Irrefutable Proof against being born gay?

[CarlaOLS]

Right, Ok, but here’s the thing. Even if genetics is a factor, it is only one factor. If the other factors are environmental causing the SSA to develop etc doesn’t it make sense that an individual with SSA, especially those who are Catholic or whose faith teaches that any homosexual acts or activity are sinful, doesn’t it make sense that those individuals should work to unravel the strings of their environment and past, their personality, and relationships to begin to change, heal and fulffill needs that helped to cause the SSA to develop?
Wouldn’t SSA afflictees be better served working towards a wholeness that allows them to live their faith fully, rather than engaging in fruitless efforts to change the Church’s teaching?
YES work to change people’s attitudes of charity towards all homosexuals, transgender, cross dressers etc… But also work to encourage, and at the very least do not discourage, those individuals who wish to search themselves and their past for healing and wholeness,

 

[larkin31]

Right, Ok, but here’s the thing. Even if genetics is a factor, it is only one factor. If the other factors are environmental causing the SSA to develop etc doesn’t it make sense that an individual with SSA, especially those who are Catholic or whose faith teaches that any homosexual acts or activity are sinful, doesn’t it make sense that those individuals should work to unravel the strings of their environment and past, their personality, and relationships to begin to change, heal and fulffill needs that helped to cause the SSA to develop?
Wouldn’t SSA afflictees be better served working towards a wholeness that allows them to live their faith fully, rather than engaging in fruitless efforts to change the Church’s teaching?
YES work to change people’s attitudes of charity towards all homosexuals, transgender, cross dressers etc… But also work to encourage, and at the very least do not discourage, those individuals who wish to search themselves and their past for healing and wholeness,

Those are some big "if"s. Sure, “if” people agree with you, then, yes, they would likely do what you suggest. Who is stopping them?

 

[Ashley42]

Is there irrefutable proof against the born gay theory?

Perhaps that’s the wrong thing to be asking. The important thing to know is not weather or not one is born gay, but can one change their sexuality?
We are not born with any sexual attraction, gay or straight. Aside from a few off the wall medical cases, as Children, our minds are not geared towards sex until we hit puberty. Therefore the cause (or causes, there could be more than one) of homosexuality do not have to be genetic to be out of our control.
We know there are gay people. We do not know why they are gay. The question is, can they change, and more importantly, should they?

It’s a simple fact that we cannot change our likes and dislikes. If that were the case, we would not have an obesity epedemic - people could simply choose to like salad instead of hamburgers. Mums would have no problems feeding their kids healthy food since they could just make the choice to enjoy fruit & veg and choose to dislike sweets & candy. The same applies to homosexuality.

The second question is, should homosexuals change?
Given a completely accepting community who understand that homosexuality is not something that can be changed, most homosexuals would have absolutely no reason to want to change. Why would they? Many homosexuals these days are very happy in their relationships, even with the vast amounts of prejudice they still face. There is nothing inherant about homosexuality which is harmful to a person either mentally or physically.
It is however a sad fact that traditionalists use past statistics to try to show a correlation between homosexuality and being unhappy, or homosexuality and medical problems, for example. What these people fail to look at is the reasons why these corrolations exist. Is homosexuality itself the cause of these problems? As yet, nobody has been able to offer any proof that answers that question as a “yes”. We can however clearly see that the effects of a society which condems homosexuality (either by the harsh laws of yesteryear or the laws of today that ban things like gay marriage, adoption, etc) do cause negative effects in homosexuals.
So we know that homosexuality itself does not cause ill effects in people, and we know that people can be perfectly happy and healthy as homosexuals. Should they change? No. Should society change to be more accepting? Yes.

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

On the contrary, I have an entire book here dedicated to the subject. Maybe you should have a read? It is called “Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity”.
amazon.com/Biological-Exuberance-Homosexuality-Natural-Diversity/dp/0312192398

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 is a very shortsighted answer from somebody who obviously does not have all the facts. There have been many theories as to why there are homosexuals, to throw one out in the air, the theory that homosexuals exist to ‘take up the slack’ and adopt offspring that otherwise would not have a parent for whatever reason.

there is nothing that prevents someone who says they are gay from having any kind of intercourse whatsoever. like every human being.

You mean, other than the sheer disgust that they feel when being sexually intimate with a member of the opposite sex, even just the thought of it? (Likely the same disgust you feel about being itimate with a member of the same sex)

 

[ladybri77]

Is there irrefutable proof against the born gay theory?

There is no known scientific “proof” of people being born gay. I’m not saying that it’s not possible, but there is no proof confirming this. However, this is much evidence of environmental factors influencing some people’s preferences.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

• Behavioural science is a science.
• Should we be looking in the material or spiritual realm for answers.

If homosexuality is an infection then the entire body is sick. It’s no good looking at a limb and saying it is only a part, when one part suffers all suffer with it.

“No man is an Iland intire of itself; every man is a peece of the Continent, a part of the maine…” (John Donne, 1573-1631)

 

[Felix_Il_Gatto]

Is there irrefutable proof against the born gay theory?

I don’t think there is any undeniable or irrefutable proof against it or for it.
I personally believe that we are all born without sexuality and that our sexuality develops through our experiences in life. So, in short, I don’t think anyone is born homosexual or born heterosexual.
Also, official Church teaching doesn’t seem to refute the idea that people don’t choose to be homosexual, since it says that these people are called to celibacy and should be accepted by the rest of the Church. The Church also does not consider homosexuality in itself sinful. Rather, it considers **acting **on homosexual desires to be sinful because it cannot result in procreation.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

I don’t think there is any undeniable or irrefutable proof against it or for it.
I personally believe that we are all born without sexuality and that our sexuality develops through our experiences in life. So, in short, I don’t think anyone is born homosexual or born heterosexual.

Is this a position you have chosen through logical deductional reasoning, or one chosen at random from a group of many possibilities?

Does the Church consider homosexuality in the same way She put a pause on Limbo?

 

[Mannyfit75]

As far as I remember, something like 10% of homosexual men are homosexual for this reason. The idea is that with successive male pregnancies, the mother’s immune system starts destroying the male hormones (or something along those lines) and the later male children have a higher percentage of being gay.

This is still an example of environment rather than genetics.

There have been studies done on twins and siblings, identical twins are more likely to share the same sexual orientation than fraternal twins than siblings. But it’s not 100%, like in all cases it’s a combination of genetic and environmental factors.

Homosexual activists often justify homosexuality by claiming that ten percent of the population is homosexual, meaning that it is a common and thus acceptable behavior.

But not all common behaviors are acceptable, and even if ten percent of the population were born homosexual, this would prove nothing. One hundred percent of the population is born with original sin and the desires flowing from it. If those desires manifest themselves in a homosexual fashion in ten percent of the population, all that does is give us information about the demographics of original sin.

But the fact is that the ten percent figure is false. It stems from the 1948 report by Alfred Kinsey, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. The study was profoundly flawed, as later psychologists studying sexual behavior have agreed. Kinsey’s subjects were drawn heavily from convicted criminals; 1,400 of his 5,300 final subjects (twenty-six percent) were convicted sex offenders—a group that by definition is not representative of normal sexual practices.

Furthermore, the ten percent figure includes people who are not exclusively homosexual but who only engaged in some homosexual behavior for a period of time and then stopped—people who had gone through a fully or partially homosexual “phase” but who were not long-term homosexuals. (For a critique of Kinsey’s research methods, see Kinsey, Sex, and Fraud, by Dr. Judith Reisman and Edward Eichel [Lafayette, Louisiana: Lochinvar & Huntington House, 1990].)

Recent and more scientifically accurate studies have shown that only around one to two percent of the population is homosexual

 

[ladybri77]

I don’t think there is any undeniable or irrefutable proof against it or for it.
I personally believe that we are all born without sexuality and that our sexuality develops through our experiences in life. So, in short, I don’t think anyone is born homosexual or born heterosexual.
Also, official Church teaching doesn’t seem to refute the idea that people don’t choose to be homosexual, since it says that these people are called to celibacy and should be accepted by the rest of the Church. The Church also does not consider homosexuality in itself sinful. Rather, it considers **acting **on homosexual desires to be sinful because it cannot result in procreation.

Right, but the church says it is “disordered”. When someone starts to have those feelings, a light should go off that maybe there’s something wrong here and delve deeper into the possible psychological, spiritual or emotional reasons behind it.

To the previous poster, Felix II Gatto, I meant there is no proof in the “medical” science realm that there is a gay gene. I have heard of and read many psychological case studies and testimonials of people who have some kind of psychological/emotional issues that may obviously and possibly facilitate same sex attraction.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Mannyfit
Heterosexual activists often justify heterosexual activity by claiming that 90% of the population is heterosexual, meaning that it is common and thus acceptable behaviour. Do we justify ourselves by our common practice, or by what we think suitable? As you go on to say. You premis a statement with which I concur.

In your opinion, what is it to be homosexual, and is sexuality a static or malleable behavioural mode?

(Malleable dictionary definition: “that can be shaped by hammering, educable, pliable” in this context seems appropriate.)

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

We are all called to celibacy and some receive an additional vocation, to go forth and multiply: spiritually and physically our original state is one of virginity.

 

[Felix_Il_Gatto]

Is this a position you have chosen through logical deductional reasoning, or one chosen at random from a group of many possibilities?

I chose it through deductional reasoning. Children aren’t sexual creatures. Therefore, children are born asexual. Many of our experiences in childhood effect the way we view the world. Sexuality is one means through which we are able to view the world.

It is my own theory. I have no idea what the truth is. You don’t either. No one does except for God Himself. We all just have theories regarding this topic.

If you do not mind my asking, what is your position and how did you choose it?

Does the Church consider homosexuality in the same way She put a pause on Limbo?

Do you truly believe that unbaptized children are seperated from the Glory of a Just God solely because of the ignorance (as in “lack of knowledge”, not “stupidity”) or laziness of their parents?

 

[Felix_Il_Gatto]

Right, but the church says it is “disordered”. When someone starts to have those feelings, a light should go off that maybe there’s something wrong here and delve deeper into the possible psychological, spiritual or emotional reasons behind it.

Yes. I should have included this in my answer. I was in no way trying to mis-state the position of the Church.

To the previous poster, Felix II Gatto, I meant there is no proof in the “medical” science realm that there is a gay gene. I have heard of and read many psychological case studies and testimonials of people who have some kind of psychological/emotional issues that may obviously and possibly facilitate same sex attraction.

I agree. There most likely is not a “gay gene”. However, I also don’t believe there is a “straight gene”. I think it is all based on our psychological/emotional experiences throughout our lives.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

I chose it through deductional reasoning. Children aren’t sexual creatures. Therefore, children are born asexual. Many of our experiences in childhood effect the way we view the world. Sexuality is one means through which we are able to view the world. It is my own theory. I have no idea what the truth is. You don’t either. No one does except for God Himself. We all just have theories regarding this topic.

 

[ladybri77]

It is my own theory. I have no idea what the truth is. You don’t either. No one does except for God Himself. We all just have theories regarding this topic.

I beg your pardon, but we have been given the Truth through Holy Scripture and the teachings of the Catholic church. Why do you deny the obvious truth through Scripture and what God says about it there? We are also given the Truth through the Holy Spirit that when we open our hearts and minds to Jesus, He gives us His Holy Spirit who is Truth.

These are not just a bunch of opinions and theories based on our own made up beliefs, but this is truly what the Word of God says with Genesis and Romans being just a few, and with Jesus speaking against perversion in the New Testament.

We all were created as heterosexual (see Genesis), (and your own obvious anatomy.) “For God created them male and female…that they should leave their mother and father and become one flesh”.

 

[Kevin54]

“I chose it through deductional reasoning. Children aren’t sexual creatures. Therefore, children are born asexual. Many of our experiences in childhood effect the way we view the world. Sexuality is one means through which we are able to view the world.”

Children are indeed sexual creatures, they just don’t have the moral (depending on one’s viewpoint–garbage or knowledge). Infant boys will have erections in the morning and other times. Both baby boys and girls have been observed fondling their gentialia for pleasure (and curiousity). We, as adults prefer not to thing of children as being sexual beings. Just as our teenage children definitely prefer not to think of their parents being sexual beings, despite the evidence obvious to their existence.

Sexuality is a gift from God, it is not necessary for procreation to have an orgasm (in men, the two [ejaculation and orgasm] occur almost simulataneous, and for many women, they may never have an orgasm.

The endless chatter of genetics, intrawomb machinations, including multiple male siblings theory, not to mention it is difficult to be a male, the right chemical sequences must kick in time or one could be born with undetermined sex or a girl, and spirituality.
Perhaps in the end, we should let God decide how individuals have handled this gift of sexuality and the feelings involved in it.

 

[Kolbe300]

There may be a small fraction of souls who are meant to carry this heavy cross and never fully experience thier heterosexuality, (but are meant to live a chaste life), but the problem with that is most sufferers would place themselves in the category of “incurable” avoiding the hard work and daily struggle required of healing the past and of change.

Hi again CarlaOLS! Once again, I see what you’re saying, but I’m seeing a problem. If some souls are truly meant to carry this cross and never experience their heterosexuality (assuming there IS heterosexuality there), wouldn’t that mean at least those souls are, in fact, “incurable”? Let’s say, for arguments sake, that I am actually called to carry this cross of SSA, regardless of it’s genesis. What if God is asking me to discover a deeper love and a deeper communion with him by offering myself, including my body, to Him alone. What if SSA leads me to the realization of that new, pure, heavenly kind of love. Would I want to be “cured” or “healed” from that cross? My answer: absolutely not. I’ve said it before, but I spent more time than I care to remember begging God to heal/change/cure my homosexual orientation. I will not spend ONE more second doing that. My prayer is and will always be that I may become the very person God wants me to be. Gay, straight, whatever…it doesn’t matter as long as it’s what God wants for me.

Wouldn’t SSA afflictees be better served working towards a wholeness that allows them to live their faith fully, rather than engaging in fruitless efforts to change the Church’s teaching?

Yes! All persons, regardless of sexuality, are better served by working towards a wholeness that allows them to live their faith fully.

YES work to change people’s attitudes of charity towards all homosexuals, transgender, cross dressers etc… But also work to encourage, and at the very least do not discourage, those individuals who wish to search themselves and their past for healing and wholeness.

I agree with you. I wouldn’t discourage anyone from wanting to look to their past to see if they can find the reasons “why”. At the same time, I will always avoid telling someone that they aren’t or can’t be “whole” because they haven’t examined their past with a therapist. My entire argument is that one does not HAVE to find the secret ingredient or ingredients from their past to be whole, and I believe there are plenty of SSA folks out there who aren’t in need of healing at all. Why? Because you don’t heal a cross, you bear it. If we assume someone needs healing, we assume they are broken. I, for one, believe there are some SSA people out there who aren’t broken at all. They may very well be exactly as God wants them to be. Whose toes do we step on when we demand they “change”? (I know you don’t demand anyone changes, I’m just making a point.)

As always, Peace!
Kolbe

 

[Felix_Il_Gatto]

Leading us into a theology of relativistic principle, removing us from the gift of God’s Grace into one of self-determination; and theological truth becomes a purely subjective experience.

The Church also leaves, for example, the Apparitions of Our Lady of the Rosary in Fatima up to our own relative experiences concerning the appartion, which allows us to choose as individuals if we want to believe it or not. Is the Church then allowing this “theology of the relativistic principle” to remove us away from God’s Grace because they allow us to have opinions that they don’t relegate?
The Church teaches nothing against my theory. So how is my having a theory regarding this matter taking me away from God’s grace?

Grace. What is sanctifying Grace? It is none other than the life of God Himself imparted to the soul, whereby man is raised, in a true sense, to the divine level and by which man becomes a friend and a child of God, an heir to heaven.

Positive dogmatic theology is concerned with doctrines that have been proposed to our belief by the Teaching Authority of the Church in Revelation, Scripture and Tradition. According to St Thomas Aquinas, theology is a true science, because it uses as principles the securely founded basic truths of Divine Revelation and draws from these new knowledge by a strict scientific method and unites them in a closed system. Pope Pius X1, in the Apostolic Institution “Deus scientiarum Dominus” 1931, directs that the speculative exposition is to proceed “according to the principles and teaching of St Thomas Aquinas” (Article 29)

Despite the fact that a Truth is not proposed for belief by the Church, one becomes convinced that it is immediately revealed by God according to the opinion of many theologians, and one is bound to believe it with Divine Faith.

So, you believe that homosexuality is a grace from God? Or are you simply using symantics to ease your way out of my original question, which was: What is your specific theory about homosexuality’s causes?

Those who, in innocent ignorance, do not know the true Church of Christ will not be cast out. This is Divine Justice which is clearly proved in the Scriptures.

So, only those babies whose parents were Catholics are damned to Limbo? Or do you not believe in the Limbo of the Infants? I’m sorry, maybe I’m just stupid, but you seem to speak in half-riddles.

 

[Felix_Il_Gatto]

When did Christ say, “Homosexuals are born heterosexual”? Where did Christ say, “All people are born heterosexual”?
Yes, Adam and Eve were created male and female, but they were also the only humans on earth. Maybe if God had created multiple men and women in Genesis, Adam would have been more attracted to a man. We don’t know because God made it so that the human race could be propagated by only making two human beings at that time.
The Bible condemns homosexual acts (along with the eating of shellfish, the wearing of mixed fabrics, crop rotation, and women not covering their heads when they pray), but it never condemns persons with homosexual tendencies.
I don’t believe I have denied any “obvious” truth. Nothing in faith is “obvious”. That is why faith is called a mystery.

I beg your pardon, but we have been given the Truth through Holy Scripture and the teachings of the Catholic church. Why do you deny the obvious truth through Scripture and what God says about it there? We are also given the Truth through the Holy Spirit that when we open our hearts and minds to Jesus, He gives us His Holy Spirit who is Truth.

These are not just a bunch of opinions and theories based on our own made up beliefs, but this is truly what the Word of God says with Genesis and Romans being just a few, and with Jesus speaking against perversion in the New Testament.

We all were created as heterosexual (see Genesis), (and your own obvious anatomy.) “For God created them male and female…that they should leave their mother and father and become one flesh”.

 

[RobbyS]

I don’t think there is any undeniable or irrefutable proof against it or for it.
I personally believe that we are all born without sexuality and that our sexuality develops through our experiences in life. So, in short, I don’t think anyone is born homosexual or born heterosexual.
Also, official Church teaching doesn’t seem to refute the idea that people don’t choose to be homosexual, since it says that these people are called to celibacy and should be accepted by the rest of the Church. The Church also does not consider homosexuality in itself sinful. Rather, it considers **acting **on homosexual desires to be sinful because it cannot result in procreation.

The Church says that homosexuality is “intrinsically disordered.” That is another way of saying, psychologically all screwed up. The gays hate this language, in part because they ARE all screwed up. Not to say that the rest of us aren’t a little screwed up sexually, because sexuality is a hard thing for anything to handle. It makes us all crazy sometimes. Gays are just crazier.