Irrefutable Proof against being born gay?

[Penser]

I have a brother who is gay. I have no idea about the genetics of his orientation, but there is also a cousin who is gay. Because I have known them since birth, I feel strongly they were born gay. It is their nature. I am glad you posted the question, since it gives me pause for thought - how are gays perceived and welcomed in the Church? As is some evidence of some of the follow up quotes - and Catechism - not very well. It saddens me, since many are good and loving persons. All we ask them to do is deny their nature, live celebate lives and accept their “disorder”. I love the Church, but I cannot agree on this point. We have evolved in our understanding of sexuality and need a Copernican revolution to get to the heart of what it means to be a full and human person.

Why do we need to prove one way or the other?

 

[francescasouza]

Hmmm.

Quite a few years back, an old friend came over with her 4 yr old son. He was absolutely adorable with blond hair and big blue eyes and when he introduced himself to me, he was more feminine then I could ever hope to be. 30 yrs later he still is.

Now someone please explain THAT to me.

I agree with you. I also have a friend with a second son who has those same qualities. He is today “gay”. Unfortunately, she stopped going to church because she couldn’t figure out a way to tell him what she believed for then she would stop him from living “his” life. It is heartbreaking. We tried to discuss it and work it out, but it got in the way of our friendship for a while and we had to let the subject go.

 

[remjsmom76]

No…but there is some proof that is STILL being researched that shows that somehow during the formation of the human within the womb, that the body and brain get the wrong signal. For example…the body gets the signal to be formed as a female, but the brain got the signal to be formed as a male. So when the child is born, the child thinks AND BELIEVES they are male but she “he” is female on the outside.

Ive seen a lot of medical documentaries where a young boy cries from a very young age, because they say they are not BOYS THEY ARE GIRLS!!! or the opposite, the girls cry and have a fit because DRESSES ARE FOR GIRLS AND THEY ARE BOYS!!! Its the brain, in that case the brain, while being developed, formed the opposite of what the body became.

Where in the case that a boy was all boy during childhood and then later decided that he liked men…that is a different story…they haven’t studied that. Ive also seen and I have family relatives who are ALL MEN…burly and MANLY…but like and rather be with men…I have a cousin who is ALL GIRL very GIRLY but rather be with women.

 

[markxcool]

Do you usually see homosexual horses, geese or mice, etc? No.

Absolutely there are homosexual horses, geese, mice and pretty much every animal. How could you not know this? Even your dog will hump your leg… or other male dogs… However, we humans, with immortal souls, morals and consciences must know and behave better, hence homosexuality is intrinsically evil for humans.

Can humans be born physically or psychologically homosexual? No. There is no disposition for homosexuality, since it is outside the norm.

Wrong again! Since original since, our human nature is disordered. We are born with all sorts of wrong, sinful or even anti natural inclinations. To deny this is to deny Original Sin. The point is, though, that just because it is natural (or legal) does not make it right! Again, we humans have to behave morally, regardless of our inclinations, many of which we are born with.

If you want to speak about it terms of science, through evolution, what do homosexuals gain? Nothing. The purpose of sexuality in animals is to procreate. Theirs is a sexual perversion.

In terms of scientific evolution, homosexuals would be an anomaly, since they can’t procreate their numbers are bound to dwindle over time, so those with natural homosexual inclinations would be flukes.

This argument is used as an attempt to excuse people who are homosexual as though it is natural. Explaining it as, “He/She can’t help how he/she acts he/she was born that way.”

Correct, this is just a shallow and cheap excuse… sadly, people don’t seem to demand more.

It is not a natural attribute of the human body, as it is not a natural attribute of a horse.

“Natural” means two things: “innate in nature” and for “the better good”… homosexuality is natural in the some cases - perhaps less than 1% of the population, perhaps 10% of homosexuals - but it is always anti natural in the sense of the proper order of things… but it could be a natrual attribule of the homan body or horses.

It is a learned psychological mentality and a spiritual problem when acted upon.

In most cases it is a “learned” (even chosen) behavior and, yes, it is a spiritual problem when acted upon.

 

[PeterMuz]

The answer is in Scripture. Genesis 1:26:
Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

When you understand the nuptial meaning of the body and the fact that we were created in the image and likeness of God (in every way BUT sin), it can be determined that it is not possible to be “born gay”. The only way we are not like God is in sin or our human fallen nature. Homosexuality which is a perversion of what God created in our sexuality is due to our fallen nature.

“The body has a “nuptial meaning” because it reveals man and woman’s call to become a gift for one another, a gift fully realized in their “one flesh” union. The body also has a “generative meaning,” which (God willing) brings a “third” into the world through the couple’s communion. In this way, marriage constitutes a “primordial sacrament” understood as a sign that truly communicates the mystery of God’s Trinitarian life and love to husband and wife, and through them to their children, and through the family to the whole world.”
catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0055.html

 

[CornerstoneAMK]

We should all be embarrassed about this board, as Catholics and as people.

In the last six pages of answers, the conclusion drawn has been that gay people have no moral or genetic ground to stand on in explaining their difference; that they are just like straight people, only sexually sinful. We have referred to them as “the gays”; have compared them to dogs senselessly humping against your leg; have dismissed their feelings as being no different from someone expressing an interest in tall women or blondes; they have been accused of being mentally ill, and of being tyrannical sodomites, actively trying to bring other people to their way of life (member Advocatus Fidei, pg. 3).

Are we to cast the first stone? Or are we to follow Jesus’ example: “Neither do I condemn thee”, knowing that only God can really move the heart of man to convince him to “go, and sin no more”?

For those of continue to stand and shake your rock in your fist, I remind you that you are talking about people: not dogs, not “sodomites”, not lunatics, and certainly not someone so very different from yourself. Do not vulgarize our faith with your bigotry. Be compassionate always; if you feel yourself equal to the task of meting out judgement, than you are a better person than I am, and I congratulate you on your wisdom. You must be extraordinarily close to Christ, the man who suffered ALL the little children to come to him.

Be kind. Be courteous. Be gentle, meek, humble, and loving. Start here, and go forth in faith, not judgement.

 

[chrysostim83]

I just wanted to respond to one point that was raised in this discussion. When people wonder if a homosexual orientation could be the effect of genetic causes, it is tempting to dismiss the idea because natural selection ought to eliminate any such seemingly deviant genes. This temptation needs to be resisted.

In the first place, if natural selection never failed to eliminate maladaptive heritable traits, there would be no such thing as genetic epidemiology.

In the second place, there are perfectly simple explanations for how a gay gene might manage the trick of being favored by natural selection. For example, a relatively recent study found that the female relatives of gay men tended to have more children than the female relatives of a control sample of men. So it is possible that the undesirable consequences of a “gay gene” in men could be outweighed by its desirable consequences in women.

Thus, genetics is still on the table. But in point of fact, nobody knows what causes sexual orientation—the best we can do is sympathize with gay people and try to offer them sound spiritual advice and inspiring role models.

 

[avflf]

We should all be embarrassed about this board, as Catholics and as people.

In the last six pages of answers, the conclusion drawn has been that gay people have no moral or genetic ground to stand on in explaining their difference; that they are just like straight people, only sexually sinful. We have referred to them as “the gays”; have compared them to dogs senselessly humping against your leg; have dismissed their feelings as being no different from someone expressing an interest in tall women or blondes; they have been accused of being mentally ill, and of being tyrannical sodomites, actively trying to bring other people to their way of life (member Advocatus Fidei, pg. 3).

Are we to cast the first stone? Or are we to follow Jesus’ example: “Neither do I condemn thee”, knowing that only God can really move the heart of man to convince him to “go, and sin no more”?

For those of continue to stand and shake your rock in your fist, I remind you that you are talking about people: not dogs, not “sodomites”, not lunatics, and certainly not someone so very different from yourself. Do not vulgarize our faith with your bigotry. Be compassionate always; if you feel yourself equal to the task of meting out judgement, than you are a better person than I am, and I congratulate you on your wisdom. You must be extraordinarily close to Christ, the man who suffered ALL the little children to come to him.

Be kind. Be courteous. Be gentle, meek, humble, and loving. Start here, and go forth in faith, not judgement.

Strange conclusions for someone who professes faith in God and in His Holy Word. God the Father left no doubts on the punishment deserving homosexuals - (Lev 20:13) If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Does the Church no longer accept the Word of God as true?
What happened to (2Ti 3:16) All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Isn’t Leviticus included here?

 

[fix]

Is there irrefutable proof against the born gay theory?

Why does it matter one way or the other? Does being born with any particular inclination axiomatically mean such an inclination is ordered correctly? What is the standard?

 

[Roy5]

The two issues that have conflicted me over the years have been abortion - is it ever justfied? - and the gay question.

  Like most people I had a bias against gays in years past (I am a senior) and I still am opposed to gay marriage. But I have changed my general attitude because I gradually came to the conclusion that some people are simply gay (or lesbian). Quite possibly it's a matter of genetics. Some research supports that. In other cases perhaps environment played a role. 

   For example, I know of a young man who was arrested, wemt to jail where he was the frequent object of homosexual rape, and when he was released he was gay. There is evidence that many heterosexuals in prison practice homosexuality because no females are present. In a few cultures homosexuality is more-or-less acceptable until marriage. I believe that people like McGreevy (sp?), former governor of NJ, and Haggard, evangelical minister, may be bisexual. I recall someone who was kicked out of a boys prep school years ago for engaging in homosexual activity but went on to have a wonderful marriage and six children.

  In other words, it's all very complicated, which over the years has made me more tolerant of it. I suspect that some of the priests who exploited altar boys may have made good husbands. Their sex drive needed an outlet and altar boys were most accessible. True, more of them were likely gays. 

   Now, what does trouble me are gays who push themselves on youth, as some priests and many others have done over the years. I recall hitchhiking as a teenager and being picked up by a driver who tried hard to seduce me. I have more tolerance for gays who are in adult, mature relationships and don't flaunt their sex publicly. Actually, I feel more sympathy for them than hostility because as a married man myself I am well aware that they usually miss out on the stability, the dignity, the children and the other benefits of normal family life.

    True, the Bible does condemns homosexuality. But two things to bear in mind. (1) The Bible condemns lots of things - reread Ex. 21, Lev. 20, and Deut. 22-23, for example. Should we have slavery, stone to death those caught in adultery, kill teenagers who rebel against their parents, not allow those suffering from certain disabilities into our churches, etc.? (2) Christ clearly places love above everything else. Those of us who know gays and lesbians know that they can be very worthy of God's love and our love. I even have come to accept civil unions. But why do militant gays insist upon redefining the word marriage which has meant male and female forever?

  But God bless the whole world. No exceptions.

 

[PassingThru]

Strange conclusions for someone who professes faith in God and in His Holy Word. God the Father left no doubts on the punishment deserving homosexuals - (Lev 20:13) If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Does the Church no longer accept the Word of God as true?
What happened to (2Ti 3:16) All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Isn’t Leviticus included here?

Really? REALLY? We actually have someone pulling Leviticus out like some sort of moral trump card? Wow.

Please go back and post your logic on which of the myriad of truly backward and misguided instructions you choose to follow, and which you don’t.

In the meantime, I will go find a handful that YOU have violated, then condemn you to death by stoning. I get the added bonus of being able to hold up a quote from the bible and fully justify it as well. With a side of self-righteousness as well.

As Cornerstone said, some of these comments are sad. Honestly, do people really wonder why the gay culture as a whole avoids Catholic, or for that matter, many other Christian religions entirely? Look at this collection of posts. This is a small but accurate cross section of the **** that any gay parishioner brave enough to step foot in a church has to deal with. I don’t think I could be so bold.

Also, for the third or fourth time, can ANYONE please explain when they made the choice to be straight? Warpspeed has tried and failed. His combination of condemnation, long term voluntary celibacy, and complete lack sexual expression has me questioning his own comfort with sexuality. Will anyone else step to the plate on this issue?

 

[avflf]

True, the Bible does condemns homosexuality. But two things to bear in mind. (1) The Bible condemns lots of things - reread Ex. 21, Lev. 20, and Deut. 22-23, for example. Should we have slavery, stone to death those caught in adultery, kill teenagers who rebel against their parents, not allow those suffering from certain disabilities into our churches, etc.? (2) Christ clearly places love above everything else. Those of us who know gays and lesbians know that they can be very worthy of God’s love and our love. I even have come to accept civil unions. But why do militant gays insist upon redefining the word marriage which has meant male and female forever?

  But God bless the whole world. No exceptions.

The question here must be “Does Christ’s love invalidate the morality of God?”

 

[remjsmom76]

Jesus came here FOR ALL SINNERS…so to answer the question “If Jesus’ Love throws out GODs morality?” YES you could say it does. Why? because Jesus came for those who choose to do wrong, to save them. They are also GODS children, and like a parent who suffers because of a defiant child, that parent STILL loves that child, NO MATTER WHAT.

We have to embrace those people who choose to do wrong and still love them. You can take a horse to the river but you cant make it drink the water, same thing with anyone else. You can be blue in the face and tell them that homosexuality is wrong, but you cant make them change. All you can do is love them and pray for them and hope they realize that they are doing something wrong. It is not up to us to judge them and say “YOU ARE BEING DAMNED TO HELL!” because the bible said so…no way. Remember the Lords Prayer always. “Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us” You love them you teach them, they dont want to change, you still love them but now you pray for them without being self righteous and condemning.

I am not for gay marriage…but we cant stop them. People are going to do what they are going to do cause thats what GOD allows them to do. FREE WILL…I understand where the gay community is coming from though. I dont want my marriage to be “equal” to their partnerships. however, if they have been with a said partner for years and years…they have the right to be there when their partner needs them at the hospital, they should have the same right my husband has to choose to either pull the plug on me or keep me alive by machine, to choose a life or death procedure. They have invested that much time on that partner just as much as my husband and I have invested our lives with each other. I dont think it should be called a marriage…a marriage to me is between a man and a woman to bring forth children. It should be called something else.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Hmmm.

Quite a few years back, an old friend came over with her 4 yr old son. He was absolutely adorable with blond hair and big blue eyes and when he introduced himself to me, he was more feminine then I could ever hope to be. 30 yrs later he still is.

Now someone please explain THAT to me.

His mother put a dress on him, gave him dolls to play with and kept him away from his father.

 

[Looking_back]

Do you usually see homosexual horses, geese or mice, etc? No.

Can humans be born physically or psychologically homosexual? No. There is no disposition for homosexuality, since it is outside the norm.

If you want to speak about it terms of science, through evolution, what do homosexuals gain? Nothing. The purpose of sexuality in animals is to procreate. Theirs is a sexual perversion.

This argument is used as an attempt to excuse people who are homosexual as though it is natural. Explaining it as, “He/She can’t help how he/she acts he/she was born that way.”

It is not a natural attribute of the human body, as it is not a natural attribute of a horse.

It is a learned psychological mentality and a spiritual problem when acted upon./QUOTE

You are totally wrong. There is absolutely evidence of gay individuals across the animal kingdom. Homosexuality has been in every civilization and every culture from the beginning of recorded time. You can call it whatever you want, but it’s not going to stop. It’s a hardwired issue. As for those who say there is no physical evidence of it being something a person is born with, neither is being left or right handed, but there is little doubt it’s genetic. And just like you can force a left handed person to be right handed they will quickly find it uncomfortable should they ever use their left handed for any period of time

 

[PeterMuz]

Really? REALLY? We actually have someone pulling Leviticus out like some sort of moral trump card? Wow.

If you do not like Leviticus, homosexuality is also condemned in 1 Corinthians 6 and also in Romans 1 :26-28.

Also, for the third or fourth time, can ANYONE please explain when they made the choice to be straight? Warpspeed has tried and failed. His combination of condemnation, long term voluntary celibacy, and complete lack sexual expression has me questioning his own comfort with sexuality. Will anyone else step to the plate on this issue?

I did not make the choice to be straight, it is how we as humans are created. Read my post above for a longer explanation.
But if you are going to try to use this to say that just as I was born straight, some people are born gay, that logic is extremely flawed. That is like saying that because I was born white, some people are born black, brown or whatever. My being born white has nothing to do with someone else being born of another race.

 

[convertforreal]

If a person was born gay, wouldn’t identical twins both be gay if one was? However, I do know of twins who differ! Also, the February 2009 issue of “Homiletic & Pastoral Review” has an excellent article on this very subject: Homosexual Debating Ploy by David R. Carlin.

 

[PeterMuz]

For those of continue to stand and shake your rock in your fist, I remind you that you are talking about people: not dogs, not “sodomites”, not lunatics, and certainly not someone so very different from yourself. Do not vulgarize our faith with your bigotry. Be compassionate always; if you feel yourself equal to the task of meting out judgement, than you are a better person than I am, and I congratulate you on your wisdom. You must be extraordinarily close to Christ, the man who suffered ALL the little children to come to him.

Be kind. Be courteous. Be gentle, meek, humble, and loving. Start here, and go forth in faith, not judgement.

It is a fact that there is a homosexual agenda that is trying to bring others into their way of life. Do you see the stuff they are trying to teach kids in school today?

I understand your point about “who are we to throw the first stone” your points are extremely dangerous. That is the line of thinking that brought us relativism. What we are told not to do in the bible is to judge hearts, we can judge actions.

I have not vulgarized anything and I am not a bigot. But you need to take your own advice and not shake your fist. If you have a problem with something that has been said, calmly remind others to be kind, humble, courteous and loving.

With that being said, I do think some of the posts here have not been the most Christ like and people need to not call names, etc. I do appreciate you remind others of that, but it is more effective when you approach it with the same courtesy, kindness, humility and love that you asked for from others.

Do you have a problem with people posting things saying that homosexuality is wrong? Or is it just the words people have used?

 

[SugarMagnolia]

I have noticed on this thread and throughout CAF that a lot of folks here talk about homosexuals as if they wanted to be cured. Perhaps some of them do, but none of those I have ever seen want to be cured. On the contrary, they chose the word “gay” to describe themselves and they take great pride in being homosexuals. If they were unhappy about their sexual orientation, they would not have gay pride parades and they wouldn’t be all over television telling the rest of us that their lifestyle is normal and natural.

I don’t know whether it’s genetic or environmentally-caused. I do know that gays tend to use either argument, depending on what suits them at the moment. They say it’s genetic when I argue that they should choose to stop and they say it’s a choice when I say a cure for homosexuality should be sought. Has anyone else ever noticed this equivocation?

Research ought to be done to determine whether it’s biological. If it’s discovered to be biological then a cure can be sought. The only problem is, they don’t want to be cured. Psychologists today, adhering to the DSM-IV, no longer consider homosexuality to be a disorder. We live in a society that has accepted homosexuality as normal and natural, so it’s hard to believe a cure will be sought.

I wouldn’t be surprised if there was some biological basis for some people’s homosexuality simply because, in the past when it was unacceptable, it’s hard to imagine anyone choosing to be gay when gay was unpopular. Perhaps those people were indeed biologically different. However, nowadays being gay is fashionable. Thus I believe many people, especially women, are choosing to be gay just to be trendy.

I noticed most of the posts refer to male homosexuals not female homosexuals. Contemporary television and movies seem to be actively promoting female homosexuality and I have often wondered about this. It seems that female homosexuality is being advertised as a way for women to appear sexually desirable to men. I find this strange because I don’t understand why a man would be attracted to a woman who was homosexual. The men I have asked about this never give me a serious answer. All they do is start gushing about how “hot” the “lesbians” are. Perhaps there are some men on this board who can explain this in a serious way. I think it’s sad that women are choosing homosexual behavior because our society is encouraging them to do so.

 

[PassingThru]

I don’t know whether it’s genetic or environmentally-caused. I do know that gays tend to use either argument, depending on what suits them at the moment. They say it’s genetic when I argue that they should choose to stop and they say it’s a choice when I say a cure for homosexuality should be sought. Has anyone else ever noticed this equivocation?

Sorry, but this generalization bothers me. I know what you are saying, but I think you are likely misunderstanding what they are saying. If you are talking to them about why they are gay, they, like most people, will probably say they just “are” and didn’t really make a choice in the matter. When you talk about a “cure” or some form of treatment, they are probably telling you they are not interested, and they are choosing to not seek any potential cure. Meaning they have accepted who they are, and don’t want to go down that path. I see this as two completely distinct topics. It is not arguing “genetics” out one side while arguing “choice” out the other. They didn’t “choose” to be gay, but they are “choosing” to accept it. Hope that makes sense.