Irrefutable Proof against being born gay?

[Advocatus_Fidei]

I am not privie to that information and honestly, I have never asked. He has never questioned me about my sexual activity so----eventhough he pals around with the girls he has always had a boyfriend.

My question though is why was he so very feminine and at such a young age? And he still is very feminine in his speach and actions. Since then I have noticed this in a few other little boys.

It makes me think that maybe some ARE born that way. I’m just asking.

The idea that men with some feminine traits are also therefore automatically gay is a lie.

When I was younger I to fell for this media lie but as I have got older I have met plenty of men who at first I assumed were homosexual because of this lie only to find out they were not.

My wife has had the same experience, so feminine mannerisms in men do not equal homosexual, what is far more likely indicates is simply that the man in question was closer to his mother and learned his behaviour from her.

On the flipside of that I have grown up with boys who were not feminine when growing up who later in adulthood upon deciding they were gay then started to deliberately act feminine including totally changing the way they talked etc.

Which also then raises anther question, if gay men are not attracted to women why do they sleep with men that behave like women?

Anyway the question is really irrelevant it is the homosexual act that is evil, we are not animals, we have free will to choose our own actions, no one is forced to sodomise another man, those who perform this evil act do so because they want to, because they enjoy it period.

 

[Voice_of_Reason_1]

There are extremely high concordance rates for monozygotic twins, indicating a very prominant influence of biology on homosexuality. Socialization accounts for at least some variation in most studies (the envirionment, presumably, acting largely on a biological propensity). Homosexuality, then, is not strictly or even necessarily a choice. The expression of homosexual behaviour, however, might be a different story (depending on the bigotry a given society has to offer for such an orientation).

 

[thistle]

Camerong, apparently no one wants to read your posts…

Who said it was a choice. Not me.

I said it was one or more of upbringing, environment and choice. It can be one of these, two of these or all three contributing.

One thing for certain, though, is that nobody is born gay. That’s wishful thinking by those who want to justify their sinful ways without taking responsibility.

 

[djeter]

Causes of Homosexuality: A Christian Appraisal of the Data

Andrew J. Sodergren, M.S., a scholar at the John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family has written a paper discussing some of the recent scientific findings on the causes of homosexuality in the context of a Christian anthropology. After reviewing the major findings in the empirical literature, the discussion focuses on how such an anthropology can account for these findings without compromising the traditional Christian ethical teaching that homosexual acts are intrinsically immoral and the homosexual inclination is objectively disordered. Of particular importance here are notions of original sin, fallen nature, the sexual difference, and the virtue of chastity.

You can find it here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/causes-of-homosexuality-a-christian-appraisal-of-the-data/

If you know of a better statement on the issue would you let me know?

dj

 

[warpspeedpetey]

There is no proof or evidence that same sex attraction is not a genetic trait, a genetic trait stays dormant till they hit the right environment or get matched with a different strain and make it more dominant.

and there is no proof an alien doesnt live in your closet either. big deal.

SSA is prevalent in quite a few social mammals and birds for many reasons like dominance,

your conflating dominant behavior driven by instinct with some sort of attraction.

juvenile experimentation,

what? like they are sitting around the woods thinking about?

genetic preservation,

i would really like to hear how ssa helps with ‘genetic preservation’

lack of female stimulation, more.

if thats the case every fat pimply kid in the country must be gay.

come on, this is more a string of slogans than things that make sense.

We see these in humans as well, and the Gay Twin studies over the last few decades make a conclusion that it is certainly a environmental stimuli that triggers it but a genetic signal as well.

proof please? not conlusions, but the actual gene and environmental stimuli invloved?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

For those who keep insisting homosexuality is a choice, please consult the Catechism. I suspect Catholics with that opinion haven’t done so. This is such a clearly decided issue, the lack of information is the only thing I can chalk it up to.

first, it doesnt say its not a choice, every person has a choice, people making a choice to have intercourse with the same gender. are no different than people who choose to have intercourse with people of other ethnicities, or people who like tall partners, or fat partners, etc. we arent born that way.

its time to stop pretending that there is such a thing as ‘gay’. if you are biologically capable of intercourse than, you are simply making a choice to have that intercourse with certain people. nothing in your biology forces you.

second, infallibility applies to matters of faith and morals, not science. and genetic studies etc. are science.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Anyway the question is really irrelevant it is the homosexual act that is evil, we are not animals, we have free will to choose our own actions, no one is forced to sodomise another man, those who perform this evil act do so because they want to, because they enjoy it period.

bingo. give the rational man a prize!

how silly is the idea that biology forces a certain kind of intercourse?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Homosexuality, then, is not strictly or even necessarily a choice. The expression of homosexual behaviour, however, might be a different story (depending on the bigotry a given society has to offer for such an orientation).

how are choice and bigotry related here?

are you saying that if we dont accept the choice of homosexual behavior, we must be bigots? what about pedophiles, we restict that. does that make us bigots? what about bestiality, does a rejection of that makes us bigots? polyandry and polygamy are restricte, does that make us bigots?

 

[camerong]

first, it doesnt say its not a choice, every person has a choice, people making a choice to have intercourse with the same gender. are no different than people who choose to have intercourse with people of other ethnicities, or people who like tall partners, or fat partners, etc. we arent born that way.

its time to stop pretending that there is such a thing as ‘gay’. if you are biologically capable of intercourse than, you are simply making a choice to have that intercourse with certain people. nothing in your biology forces you.

second, infallibility applies to matters of faith and morals, not science. and genetic studies etc. are science.

“Gay” refers to feeling deep-seated attractions towards the same sex. The Catechism conclusively proves that this is not a choice, at least for a significant number of people. “Being gay” does not refer to having sex with people of the same sex.

You may well be right that we should stop referring to some people as gay and others as not. If, however, you insist that those who claim to be gay are merely choosing to find themselves attracted to other people of the same sex, and could just as easily chose to find themselves attracted to members of the opposite sex, you are both sadly mistaken and speaking in stark contrast to the Catholic Church.

After contraception, the Catholic declaration that one does not chose to have same sex attractions must be the least followed Catholic tenet.

 

[Advocatus_Fidei]

The Catechism conclusively proves that this is not a choice, at least for a significant number of people.

Firstly it does not prove anything it assumes, secondly it does not say they were born that way.

No one is denying that Same Sex Attraction Disorder exists, what is been discussed is whether someone is born with the disorder or if it develops later.

A homosexual act however is always a choice.

 

[michaeldaniels]

I don’t believe it is “conclusive” or “irrefutable” unless it is infallible…

“Gay” refers to feeling deep-seated attractions towards the same sex. The Catechism conclusively proves that this is not a choice, at least for a significant number of people. “Being gay” does not refer to having sex with people of the same sex.

You may well be right that we should stop referring to some people as gay and others as not. If, however, you insist that those who claim to be gay are merely choosing to find themselves attracted to other people of the same sex, and could just as easily chose to find themselves attracted to members of the opposite sex, you are both sadly mistaken and speaking in stark contrast to the Catholic Church.

After contraception, the Catholic declaration that one does not chose to have same sex attractions must be the least followed Catholic tenet.

 

[Newbie2]

Nobody is born gay. People want to believe it to justify their sinful ways by saying they cannot help being like that.
There is ZERO evidence for a gay gene.
People become homosexual through one or more of upbringing, environment, choice.

Who said it was a choice. Not me.

I said it was one or more of upbringing, environment and choice. It can be one of these, two of these or all three contributing.

One thing for certain, though, is that nobody is born gay. That’s wishful thinking by those who want to justify their sinful ways without taking responsibility.

I assume you’re meaning of “nobody is born gay” meaning that they are not born on an unstoppable track toward homosexual activity.

Certainly there are those who have had a same-sex attraction since they were old enough to be attracted to someone else in one way or another.

We have to be careful to define “gay” as meaning homosexually active, attracted to members of the same sex, or both in such a discussion as this. To my mind one can call oneself “gay”, whether or not they are sexually active.

 

[Advocatus_Fidei]

I assume you’re meaning of “nobody is born gay” meaning that they are not born on an unstoppable track toward homosexual activity.

Certainly there are those who have had a same-sex attraction since they were old enough to be attracted to someone else in one way or another.

We have to be careful to define “gay” as meaning homosexually active, attracted to members of the same sex, or both in such a discussion as this. To my mind one can call oneself “gay”, whether or not they are sexually active.

The reasons above are exactly why we shouldn’t use the word gay at all, it does not have a precise definition and so leads to confusion.

There are people who suffer from SSAD who should be treat just like anyone else who has a mental disease, with compassion and care, and attempts to cure them of their illness.

Then there are sodomites who have fell into the error of believing their actions are not wrong, and what most people really object to, try and tyrannise everyone else into adopting the same opinion.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

“Gay” refers to feeling deep-seated attractions towards the same sex.

i have deep seated attractions to women with freckles. lets make up a word for that, ill call it freckleism.

The Catechism conclusively proves that this is not a choice, at least for a significant number of people. “Being gay” does not refer to having sex with people of the same sex.

being gay isnt the problem, homosexual ativites are.

btw, the CCC doesnt prove the science. infallibility only deals with matters of faith and morals

You may well be right that we should stop referring to some people as gay and others as not. If, however, you insist that those who claim to be gay are merely choosing to find themselves attracted to other people of the same sex, and could just as easily chose to find themselves attracted to members of the opposite sex, you are both sadly mistaken and speaking in stark contrast to the Catholic Church.

After contraception, the Catholic declaration that one does not chose to have same sex attractions must be the least followed Catholic tenet.

the CCC isnt a science manual, and it doesnt say that people are definitley born gay, just that they might be doesnt it? and that we should treat them just like others. i dont have a problem with that. all people should be well treated.

that isnt a cause for special rights, or to ignore what G-d has to say on the matter.

i have a problem with the idea that being gay is anything but a choice.

am i a born freckleist? of course not.

 

[baltobetsy]

Causes of Homosexuality: A Christian Appraisal of the Data

Andrew J. Sodergren, M.S., a scholar at the John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family has written a paper discussing some of the recent scientific findings on the causes of homosexuality in the context of a Christian anthropology. After reviewing the major findings in the empirical literature, the discussion focuses on how such an anthropology can account for these findings without compromising the traditional Christian ethical teaching that homosexual acts are intrinsically immoral and the homosexual inclination is objectively disordered. Of particular importance here are notions of original sin, fallen nature, the sexual difference, and the virtue of chastity.

You can find it here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/causes-of-homosexuality-a-christian-appraisal-of-the-data/

If you know of a better statement on the issue would you let me know?

dj

Thank you, dj, for posting this. It was a scholarly, well-written, well-documented point of light in the midst of a lot of foot stamping and unsupported insistence.

For those who do not usually follow links, I say, get yourself a cup of coffee and check this one out. It’s long and intense, but well worth it.

Betsy

 

[camerong]

being gay isnt the problem, homosexual ativites are.

And that’s all that really needs to be said on this topic.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

And that’s all that really needs to be said on this topic.

true. but something else comes to mind when reflecting on our conversation. namely the question

what identifies a gay man as gay, if not homosexual activity?

when we say ‘gay’ what qualities except homosexual activity are we using to identify him as gay?

i think most qualities other than that we could apply to anyone.

 

[Voice_of_Reason_1]

how are choice and bigotry related here?

are you saying that if we dont accept the choice of homosexual behavior, we must be bigots? what about pedophiles, we restict that. does that make us bigots? what about bestiality, does a rejection of that makes us bigots? polyandry and polygamy are restricte, does that make us bigots?

Neither children, nor animals can give proper consent. Not only are children and animals not physically ready for sex, they are not psychologically ready for it either - the child, for it’s lack of life-experience, the animal for it’s lack of human-experience. You understand the potential for harm and psychological damage in the child; you can at least imagine the potential for true and fulfiling love in a homosexual relationship. Is there any reason other than “MY GOD SAID SO” that homosexuality is wrong? If not, you’re a bigot. Easy.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Is there any reason other than “MY GOD SAID SO” that homosexuality is wrong? If not, you’re a bigot. Easy.

we need no other reason than that G-d said so. we arent responsible to anyone else other than G-d.

it seems your saying that people who act and believe in accord with their faith, are bigots.

thats a pretty bigotted against religion.

 

[camerong]

Is there any reason other than “MY GOD SAID SO” that homosexuality is wrong? If not, you’re a bigot. Easy.

Give me a break. So we need to find non-religious reasons to justify everything our religion says?

Besides, Catholics maintain that the immorality of homosexual sex can be derived from the natural law. There is no natural reason for people of the same sex to interact sexually. Sure, it happens in nature, but so do all kinds of birth defects and such.

I think the onus should be on you–what arguments do you have that homosexuality is not a disorder? Because it doesn’t hurt anyone? Imagine an 18 year-old who looks like she’s 12 (such women exist). If such a woman had a sexual relationship with a pedophile, who was only attracted to her because she looks like a 12 year old, would this be natural, simply because no one is being hurt by it?

The only thing that separates homosexuality from any number of other disorders is that people with the same disorder can get together and fulfill one another in sexual and emotional ways. If, for example, there was only 1 homosexual in the entire world, you would surely concede it was a disorder, no?