Because politics is a choice. We choose one party over another. Homosexuality is not. A choice of a political platform cannot be compared to something for which we do not know a cause. You can change your party. You cannot change your sexual orientation, but only God knows why.
Does the name Matthew Shepard ring a bell? Those are red herrings.
10% is 30 million, but serious studies place it between 3-5% thus 9-15 million (larger than the country’s Jewish population)
Genetics can predispose people to something and hormones in the womb can make them that way. The brain and the genitalia sexual differentiate at different times which can result in a mismatch in identity. Too much male hormones gives a butch gay, too little gives effeminate gay which helps explain why male homosexuality is more common than female homosexuality which is mostly caused by too much masculine hormones. With transgendered people they get roughly the right amount, but for the wrong sex resulting with basically a female brain in a male body or vice versa.
If gay marriage passed then Catholic adoption agencies can no longer discriminate against gay couples. Catholic adoption agencies can not morally allow children to be raised in such environment thus the only acceptable option is to close.
Sigh, you completely missed my point. I did not say that loneliness makes people want to be homosexuals, but rather that loneliness is a worse than being discriminated against. The community surrounding the homosexual lifestyle could be tempting to people who have no such community they can say they are apart of.
Great postFrom a “scientific” point of view (the quotes are because it’s hard, at times, to disentangle science from ideology), the verdict on the “causes” of homosexual behaviour is far from clear at the moment.
Neither a purely genetic nor a purely environmental model seems to fit the bill, and neither armchair genetics (“the gay gene”) or armchair Freudianism (“his mother dominated him”) are very helpful explanations.
I prefer to look at an analogy with a much less grave, but scientifically similar problem: alcoholism.
We do know that a tendency to alcoholism can be genetically determined, at least in part.
We also do know that environmental factors (such as being exposed to drinking behaviour early in life, advertising, easy access. social pressure) play a key role in determining who actually succumbs.
But even once a person becomes dependent on alcohol (i.e., becomes an “alcoholic”), recovery includes not just a medical dimension, but a moral (I would even say penitential) dimension.
Even the best psychiatrists and psychologists admit that unless an alcoholic is ready and willing to change, treatments (either drugs or therapy) do not work too well. Certainly, people can be supported and guided along the process of deciding to change, but that is never enough. Even Alcoholics Anonymous tacitly accepts this when it alludes to a “Higher Power” helping alcoholics to quit. (For us Catholics, there’s little doubt about Who that “Higher Power” really is!)
Like a tendency to alcohol use, a tendency to homosexual behaviour is a cross that some men and women have to bear. They deserve our sympathy and understanding, but NOT unconditional acceptance or encouragement to sin.
If I’m a taxi driver and an alcoholic, my employer has the right to fire or suspend me, because I am endangering the lives of others.
Similarly, if I am living an openly homosexual lifestyle, a school (or an adoption agency) would have the right to fire me (or prevent me from adopting) because my lifestyle and behaviour could be a cause of falling and sin to my students (or the child I would have “adopted”). A distorted, commercialized, sentimental concept of “love” has nothing to do with it. Love wants what is good for God and one’s neighbour; it’s not a question of putting my needs or desires first.
And as for Governments ruling in favour of it, I’m sure St. Pius X would have a few words to say about this: he condemned the Modernist notion of a complete separation between Church and State.
Finally (though I know I will sound pedantic here), could we please avoid using the word “psychotic” here too loosely? I know it’s being used metaphorically, but to me, psychosis is a technical term for various severe mental illnesses (schizophrenia and related disorders) that I deal with almost daily…and seeing it used otherwise is a bit jarring.
I guess since alcoholism its genetically related to some degree we should tell alcoholic’s they are fine as they are and not to try and change 
If anything your analogy hits home the point that just because something appears unchangeable it does not mean there is no choice involved.Thanks!Great post
People who fornicate also believe that is love. Is it?
As a faithful Catholic who has and still does struggle with his sexuality, I think it misses the mark on a logical level to liken homosexuality to alcoholism. It’s natural for children who are raised around alcohol to be curious concerning its consumption, as children tend to be curious about many things. It seems, however, to be a rare phenomenon for a child to have a proclivity to get drunk. That doesn’t happen without actually at the very least, taking a drink. I and many others, I’m sure, can attest to getting butterflies about someone of my own sex before I knew what sex or sexuality was, before I even realized the desire to share something physical that I would later have. I didn’t have to partake in any sexual act, with myself or anyone else, to develop a deviant sexual attraction. Heterosexuals take so much for granted in the way of learning about themselves. Everyone’s been through what they’re going through and having someone to talk to, while not always easy, is far more feasible than someone like me having someone to talk to about what was going on with me. Those who “bear my cross”, as you would probably put it, have a long, difficult road to walk, but it seems that many don’t want to actually walk it with us. One of my hugest pet-peeves is the thoughtless presumption that homosexuality = proclivity to have sex with those of the same gender. Every human being’s sexuality, as is taught by the Church, encapsulates the nature of every relationship of every nature that he or she will have in his or her lifetime. It’s not a simple matter and it irks me when others discuss it as if it is simple or as if they have answers when it’s clear to someone like me that they don’t know what they’re talking about. How a heterosexual relates to the world is inherently different than the way a homosexual does, genesis and possibility/likelihood of change aside. Reducing homosexuality to a proclivity to do x is lazy at best and condescending at worst. Have any of you ever had someone that you truly love and care about come out to you? If you ever have that experience, I feel that this matter, instead of being some distant topic that you can throw around without actually looking at it carefully can change your life.From a “scientific” point of view (the quotes are because it’s hard, at times, to disentangle science from ideology), the verdict on the “causes” of homosexual behaviour is far from clear at the moment.
Neither a purely genetic nor a purely environmental model seems to fit the bill, and neither armchair genetics (“the gay gene”) or armchair Freudianism (“his mother dominated him”) are very helpful explanations.
I prefer to look at an analogy with a much less grave, but scientifically similar problem: alcoholism.
We do know that a tendency to alcoholism can be genetically determined, at least in part.
We also do know that environmental factors (such as being exposed to drinking behaviour early in life, advertising, easy access. social pressure) play a key role in determining who actually succumbs.
But even once a person becomes dependent on alcohol (i.e., becomes an “alcoholic”), recovery includes not just a medical dimension, but a moral (I would even say penitential) dimension.
Even the best psychiatrists and psychologists admit that unless an alcoholic is ready and willing to change, treatments (either drugs or therapy) do not work too well. Certainly, people can be supported and guided along the process of deciding to change, but that is never enough. Even Alcoholics Anonymous tacitly accepts this when it alludes to a “Higher Power” helping alcoholics to quit. (For us Catholics, there’s little doubt about Who that “Higher Power” really is!)
Like a tendency to alcohol use, a tendency to homosexual behaviour is a cross that some men and women have to bear. They deserve our sympathy and understanding, but NOT unconditional acceptance or encouragement to sin.
If I’m a taxi driver and an alcoholic, my employer has the right to fire or suspend me, because I am endangering the lives of others.
Similarly, if I am living an openly homosexual lifestyle, a school (or an adoption agency) would have the right to fire me (or prevent me from adopting) because my lifestyle and behaviour could be a cause of falling and sin to my students (or the child I would have “adopted”). A distorted, commercialized, sentimental concept of “love” has nothing to do with it. Love wants what is good for God and one’s neighbour; it’s not a question of putting my needs or desires first.
And as for Governments ruling in favour of it, I’m sure St. Pius X would have a few words to say about this: he condemned the Modernist notion of a complete separation between Church and State.
Finally (though I know I will sound pedantic here), could we please avoid using the word “psychotic” here too loosely? I know it’s being used metaphorically, but to me, psychosis is a technical term for various severe mental illnesses (schizophrenia and related disorders) that I deal with almost daily…and seeing it used otherwise is a bit jarring.
That having been said, while I neither participate in any therapy nor do I participate in any lay organization (ie. Courage), I do have fellowship with others who share my road and we encourage, care, and pray for each other. One topic that pops up occasionally is how misunderstood we often feel by the Catholic/Christian commnity at large. Just…think about this.Perhaps because Homosexuality/SSA is not an addiction?Thanks!
This has been on my mind for sometime because I am a “shrink” myself
When we work with a patient who is alcoholic, we often confront them - gently, but directly - with the consequences of their actions, and help them change their minds.
Similar “therapy” techniques - which all involve giving the patient a sense of responsibility - **have even been used to treat sexual addictions, pathological gambling, and so on.
So why does homosexuality get a “free pass” from most mental health professionals?**
The answer, again, is politics. In the 1970s, under the influence of the growing “Gay Rights” movement, the American Psychiatric Association decided to delete homosexuality from its classification of mental disorders (DSM), and the rest of the world fell in line.
The WHO classification still recognizes conditions where a person wants to change their sexual orientation (“ego-dystonic homosexuality” is the technical term), but this category is rarely used in practice.
Mind you, I’m certainly not advocating the abuses of a few decades ago, where electric shock treatments (“aversive therapy”) were used in an attempt to cure homosexual tendencies. But I do believe that such tendencies can be suppressed, even if not changed (just as an alcoholic may still feel the urge, but can resist it) - and that is a legitimate goal.
Politicizing the issue and promoting “gay marriage” and “gay adoptions”, in the light of the above, is not only immoral but unscientific.
They may indeed be in love, but fornication is not an acceptable way to show it
You’re romanticizing act of fornication. I’m pretty sure that there are plenty of people who are not in love and have sex for the mere pleasure of it. “No-strings-attached” is what it’s usually called. They would willingly and rather quickly admit that it’s just sex and not love. That goes for heterosexuals and homosexuals alike.
This does not change anything. It merely means that the inherent genetic traits manifest themselves earlier with regards to sexuality. There have been many studies that show alcoholism is in part genetic. The environmental factor has little to do with seeing people drink alcohol. It comes from seeing people use alcohol as a way of dealing with their problems. It’s not an addiction but rather an escape.
This is a fantastic post, Corpus Cristi. Thank you. While it may go in one ear and out the other for many, I assure you someone who needs to read that will do so and gain some understanding.
There is a massive and inescapable difference between homosexuality and alcoholism, as Corpus Cristi pointed out. Regardless of the causes, one simply cannot be an alcoholic without first taking a drink. It’s physically impossible. The same is not true for someone who experiences a homosexual orientation their entire lives. While genetics and environment may play a role in both issues, their similiarity comes to an end right there.
I take it that you deny the largely held belief that alcoholism is a disease. Could it be possible that in addition to not really having a grasp on the matter of homosexuality that you don’t really understand the plight of the alcoholic either?
No, you seemed to be chalking it up to be an addiction like being addicted to soda or something. I was making sure we were clear that was not the case. It is definitely a disease and I don’t dispute that, rather I was trying to make sure that point got across.
First off, let’s be clear that homosexuality is not a disease. It is a deviation from naturally occurring predominant aesthetic, affectionate, and sexual attraction to the opposite sex. The treatment of homosexuality as pathological is not something that the Church advocates. Whether you think that or not is up to you.
Of course. All you have to do is define exactly what you mean by destructive, then quantify it. If it turns out you are right, then you have a point. Unfortunately, you can’t just declare a group of people “destructive” and use that as a basis for banning them from doing what they want.
People who condemn homosexuality sometimes claim they do it out of love, do they?
Please tell me where you were headed with this post in regards to explaining how alcoholism and homosexuality were unrelated?First off, let’s be clear that homosexuality is not a disease. It is a deviation from naturally occurring predominant aesthetic, affectionate, and sexual attraction to the opposite sex. The treatment of homosexuality as pathological is not something that the Church advocates. Whether you think that or not is up to you.
As for what I think about the difference between homosexuality and alcoholism, you’re making things up. Not once did I state or imply that I believe that homosexuality is present at birth. If you’re going to take my example of being young and having feelings for other guys before I developed sexual attractions and twist it, it’s just that: twisted. I never even alluded to any belief concerning the gensis of homosexuality, nor do I believe it to have any relevance to this discussion, which is why I stayed away from it in the first place. I don’t KNOW for certain the cause of homosexuality’s genesis. All I can say is what life for me has been like and infer what homosexuality is in light of what I know from the teachings of the Church. I don’t know why people like you are so caught up in how or when homosexuality “begins”, seeing as it doesn’t really make a difference to you anyway: it’s “unnatural” and “wrong”, and in any case that it exists, you don’t want to humanize the matter and would rather postulate and make conjecture with no concern for whom it affects. This thread has taken no focus on the genesis of homosexuality, so as to not hijack it, I suggest you start a thread yourself and argue (once again) over that age-old question. As I don’t really have a particular interest in its origins, I’ll not participate (or as you would begrudgingly put it) “waste time” arguing over whether its origins are more genetic or more environmental. I will, however, be very entertained by the (what I can only presume will amount to) bloodshed.
You seemed to be implying that homosexuality was a condition that existed from the beginning, while alcoholism which did not develop until a drink was taken. Obviously you didn’t spell it out as such above, but these are the conclusions that seemed apparent. If this is not the case please explain how you meant the two to be different. I’d also point out that alcoholism manifests itself in other ways within a person’s personality before a drink is ever taken. Its a compulsion not an addiction. To say its an addiction is like saying someone with OCD has an addiction to constantly washing their hands.
I don’t understand why it matters. Even if homosexuality is a choice, unless it is empirically harmful, (i.e. there exists more evidence than religious people simply asserting that it is) I see no reason for the government not to extend the same protection to committed gay couples as to committed heterosexual couples.