But we are working on it, and the results are soon to follow.

Other studies are on identical twins which tend to favor homosexuality as being genetic, but not exclusively 100%. i.e there are cases when identical twins exposed to identical environments develop into homosexual and heterosexual respectively.

Some studies assert that these promoters can be activated in the mother’s womb if the boy has had a lot of older brothers, due to an immune response of the mother to the Y chromosome of the child.

NO STUDY concluded or can ever conclude that it is a choice. So, I ask you respectfully to stop propagating all these lies to your children or in your Sunday schools. You will answer in front of God for this. Plus, why would anyone chose to face this kind of discrimination and to suffer like this.

There is a kind of therapy suggested by the fundamentalist “Christians” called “Reparative therapy”. This is the one of most damaging form of “therapies” that exist. Not only that it has an apparent success of 0.5 % (this success is valid for the first 2 years after therapy, and beyond that, no motorization way maintained) *this being understood that 99.5% of the cases have not only failed, but were seriously damaged and had to take real therapies to undo this damage. 1/3 of the cases having this kind of therapy have attempted suicide as a result of the therapy.

One solution would be indeed celibacy. But what if the homosexual person doesn’t have the vocation for celibacy. What do we ask from him? I am sure that for many of you it is easy to say: “Remain single, that’s what God wants” and then return to your spouse and watch a lovely movie together and take the kinds to school in the morning. To all of you who do that I dedicate this song: John Michael Talbot - Would you crucify Him. youtube.com/watch?v=huYKjSqs2RY

Remember that your word count to someone, and maybe your children are gay and afraid to tell you, and when they leave home, you never hear from them or commit suicide. You have a responsibility. Get informed and act as a consequence. Don’t be dilettantes as this can lead to much more damage than you can imagine. All what I’ve said here is documented by published studies and I can offer them to you upon request.

I’ve posted this in another forum as well, but I thought i deserved it’s own thread. Please comment of what I’ve written and I’ll be glad to reply

God bless.
Yngve

You have provided no proof that homosexual acts are morally licit or that the inclination is ordered correctly. Which scientific study will show either item I mentioned?

 

[buffalo]

Not sure of your point, but do you agree with this?:

If you read other parts of the CCC, and references it cites, I have found no place that claims one’s conscience is above the truth or that rejecting moral teachings is morally licit because your conscience says so.

Oh yes - some liberal gobbledygook claimed primacy of conscience. There are a lot of buyers to this idea for there ends up being total self delusion and justification for just about anything. What they forgot about was a total formation of conscience.

 

[Corki]

Hi Yngve,
Other people have commented on many aspects of what you wrote. Mostly they were reactionary responses and not really in line with Church teaching, from what I read, but there were plenty of accurate nuggets in there, too.

I highly recommend you look at works by these two individuals:

Stephen Lovatt
homepage.ntlworld.com/pharseas.world/index.html
James Alison
jamesalison.co.uk/eng/texts.html

It would be helpful if you would point out what portions of our posts are not in line with Church teaching. After all, we are all here to learn.

On the other hand, both of those sites appear to present great danger to someone who is looking for authentic Church teaching on homosexuality. I am sure there are some “nuggets” of truth in there somewhere but the majority of both of those sites is contrary to the teaching of the Church.

 

[fix]

Oh yes - some liberal gobbledygook claimed primacy of conscience. There are a lot of buyers to this idea for there ends up being total self delusion and justification for just about anything. What they forgot about was a total formation of conscience.

Yep. It is a way to do what you want and claim to be acting rightly.

 

[selylidne]

On the other hand, both of those sites appear to present great danger to someone who is looking for authentic Church teaching on homosexuality. I am sure there are some “nuggets” of truth in there somewhere but the majority of both of those sites is contrary to the teaching of the Church.

Oh, neither of those sites advocates current official Magisterial teaching on the subject. The reason for recommending them (to Yngve) was that they both are very concerned with accurately critiquing the usual explanations from within Holy Tradition, rather than just attacking a half-understood version from modern perspectives. I do think Pharsea makes many good points, although I don’t buy his interpretation of scripture at all.

 

[buffalo]

HOMOSEXUALITY - An Analysis of Biological Theories of Causation

 

[Mary_Corley]

I am an old lady of 72 years. I am absolutely aghast at the vicious arguing. A sin is a sin, is a sin. the sexual sin of homosexual behavior is to be deplored.

BUT----God loves those sinners, like He loves you and me. He also loves the murderers on death row, and the abortionists, as well as the people in power who abuse elected office and steal from us.

My point is, the human family needs to imitate its Savior and humbly say Father forgive us for we know not what we do when we revile the people whom You love.

Make judgment upon your own behavior, thoughts and attitudes, and let God judge you neighbor. Hate the sin, but LOVE THE SINNER!

 

[Transformer]

Yngve–

I agree with much of your post, but I take issue with some of it, too.

I’m not a student of biology, psychology, or genetics, so I can’t dispute your scientific data. It certainly seems to me that experiencing same-sex attractions is almost never a choice and that attempts at “reparative therapy” have been an unqualified disaster virtually every time. It’s not the science in your post but the rest of the post that I take issue with.

Scientists could prove that homosexuality is completely genetic tomorrow and it wouldn’t have any effect on classical Christian morality or Church teaching. The Church doesn’t claim that homosexuality is medically or genetically disordered, she claims that homosexuality is spiritually and morally disordered. The latter doesn’t presuppose the former; something medically normal could be spiritually disordered. We are, after all, a fallen race. I’m sure there are many psychologists who would insist that lasciviousness is perfectly normal psychologically, but that would not prove that it is morally good. It would, at most, prove that lasciviousness is a part of our fallen human nature, not a part of the human nature God intended for us. So the Church’s claim is a spiritual and moral one, not in any sense a scientific one. And of course, science cannot refute a spiritual or moral claim. Only spirituality and ethics can do that.

So I don’t agree that the Church has failed on the topic of homosexuality (though countless Christians have undoubtedly sinned against charity towards gay men and lesbians, no doubt). The Church sees the spiritual and moral reality exactly as it is, and she doesn’t pretend to know the biological and psychological reality (that’s for scientists). If you want to dispute the Church’s spiritual and moral claims, you’re going to need to criticize her using spirituality and ethics, not biology and genetics.

Finally, this paragraph:

One solution would be indeed celibacy. But what if the homosexual person doesn’t have the vocation for celibacy. What do we ask from him? I am sure that for many of you it is easy to say: “Remain single, that’s what God wants” and then return to your spouse and watch a lovely movie together and take the kinds to school in the morning. To all of you who do that I dedicate this song: John Michael Talbot - Would you crucify Him. youtube.com/watch?v=huYKjSqs2RY

This paragraph cuts to the heart of Christianity, and not just Christian teaching on homosexuality. As a sinner who not only would crucify Christ, but has crucified him (every time I’ve sinned), I (acting merely as my sinful self) don’t have the right or the power to ask anything of a gay man. The question is not what I would ask of him, but what the Church as Christ’s Mystical Body would ask of him, what the natural moral law of the universe would ask of him, what the supernatural divine law of love would ask of him.

And the answer is indeed celibacy. Sound harsh? It is harsh. Christianity is harsh. This is the religion in which God himself cried out from a cross that he was forsaken of God. No truly great saint or mystic ever promised anything for the faithful on this earth besides trials and suffering. Christ doesn’t merely ask for gay men to surrender their desire for sex and lifelong companionship in marriage. He asks them to surrender their entire selves and their entire lives, all of their dreams and desires. He asks them to endure any amount of suffering for the Kingdom. He asks these things of all human beings.

But of course Christianity doesn’t stop there. The crucifixion is the ultimate in evil, but it’s also the ultimate in redemption. Suffering itself is transformed into the means of man’s redemption.

My point is, yes, the Church (and the moral law of the universe) do ask gay men and lesbians to live celibately, without the good of marriage. But God asks every one of us to suffer greatly (more greatly then you or I have even begun to imagine, probably) for the Kingdom. That isn’t limited to gay men and lesbians. And if Christianity is true, that suffering itself becomes redemptive. The sacrifice of marriage itself becomes an offering and a source of union with God. When I think with a human, sinful mind, asking anyone to go through life without marriage seems harsh and unreasonable. When I think with the mind of the Church (as much as I’m able), it seems even more harsh, but no longer unreasonable. The suffering itself is transformed into redemption; celibacy itself becomes joyful. The problem of asking someone to forsake marriage is swallowed up and transfigured into something beautiful by the magnificence of Christ.

I pray that I and everyone else, not just (but of course, including) gay men and lesbians, will have the courage to accept every form of suffering demanded of us. All the better when that suffering is transformed into glory. This must sound hopelessly idealistic, but if I didn’t believe it I wouldn’t be a Christian.

 

[Mary_Corley]

Transformer,

Your words are what I wish my old brain had managed to put on paper. Mary Corley

 

[buffalo]

Yngve–

I agree with much of your post, but I take issue with some of it, too.

I’m not a student of biology, psychology, or genetics, so I can’t dispute your scientific data. It certainly seems to me that experiencing same-sex attractions is almost never a choice and that attempts at “reparative therapy” have been an unqualified disaster virtually every time. It’s not the science in your post but the rest of the post that I take issue with.

Scientists could prove that homosexuality is completely genetic tomorrow and it wouldn’t have any effect on classical Christian morality or Church teaching. The Church doesn’t claim that homosexuality is medically or genetically disordered, she claims that homosexuality is spiritually and morally disordered. The latter doesn’t presuppose the former; something medically normal could be spiritually disordered. We are, after all, a fallen race. I’m sure there are many psychologists who would insist that lasciviousness is perfectly normal psychologically, but that would not prove that it is morally good. It would, at most, prove that lasciviousness is a part of our fallen human nature, not a part of the human nature God intended for us. So the Church’s claim is a spiritual and moral one, not in any sense a scientific one. And of course, science cannot refute a spiritual or moral claim. Only spirituality and ethics can do that.

So I don’t agree that the Church has failed on the topic of homosexuality (though countless Christians have undoubtedly sinned against charity towards gay men and lesbians, no doubt). The Church sees the spiritual and moral reality exactly as it is, and she doesn’t pretend to know the biological and psychological reality (that’s for scientists). If you want to dispute the Church’s spiritual and moral claims, you’re going to need to criticize her using spirituality and ethics, not biology and genetics.

Finally, this paragraph:

This paragraph cuts to the heart of Christianity, and not just Christian teaching on homosexuality. As a sinner who not only would crucify Christ, but has crucified him (every time I’ve sinned), I (acting merely as my sinful self) don’t have the right or the power to ask anything of a gay man. The question is not what I would ask of him, but what the Church as Christ’s Mystical Body would ask of him, what the natural moral law of the universe would ask of him, what the supernatural divine law of love would ask of him.

And the answer is indeed celibacy. Sound harsh? It is harsh. Christianity is harsh. This is the religion in which God himself cried out from a cross that he was forsaken of God. No truly great saint or mystic ever promised anything for the faithful on this earth besides trials and suffering. Christ doesn’t merely ask for gay men to surrender their desire for sex and lifelong companionship in marriage. He asks them to surrender their entire selves and their entire lives, all of their dreams and desires. He asks them to endure any amount of suffering for the Kingdom. He asks these things of all human beings.

But of course Christianity doesn’t stop there. The crucifixion is the ultimate in evil, but it’s also the ultimate in redemption. Suffering itself is transformed into the means of man’s redemption.

My point is, yes, the Church (and the moral law of the universe) do ask gay men and lesbians to live celibately, without the good of marriage. But God asks every one of us to suffer greatly (more greatly then you or I have even begun to imagine, probably) for the Kingdom. That isn’t limited to gay men and lesbians. And if Christianity is true, that suffering itself becomes redemptive. The sacrifice of marriage itself becomes an offering and a source of union with God. When I think with a human, sinful mind, asking anyone to go through life without marriage seems harsh and unreasonable. When I think with the mind of the Church (as much as I’m able), it seems even more harsh, but no longer unreasonable. The suffering itself is transformed into redemption; celibacy itself becomes joyful. The problem of asking someone to forsake marriage is swallowed up and transfigured into something beautiful by the magnificence of Christ.

I pray that I and everyone else, not just (but of course, including) gay men and lesbians, will have the courage to accept every form of suffering demanded of us. All the better when that suffering is transformed into glory. This must sound hopelessly idealistic, but if I didn’t believe it I wouldn’t be a Christian.

Reparative therapy is mans attempt to help. You will absolutely need God and prayer to overcome.

 

[buffalo]

APA’s New Pamphlet on Homosexuality
De-emphasizes the Biological Argument, Supports
a Client’s Right to Self-Determination

The APA has now begun to acknowledge what most scientists have long known:
that a bio-psycho-social model of causation best fits the data.

March 6, 2008 - In 1998, the American Psychological Association (APA) published a brochure titled “Answers to Your Questions about Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality.”
This particular document was ostensibly published to provide definitive answers about homosexuality. However, few of the assertions made in the brochure could find any basis in psychological science. Clearly a document anchored more in activism than in empiricism, the brochure was simply a demonstration of how far APA had strayed from science, and how much it had capitulated to activism.

more…

 

[yngve]

What about therapy intended to change sexual orientation from gay to straight?

All major national mental health organizations have officially expressed concerns about therapies promoted to modify sexual orientation. To date, there has been no scientifically adequate research to show that therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation (sometimes called reparative or conversion therapy) is safe or effective. Furthermore, it seems likely that the promotion of change therapies reinforces stereotypes and contributes to a negative climate for lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons. This appears to be especially likely for lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals who grow up in more conservative religious settings.

Helpful responses of a therapist treating an individual who is troubled about her or his samesex attractions include helping that person actively cope with social prejudices against homosexuality, successfully resolve issues associated with and resulting from internal conflicts, and actively lead a happy and satisfying life. Mental health professional organizations call on their members to respect a person’s (client’s) right to selfdetermination; be sensitive to the client’s race, culture, ethnicity, age, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, socioeconomic status, language, and disability status when working with that client; and eliminate biases based on these factors.

This is an excerpt from the brochure. Did you even read it, or read just the NARTH comments? Read the original brochure.

 

[buffalo]

This is an excerpt from the brochure. Did you even read it, or read just the NARTH comments? Read the original brochure.

They addressed it in the article.

 

[yngve]

They addressed it in the article.

Yes, what they wanted to support their argument. They and whoever makes use of their study are aimed in biasing others with half truths. They’ve drown the conclusion from a small part of the brochure, ignoring most of it. If this isn’t lie, I don’t know what is.

 

[bennierja]

Dear yngve,
I’m a homosexual. Just to be clear, what I mean by that is someone who only has homosexual impulses and never has heterosexual ones, not necessarily someone who acts on those impulses. I would like to know the references for the studies you mentioned. I’ve done a fair bit of research myself, and I’ve found the exact opposite results. The grounds on which the “gay gene” argument is made are very shaky at best. As you yourself admit, the most hopeful isolation of a gene was 88% and replicated studies yielded less certainty. I didn’t realize that genetics was a matter of statistics. Why would it not be the case that the gene was active or not, resulting in homosexuality or not? I think this would indicate that genetics can contribute (i.e. personalities that are inclined towards homosexuality) but is not at all determinative of homosexuality. Now, your best argument, one that I easily grasped when, I, like you, believed my condition was genetically caused, was the idea that no one would choose homosexuality. That’s clear. But the argument made from the question “Why would anyone choose to be gay?” is a false dichotomy. There are not simply two possibilities (you were born that way or you chose it). Take kleptomania for example. A person doesn’t just wake up one day thinking “I want to be a compulsive thief for the rest of my life.” Yet some people do wake up, go to the store and have a nearly irresistible urge to steal. As a child, they never understood personal boundaries, having theirs constantly violated by their parents, and they learned that the person in power, the one who didn’t get hurt, was the one who violated the boundaries instead of allowing the violation of their boundaries. Through experience, they learned there was also a certain level of excitement from taking other persons’ belongings and the adrenaline rushes ensured that there was a further neurobiological incentive to repeat the behavior. This is oversimplification, but the point, nonetheless, can be seen. Clearly, to attain a condition, one need never even desire it (let alone choose it), but only be set up with all the wrong circumstances, primarily in childhood, but also in adolescence, and somewhat afterward. I’ve seen very little conclusiveness but much determination to shore-up some form of the “gay gene” argument: “… But we are working on it, and the results are soon to follow.” Since when is it the job of scientists to assume they’ve concluded an argument before the tried and tested evidence arrives, citing studies that become less certain with further scrutiny? However, I’ve seen plenty of convincing psychological research on the other side of the argument, the side of the argument that doesn’t assert homosexuality is a choice, but rather a psychological condition brought about by a set of certain circumstances in childhood and adolescence. Like I said, I used to believe the gene argument because the false dichotomy was the only thing I knew at the time and I sure as hell didn’t choose to be gay, so it must have been genetically caused. However, several years ago, I came across some audio clips of a lecture given by Joseph Nicolosi (who I highly suggest listening to and reading, a great Catholic psychologist, one of the few who has it right). The argument given in that lecture was enough to erase somewhere around 90% of my doubt that very day. Unless Dr. Nicolosi was a psychic, there was no way he should have known virtually every formative fact about my childhood. Why did he seem to know so much about me? Was it because genetics not only made me gay but also determined the particular way in which my mom and dad related to me, how they related with each other, how my brothers related to me, how I related to my peers, and so on? Or was it because, as he said, virtually every homosexual he counseled had these specific childhood circumstances because homosexuality resulted from these specific circumstances. The reason why I mention that his argument virtually erased my doubt is that, unless another homosexual is reading this, what I’m about to say would not make sense. Concerning me (and other homosexuals when I met them later in life), Dr. Nicolosi provided a virtually perfect description of my childhood. Genetics did not determine my childhood. But, my childhood might have determined my homosexuality, especially if every homosexual he counseled and every homosexual I’ve thus far met has had the same basic type of childhood. Following is a simplified version of the summary which adequately described me and all the homosexuals I’ve met in my life so far. The most important and universal factor is the absence of a strong and loving father. The homosexual basically has one of two fathers: (1) a father that is abusive, judgmental, hypercritical, mean or (2) a father that is distant, detached, who doesn’t care for the son, doesn’t interact (or some mixture of 1 and 2). I had an extremely detached and uninterested father and the only time he took an interest in me was to discipline me. ----- I’m really sorry for the length, but if you persist with me on to the next post, I promise it will be worth it.

 

[bennierja]

The next most important feature of a homosexual’s childhood is a lack of a man who could substitute for the inadequate father (a loving older brother or uncle, etc.) Although the homosexual has an atypical father, he does not have atypical older brothers; they tease him, are very rough and tumble in their play, and are competitive. Being younger, the homosexual could not adequately compete with his older brothers and feels rejected and (here is where a probably genetic predisposition is involved) being often sensitive and artistic, teasing and rough and tumble play that he couldn’t participate in also made him feel rejected by his brothers, male peers, and men in general. Thus, studies show that the possibility of a person identifying themselves as a homosexual goes up by 33% for every older brother that person has. The more older brothers, the more chances for feeling isolated and rejected from the world of men. In my case, I have 4 older brothers, I am the youngest, and, whereas I was very intellectual, artistic, fine motor skills, sensitive, my brothers were like my dad, athletic, liking the outdoors, more physical than intellectual, etc and thus spent more time with a father who could more easily relate with them, making me feel like the only who didn’t belong. The final most important childhood characteristic is an overbearing, over-involved, and emotionally insecure mother. The boy must not only be rejected by the most important men in his life, but also not allowed to ever become independent or distinguished from his mother. In my case, whenever my brothers were with my dad, I was with my mom. If they were doing yard-work, I was helping her clean the kitchen. If they went hiking, we went to see a movie. The mother provides security and warmth to the son which is attractive after being rejected from the father and in return the mother receives the emotional benefit of an affectionate son. Often, the mother is not receiving sufficient emotional support from the father and thus she seeks it from the son. In my case, my dad was distant from me and my mom, which caused me to feel rejected as a man and caused my mom to become dependent on my affection. What results, then, is a family dynamic that exists with virtually every homosexual; a father who is absent, distant, cold, or judgmental and abusive, older brothers who provide no adequate male alternative, and a mother who is overbearing, insecure, and emasculating to the son. In a healthy family, a strong and loving father would attract the son and assure him of the safety of detaching from his mother and associating with the father. In the homosexual’s family, the son desires to relate to his father but is rejected by his father and inhibited from becoming independent by his mother, who also undermines his confidence which makes him feel even less a part of the male world. When I digested this (which was in much greater detail) I realized there were simply too many commonalities to be coincidence; there was clearly a shared family history among homosexuals. It is for this reason that I changed my mind about the gene argument. In conclusion, I would like say that for offering hope for the homosexual, both “scientists” and Catholics have failed. There is real psychological and spiritual healing that could be taking place for homosexual individuals if they weren’t told they were born that way. I’m not talking about changing attractions, although I do desire that for myself and many homosexuals do as well; I’m talking about healing the deep hurts that manifest themselves in the symptom known as homosexuality. Most Catholics, meanwhile, also affirm the gene theory, but simply say the best a homosexual can hope for is chastity. They to, simply because they don’t know any better, are not offering the real hope that is out there for homosexuals. Satisfying the deep needs for male affection, affirmation, and relationship, without the eroticism that makes it emotionally safe but ultimate fake, is possible. If anybody is interested from what they’ve read, I suggest they look up NARTH (National Association for Research and Therapy for Homosexuality) one of the organizations Dr. Nicolosi contributes a lot to, and Exodus Ministries, an excellent Protestant ministry; sadly, as I said, there is, as of yet, no serious hope-giving outreach to homosexual individuals from the Catholic Church. I almost forgot, one last thing, as concerns reparative therapy, a study recently came out showing that there are almost no cases of psychological damage, I don’t know what study was referenced to the contrary (other than APA opinion), but, in fact, about 1/3 was shown to virtually change from homosexual impulses to heterosexual, another 1/3 to have significant diminution of homosexual and the presence of hetersexual impulses, and another 1/3 to find no change at all.
I’m very sorry it went on this long, hopefully you reached the end.
God bless,
Josh Bennier

 

[goofyjim]

Let me have my (name removed by moderator)ut again. Nature plays its part in giving the homosexual orientation. Nurture plays the part in how we respond to it. So is it all a choice? Yes and no. It is not a choice to experience homosexual desires rather than heterosexual. It is a choice whether to act on them or not. I never knew anyone, hetero or homo sexual, who willfully woke up one morning and said I’m going to start finding this or that gender attractive. That aspect of it just develops naturally. No sin there. We don’t choose our temptations. They are thrust upon us by unknown forces and may never go away.