Irrefutable Proof against being born gay?

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

KWilcox

Good points, but let me respond in this way.

(1) While the need to dominate etc can often play a role, I have never accepted the attempt to minimize the power of the sexual impulse. It is very strong at various times in most people - a God-given impulse to generate new life - and often causes men (and women, though probably less so) to lose their self-control and finagle, rationalize, and eventually yield to temptation. 

 (2) True. I think that a higher percentage of gays are attracted to the arts, including the theatre. This is not to condemn anybody, just to make mention of a reality. When you combine this with the three other factors it can lead to a special attraction to gays. I have heard statistics suggesting that as many as 50% of priests are homosexual, though most of them - fortunately - are 'non-practicing'. Do you think this figure is near-accurate? 

 (3) Yes, attraction to post-puberty boys is quite different from attraction to a child. This has been the major scandal among Catholic priests - sex with teenage boys - the reason for so much litigation etc. This probably was made more possible because of past Catholic emphasis on altar boys, all-boy schools, etc. These still exist, but less so. The Mass I attended this morning had altar girls, which, of course, can also present a tempatation, but rarely to gays. I believe it is in the current issue of *Our Sunday Visitor* that I read about the sex scandal within the Irish church, which apparently was more severe than in the USA and has caused a major backlash among Catholics there. I know from personal experience that Quebec has had a major backlash against the church. They are even trying to sell churches there that were crowded with devout Catholics a half-century ago. 

  I'm glad that I'm not in a position that has to work out a solution to all this. I suspect that it always has been a problem but was kept under wraps for generations, in part because of the huge influence of the church and its desire to keep it all secret. That condition now has changed.

1. I ask what motivates the sexual act not sexual labido; and sexual labido is affected by many things (e.g. habituation of the act, familiarity with pornography, etc.)
   Is the sexual impulse to generate new life? CCC says it is also to form relationship.
   Animals use sex to form hierarchic structure.
2. In an earlier post I have quoted the findings of one survey. It surprises me how many supposed “straight men” frequent gay clubs, and slip off their wedding ring at the door.
   Shame has been imposed upon many homosexuals causing them to seek shelter and security in an environment wherein they need not explain themselves.
3. Perhaps the greatest scandal comes from the cover-up, the denial.
   What are you inferring about those secular who attend all-boy schools? The majority appear to have emerged “unscathed”.
   Why would gays not be aroused by altar girls? Homosexuality has to do with an orientation/preference (origin unknown) for the sexual intimacy to be with the same sex. The arousal as in the heterosexual can come from elsewhere.

We are both relieved it is not reliant upon us to find the solution. Fortunately our relationship with God emerges from chaos.
I suspect secrets will continue within the Church, just as they do in any family.

 

[fix]

And some people want it to be exclusively a matter of choice in an attempt to justify things.

Not following you here? Behavior is a choice. I agree that it may be influenced by biologic aspects, but the point I was making is that activists want to claim biology rules everything and thus the behavior is good simply because it may have some genetic component.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Not following you here? Behavior is a choice. I agree that it may be influenced by biologic aspects, but the point I was making is that activists want to claim biology rules everything and thus the behavior is good simply because it may have some genetic component.

This is entirely the point. In this whole overly repetitive discussion, the bottom line is that sexual orientation is complex, and not the result of a single component. Whatever the genetics of SSA, environment is a significant factor, particularly in the deficit-reaction dynamic.

For an honest, unflinching insight into these dynamics, without rhetoric, read Sexual Authenticity.

 

[Penser]

According to a news story in The New York Times(Sept 15, 2005) Fr Thomas Reese, S.J. the former Editor-in-Chief of America, said that “with the shortage of priests, the Church can hardly afford to dismiss gay seminarians.”

Fr Cozzens, a former seminary rector said in The Changing Face of the Priesthoodthat “the priesthood is becoming a gay profession.”

Kevin, I greatly appreciate your contribution to this discussion. Sensible and intelligent. I have a thought I am trying to sort out. “Science and the Church”, would probably be the topic or “How does the Church decide anything” - it seems throughout our history there have been serious conflicts about what to do about anything: Jew or Gentile, who’s in/out in founding community. St. Francis, and a host of mystics were critical of the hierarchy from time to time - we could go on about some of the poor decisions from those who claimed “authority”. The discourse on homosexuality/sexuality reminds me of the point just prior to discovering the Earth was not the center of the universe.Copernicus, Galileo ran into some difficulty, and when the Church finally accepted the scientific evidence, all was well (eventually). Could the same happen again with the question of the origins of our sexual orientation? If it were proven scientifically, that being gay is not a choice, do you think the Church would have a “Copernican” revolution?
FYI
I am not Gay. I am Catholic (for life).

 

[larkin31]

Not following you here? Behavior is a choice.

That’s an over-simplification of a very complicated matter. Sexual orientation is rarely described as a “choice.” It is certainly never described as such when speaking of heterosexuals.

I agree that it may be influenced by biologic aspects, but the point I was making is that activists want to claim biology rules everything and thus the behavior is good simply because it may have some genetic component.

This also is an over-simplification of what activists claim. Sure, a few make claims beyond the reality of the complicated situation, but they do not argue that “biology rules everything.” Or if a few do, they are clearly wrong and easily dismissed.

And the debate about whether homosexuality is “right” or “wrong” is an entirely different matter.

 

[Elizabeth502]

If it were proven scientifically, that being gay is not a choice, do you think the Church would have a “Copernican” revolution?

I realize you addressed your question to Kevin, but the fact is that it will never be “proven scientifically” because the effects of environment include both scientifically observable data and less measurable (but powerful) data, and environment is a critical component to the development of sexuality. I’m talking about SSA here, not acting out, just SSA.

The inborn expressions of what society sometimes defines as “feminine” and “masculine” “tendencies” is indeed a hard, given element of native personality. We are all born somewhere along a spectrum of that. (Read Brain Sex and again, Sexual Authenticity.) The shaping of those tendencies relative to psychological identification with other males and other females is an entirely different matter, and is not determined from birth.

 

[avflf]

The edict to kill homosexuals is entirely “off one’s rocker,” yes. It smacks of patriarchal and obsessive fear of sexual license, and demonstrates a neurotic level of anger toward the private sexual acts of others.

If there is a God, and this God wants homosexuals put to death more than those who commit the other list of sexual sins in the Bible, than that God has similar issues. If this God simply wants ALL sexual sinners punished with death, then you worship a totally neurotic God.

I tend to think that the sexual sins listed in the OT (Jesus hardly treats the matter) are the result of a male-dominated culture ordered strictly around “purity laws” that pervaded all of society, including where a menstruating woman should sleep.

I think I answered both your questions.

And I totally agree with you. So, why is Leviticus still a part of Holy Writ?

 

[avflf]

Taken out of context it looks not too promising for the homosexual - you’ve left out, or conveniently overlooked verses 27-32

vrs 28: “And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient”

vrs 32: “Who, having known the justice of God, **did not understand that they who do such **things, are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to do them.”

(Douay-Rheims The Holy Bible)

He doesn’t say “KILL THE HOMOSEXUAL” St Paul says man in his sinful nature is worthy of death.

St Paul writes about the necessity of Grace exceeding works of man.

As the quote I provided was related to the injunction in Leviticus it sufficed.

 

[larkin31]

And I totally agree with you. So, why is Leviticus still a part of Holy Writ?

dunno

change is difficult, especially when one considers a writing “infallible”. Many churches, I suppose, simply ignore much of those purity laws. Even large groups of Jews do.

 

[MikiBee]

I am no scientist but having known several gay people throughout my life, I would say that being gay is not a “choice.” Even if it there is no genetic proof yet, there have been studies that suggest there may be some prenatal environment trigger. There are also brain MRI studies of heterosexual males and females and homosexual males and females. The studies show that there are similarities in the brains of heterosexual men and lesbians, and similarities of heterosexual females and gay men. That is very compelling evidence (notice I didn’t say conclusive) that sexuality is a biologically fixed trait.

Even IF it were possible to change a person’s orientation in early childhood (lack of opposite sex role model for example), that would still not make it a choice of the individual to be homosexual.

I can’t, in my wildest imagination, imagine engaging in homosexual activities. Can you (if you’re straight)? It is something I am pretty sure I could not do, even if I were a paid actress. I could not choose my orientation, and I bet most of you would say the same. I have been attracted to males since some of my earliest memories.

Sure, I am aware of people, especially women, who engage in homosexual activities for the “fun of it,” or because it gets them attention. I don’t believe that changes their orientation and makes them homosexual. I think they are just “acting” to achieve whatever goal it is they want to obtain.

We have to remember this throughout this thread-- it is NOT a sin to be homosexual!!! It is only a sin when a homosexual CHOOSES to have sex with ANYONE out of marriage. It’s no more a sin for a gay man to have sex with man, than it would be for the same man to have sex with a woman if they were not married. That is the only time that choice is brought into the equation.

We need to pray for homosexual Catholics to overcome their strong desires, not beat them down. They either have to force themselves to do what repulses them (heterosexuality) and marry a person of the opposite sex in order to fulfill their physical and emotional desires, or they must remain chaste due to a condition not of their choosing. I can only imagine how difficult that must be. We have to love them.

 

[fix]

That’s an over-simplification of a very complicated matter. Sexual orientation is rarely described as a “choice.” It is certainly never described as such when speaking of heterosexuals.

The problem is a philosophical one, not a scientific one. That is why the entire debate is circular. The premise, from the activists, is that there is some biological basis for same sex attraction as if such a basis is proof it is “natural”. That reasoning presupposes that any inclination scientists may identify is therefore “natural”. The problem is we must start from a correct understanding of man’s nature and that is not simply a question of genetics.

And, sexual acts are always choices.

This also is an over-simplification of what activists claim. Sure, a few make claims beyond the reality of the complicated situation, but they do not argue that “biology rules everything.” Or if a few do, they are clearly wrong and easily dismissed.

And the debate about whether homosexuality is “right” or “wrong” is an entirely different matter.

But, the entire debate here is that because some may be born with a certain inclination the inclination is ordered correctly. My point is science can explain the physical reasons for a certain way people may act, or be inclined to act, yet such explanations cannot tell us what is right or wrong.

 

[avflf]

dunno

change is difficult, especially when one considers a writing “infallible”. Many churches, I suppose, simply ignore much of those purity laws. Even large groups of Jews do.

Do you think that the whole of the Pentateuch should be confined to the dustbin as pseudo-history and questionable moral norms?

 

[Elizabeth502]

I am no scientist but having known several gay people throughout my life, I would say that being gay is not a “choice.” Even if it there is no genetic proof yet, there have been studies that suggest there may be some prenatal environment trigger. There are also brain MRI studies of heterosexual males and females and homosexual males and females. The studies show that there are similarities in the brains of heterosexual men and lesbians, and similarities of heterosexual females and gay men. That is very compelling evidence (notice I didn’t say conclusive) that sexuality is a biologically fixed trait.

No that isn’t “compelling evidence.” You’ve read a little, but not widely enough. Sexuality is not a “trait,” Not by any definition of any reputable scientist. Sexuality is multi-faceted, and the result of a complex set of factors, only some of which are inborn, more of which are environmental. Sexuality is not a static feature of any human being. It is dynamic, which in turn means that it is subject to influence. My earlier posts reference some reading material, one of which is a classic, the other of which is new and quite compelling for an understanding of how native appearances and assumptions can mislead an individual into thinking he or she was “born gay.”

 

[fix]

This is entirely the point. In this whole overly repetitive discussion, the bottom line is that sexual orientation is complex, and not the result of a single component. Whatever the genetics of SSA, environment is a significant factor, particularly in the deficit-reaction dynamic.

For an honest, unflinching insight into these dynamics, without rhetoric, read Sexual Authenticity.

Yes, the Church certainly welcomes all legitimate scientific research. The problem, imo, is that folks want to use a scientistic approach to this particular issue. What is the motivation for claiming certain sexual inclinations have a genetic basis? How would the scientific explanation change the moral truth of the matter?

 

[avflf]

On a lighter note:

Things to remember when quoting the bible and persecuting people.

Laura Schlessinger dispenses sex advice to people who call in to her radio show. Recently, she said that as an observant Orthodox Jew homosexuality is to her an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22 and cannot be condoned in any circumstance. Here are a few questions for her–

“Dear Dr. Laura.

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from your radio show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific Bible laws and how to follow them.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbours ***** to the zoning people. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. What do you think would be a fair price for her? She’s 18 and starting college. Will the slave buyer be required to continue to pay for her education by law?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence and threaten to call Human Resources.

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify?

Why can’t I own Canadians? Is there something wrong with them due to the weather?

e) I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should this be a neighbourhood improvement project? What is a good day to start? Should we begin with small stones? Kind of lead up to it?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. I mean, a shrimp just isn’t the same as a you-know-what.

Can you settle this?

g) Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here? Would contact lenses fall within some exception?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die? The Mafia once took out Albert Anastasia in a barbershop, but I’m not Catholic; is this ecumenical thing a sign that it’s ok?

i) I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev.24:10-16) Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.”

 

[fix]

Of course, the ceremonial law was done away with, yet the moral law was actually intensified. A facile reading of Scripture, without the proper authority, can lead to all types of erroneous conclusions.

 

[avflf]

Of course, the ceremonial law was done away with, yet the moral law was actually intensified. A facile reading of Scripture, without the proper authority, can lead to all types of erroneous conclusions.

I’m a bit confused here and I’m not sure what you mean regarding ceremonial law in the context of the thread. As far as I know there were 3 laws at play: ceremonial, sacrificial and moral. Under which one would you place the Leviticus injunction on homosexuality?

 

[larkin31]

Do you think that the whole of the Pentateuch should be confined to the dustbin as pseudo-history and questionable moral norms?

No. I would prefer to use the wisdom of the succeeding 2000 years of culture and science and history to cull the text.

 

[larkin31]

The problem is a philosophical one, not a scientific one. That is why the entire debate is circular. The premise, from the activists, is that there is some biological basis for same sex attraction as if such a basis is proof it is “natural”. That reasoning presupposes that any inclination scientists may identify is therefore “natural”. The problem is we must start from a correct understanding of man’s nature and that is not simply a question of genetics.

And, sexual acts are always choices.

But, the entire debate here is that because some may be born with a certain inclination the inclination is ordered correctly. My point is science can explain the physical reasons for a certain way people may act, or be inclined to act, yet such explanations cannot tell us what is right or wrong.

What is wrong with private consensual sex between two adults of the same gender?

 

[fix]

I’m a bit confused here and I’m not sure what you mean regarding ceremonial law in the context of the thread. As far as I know there were 3 laws at play: ceremonial, sacrificial and moral. Under which one would you place the Leviticus injunction on homosexuality?

Obviously, it is part of the moral law. This is known from Scripture, Tradition, and right reason.