Is Homosexuality Genetic?

[Werner]

So what are we supposed to confess werner?

How would you see a post like this one

About as genetic as kleptomania, alcoholism,
drug dependency, chronic lying, bestiality
etc. My genes made me do it

or like this one

I think that maybe one half of one percent of homosexuals are born with it (genetic defect). The other 99.5% are homosexual due to a lifestyle choice. Just my opinion.

or like this one

Even if genetic predisposition is likely, we are no more forced to have sex with the same sex than we are forced to have sex with children (as pedophiles are).

or like this one

which is why gay men are very concerned with their looks and why there is a disturbing closeness between homosexuality and pederasty.

or like this one

For more on the Nazi history and teh gay holocaust myth read ‘The Pink Swastika’ You can find a vesion online to download for free from a family organization site.

or like this one

The Nazis filled the ranks of the SS and Hitler’s bodyguards with homosexuals simply because they made better killers than heterosexual men.

or like this one

Homosexuals are irrational and are emotionally damaged individuals

or this one

Homosexuals are irrational and must be kept away from all offices of responsibility where clarity of thought and emotional stability are required!

as being respectful, compassionate, and sensitive and avoiding all signs of unjust discrimination?

So all those posts (and i copied just the worst ones) are contrary to the Catechism of the Catholic Church!

That is what you should consider to confess.

Werner

 

[fix]

Werner:

How would you see a post like this one or like this one
or like this one
or like this one
or like this one
or like this one
or like this one
or this one

as being respectful, compassionate, and sensitive and avoiding all signs of unjust discrimination?

So all those posts (and i copied just the worst ones) are contrary to the Catechism of the Catholic Church!

That is what you should consider to confess.

Werner

Huh? How do these contradict the CCC?

 

[buffalo]

The Catechism [of the Council of Trent], that popular and most authoritative epitome of Catholic theology, gives us the most complete and succinct definition of charity; it is full of wisdom and philosophy. Charity is a supernatural virtue which induces us to love God above all things and our neighbors as ourselves for the love of God. Thus, after God we ought to love our neighbor as ourselves, and this not just in any way, but for the love of God and in obedience to His law. And now, what is it to love? Amare est velle bonum, replies the philosopher. “To love is to wish good to him whom we love.” To whom does charity command us to wish good? To our neighbor, that is to say, not to this or that man only, but to everyone. What is that good which true love wishes? First of all supernatural good, then goods of the natural order which are not incompatible with it. All this is included in the phrase “for the love of God.”

It follows, therefore, that we can love our neighbor when displeasing him, when opposing him, when causing him some material injury, and even, on certain occasions, when depriving him of life; in short, all is reduced to this: Whether in the instance where we displease, oppose, or humiliate him, it is or is not for his own good, or for the good of someone whose rights are superior to his, or simply for the greater service of God.

If it is shown that in displeasing or offending our neighbor we act for his good, it is evident that we love him, even when opposing or crossing him. The physician cauterizing his patient or cutting off his gangrened limb may nonetheless love him. When we correct the wicked by restraining or by punishing them, we do nonetheless love them. This is charity—and perfect charity.

It is often necessary to displease or offend one person, not for his own good, but to deliver another from the evil he is inflicting. It is then an obligation of charity to repel the unjust violence of the aggressor; one may inflict as much injury on the aggressor as is necessary for defense. Such would be the case should one see a highwayman attacking a traveler. In this instance, to kill, wound, or at least take such measures as to render the aggressor impotent, would be an act of true charity.

The good of all good is the divine Good, just as God is for all men the Neighbor of all neighbors. In consequence, the love due to a man, inasmuch as he is our neighbor, ought always to be subordinated to that which is due to our common Lord. For His love and in His service we must not hesitate to offend men. The degree of our offense towards men can only be measured by the degree of our obligation to Him. Charity is primarily the love of God, secondarily the love of our neighbor for God’s sake. To sacrifice the first is to abandon the latter. Therefore, to offend our neighbor for the love of God is a true act of charity. Not to offend our neighbor for the love of God is a sin.

 

[buffalo]

Modern Liberalism reverses this order; it imposes a false notion of charity: our neighbor first, and, if at all, God afterwards. By its reiterated and trite accusations toward us of intolerance, it has succeeded in disconcerting even some staunch Catholics. But our rule is too plain and too concrete to admit of misconception. It is this: Sovereign Catholic inflexibility is sovereign Catholic charity. This charity is practiced in relation to our neighbor when, in his own interest, he is crossed, humiliated, and chastised. It is practiced in relation to a third party when he is defended from the unjust aggression of another, as when he is protected from the contagion of error by unmasking its authors and abettors and showing them in their true light as iniquitous and pervert, by holding them up to the contempt, horror, and execration of all. It is practiced in relation to God when, for His glory and in His service, it becomes necessary to silence all human considerations, to trample under foot all human respect, to sacrifice all human interests—and even life itself—to attain this highest of all ends. All this is Catholic inflexibility and inflexible Catholicity in the practice of that pure love which constitutes sovereign charity. The Saints are the types of this unswerving and sovereign fidelity to God, the heroes of charity and religion. Because in our times there are so few true inflexibles in the love of God, so also are there few uncompromisers in the order of charity. Liberal charity is condescending, affectionate, even tender in appearance, but at bottom it is an essential contempt for the true good of men, of the supreme interests of truth and [ultimately] of God. It is human self-love, usurping the throne of the Most High and demanding that worship which belongs to God alone.

From Liberlism is a Sin

 

[rlg94086]

Werner,

You skipped a few parts of the canon:

**CCC 2357 …**Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law…Under no circumstances can they be approved.

The posts here have been about the nature of the sin itself, not about the sinners. If someone is struggling with this “grave depravity”, we certainly want to help them as loving Christians. We are not called to accept or approve their lifestyle. On the contrary, we are to do this “under no circumstances”.

couragerc.net/

God Bless,

Robert.

 

[fix]

Buffalo, great post. Some are more concerned with offending their fellow human, than God.

 

[trevor]

You cannot be born homosexual…period.

ybiC,
Trevor

 

[Clyde-91]

As a Psychologist I thought I would weigh in about what the “Psychological Community” is and is not saying regarding homosexuality.

First, What it IS saying: 1) Homosexuality does not spring from errant socialization by parents of either sex during childhood or adolescence. There are many more poorly socialized kids who are NOT homosexual than are. 2) Homosexuality does not come from perverse sexual contact as a child or adolescent. 3) Looking at the brain structure/chemisty (post mortem) of homosexuals, there is a difference betwen a homosexual’s brain and a heterosexual’s brain (essentially different areas of the brain have more or less neural connections and some cellular tissue is slightly different) This does NOT mean they (the brains) are born that way. All of our brains look a bit different based on our life experiences and consistent behavior. Their brain structure/chemisty may appear different than a heterosexual because of frequent homosexual contact or thought patterns.

Now, What they ARE saying: 1) Homosexuality has both a biological and a social aspect. They say this about almost everything (murder, obsessive compulsive disorder, aggresssion etc.)-- there is an interaction between the biological makeup of someone and their lifelong socialization. The current arguments come from which variable plays a bigger role, when and how. From my personal experience there are Psychologists on both sides of the fence on this issue. 2) Thus far, there is NO evidence of a homosexual gene per se. Although that does not negate the signficance of the differences in the brain chemistry/makeup. 3) It is no longer considered a Psychiatric Disorder (as described in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual: the DSM- IV), because people can live “healthy, happy, productive” lives as homosexuals (please note that they obviously ignore the moral struggles and decay that these individuals face-- they only rate this on a purely societal level).

Hope this helps and frees up any confusion.

 

[fix]

Clyde-91:

As a Psychologist I thought I would weigh in about what the “Psychological Community” is and is not saying regarding homosexuality.

First, What it IS saying: 1) Homosexuality does not spring from errant socialization by parents of either sex during childhood or adolescence. There are many more poorly socialized kids who are NOT homosexual than are. 2) Homosexuality does not come from perverse sexual contact as a child or adolescent. 3) Looking at the brain structure/chemisty (post mortem) of homosexuals, there is a difference betwen a homosexual’s brain and a heterosexual’s brain (essentially different areas of the brain have more or less neural connections and some cellular tissue is slightly different) This does NOT mean they (the brains) are born that way. All of our brains look a bit different based on our life experiences and consistent behavior. Their brain structure/chemisty may appear different than a heterosexual because of frequent homosexual contact or thought patterns.

Now, What they ARE saying: 1) Homosexuality has both a biological and a social aspect. They say this about almost everything (murder, obsessive compulsive disorder, aggresssion etc.)-- there is an interaction between the biological makeup of someone and their lifelong socialization. The current arguments come from which variable plays a bigger role, when and how. From my personal experience there are Psychologists on both sides of the fence on this issue. 2) Thus far, there is NO evidence of a homosexual gene per se. Although that does not negate the signficance of the differences in the brain chemistry/makeup. 3) It is no longer considered a Psychiatric Disorder (as described in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual: the DSM- IV), because people can live “healthy, happy, productive” lives as homosexuals (please note that they obviously ignore the moral struggles and decay that these individuals face-- they only rate this on a purely societal level).

Hope this helps and frees up any confusion.

It was removed as a disorder due to political pressure. I do not want to be mean, but psychology can be legitmate and illegitimate and has done great harm to our culture. Pagans, homosexualists and relativists seem to gravitate toward this field.

Has the APA not endorsed “gay” marriage?

 

[Writer]

First, I also don’t subscribe to the genetic take on the issue. Even if it were true, however, how would that remove personal responsibility from the situation? I could be born with a genetic trait for violence, but that doesn’t excuse that behavior. The predisposition and heredity one possess simply represent the blank canvas (their life) which is theirs to decide how to paint. Sorry that sounds so corny, but you get the idea!

 

[wabrams]

fix:

It was removed as a disorder due to political pressure. I do not want to be mean, but psychology can be legitmate and illegitimate and has done great harm to our culture

Same can be said about doctors, lawyers, judges, financial advisors, economist, etc.

 

[fix]

wabrams:

Same can be said about doctors, lawyers, judges, financial advisors, economist, etc.

To a degree, yes you are correct, but psychologists can infleunce public opinion to a much greater degree. They have rationalized away sin. I did not know financial advisors are telling people masturbation is normal, homosexual sex is healthy, etc? The medical profession is off base as well.

 

[Clyde-91]

fix:

It was removed as a disorder due to political pressure.

The political pressure came for people to stop training therapists to treat homosexuality.

I do not want to be mean, but psychology can be legitmate and illegitimate and has done great harm to our culture

Certainly, illegitimate Psychologists can do harm to our culture, but if they are illegitimate Psychologists, then it really isn’t Psychology that is harming our culture.

Pagans, homosexualists and relativists seem to gravitate toward this field.

Hasn’t been my experience as a Psychologist. I have one colleague who is gay, one who is pagan and 7 who are Christian (2 being Catholic). Just like the general population, Psychology is diverse. I will agree that the media only likes to interview or showcase liberal Psychologists, but that is a general media problem. Not just with Psychologists.

Has the APA not endorsed “gay” marriage?

Yes, it has. But, that does NOT say anything about their stance on where homosexuality comes from. It comes from their belief that homosexuals shouldn’t be penalized for their sexual orientation.

 

[Clyde-91]

Writer:

First, I also don’t subscribe to the genetic take on the issue. Even if it were true, however, how would that remove personal responsibility from the situation? I could be born with a genetic trait for violence, but that doesn’t excuse that behavior. The predisposition and heredity one possess simply represent the blank canvas (their life) which is theirs to decide how to paint. Sorry that sounds so corny, but you get the idea!

You’ve hit the nail on the head! A biological or genetic (and most medical and psychological practitioners make a distinction) does not dictate your life! You choose-- there is PERSONAL responsibility. It’s the same thing with aggression, there is a biological and social link, but it isn’t that link that MAKES you act aggressively, you choose to do it. I thought you expressed it perfectly!

 

[fix]

Clyde-91:

The political pressure came for people to stop training therapists to treat homosexuality.

So, there was and is an agenda?

Certainly, illegitimate Psychologists can do harm to our culture, but if they are illegitimate Psychologists, then it really isn’t Psychology that is harming our culture.

Fair enough, but psychology must be grounded in the truth. It must start from a position that accepts there is a truth. Can you say that is the prevailing norm?

Hasn’t been my experience as a Psychologist. I have one colleague who is gay, one who is pagan and 7 who are Christian (2 being Catholic). Just like the general population, Psychology is diverse. I will agree that the media only likes to interview or showcase liberal Psychologists, but that is a general media problem. Not just with Psychologists.

Well, I think it is more than that. The group, on average, is not embracing of Christianity and is hostile to it in many ways.

Yes, it has. But, that does NOT say anything about their stance on where homosexuality comes from. It comes from their belief that homosexuals shouldn’t be penalized for their sexual orientation.

It comes from their belief it is not pathologic and reasonable to act out on their inclinations. It is not a minority view in your field I would imagine.

 

[Clyde-91]

fix:

To a degree, yes you are correct, but psychologists can infleunce public opinion to a much greater degree. They have rationalized away sin. I did not know financial advisors are telling people masturbation is normal, homosexual sex is healthy, etc? The medical profession is off base as well.

No, but the other professions say equally awful things: “Store up your treasure here on earth and don’t share it!”, “Take these birth control pills/condoms/abortion and do with your body what you want, forget about innocent lives”, “If someone makes you angry, go ahead and kill them. Because, if you pay me a lot of money -that you’ve stored up here on earth- I’ll be able to keep you out of jail!”…I think all professionals (and likewise the ‘average joe’) who are morally irresponsible are then responsible for the moral decay in our culture.

 

[wabrams]

fix:

To a degree, yes you are correct, but psychologists can infleunce public opinion to a much greater degree. They have rationalized away sin. I did not know financial advisors are telling people masturbation is normal, homosexual sex is healthy, etc? The medical profession is off base as well.

Unless this country becomes a theocracy, we’re going to have to deal with these things from time to time in varying degrees.

 

[Clyde-91]

fix:

So, there was and is an agenda?

If you mean an agenda to spread homosexuality, I don’t see it or feel it. I will say that Psychologists and the Psychological community are not immune the liberalization of American. What I meant was, since it was removed from the DSM-IV there was a pressure to stop training therapists to ‘treat’ homosexuality, but to still treat the obvious stresses and harships that come with it (I suspect those stresses and harships come from living a life removed from God).

fix:

Fair enough, but psychology must be grounded in the truth. It must start from a position that accepts there is a truth. Can you say that is the prevailing norm?

Truth- I think that most Psychologists think that truth is found in scientific research, obviously flawed. I’m not sure Psychology is different than the prevailing norm in our culture-- a general non-consensus on truth. In fact, I’m hard pressed to think of a professional career that finds itself grounded in the ultimate truth (save of course careers in the Church)

fix:

Well, I think it is more than that. The group, on average, is not embracing of Christianity and is hostile to it in many ways.

I think that most Psychologists are embracing of all faiths, including Christianity (not saying I agree with it, just the way I’ve experienced it). Again, there are some who are hostile to Christianity, and some who are not…I don’t see a general hatred of Christianity.

fix:

It comes from their belief it is not pathologic and reasonable to act out on their inclinations. It is not a minority view in your field I would imagine.

Actually, I do disagree with you here. Most think that acting out ‘inclinations’ can be harmful. Lets say I have an inclination to harm myself, or others. It would definately be considered pathological-- needing treatment. I think the difference comes in when you’re talking about WHICH inclinations are considered pathological.

 

[Lisa_N]

Clyde-91:

You’ve hit the nail on the head! A biological or genetic (and most medical and psychological practitioners make a distinction) does not dictate your life! You choose-- there is PERSONAL responsibility. It’s the same thing with aggression, there is a biological and social link, but it isn’t that link that MAKES you act aggressively, you choose to do it. I thought you expressed it perfectly!

Thank you for the additional information. I think it is likely there is some biological TENDENCY to homosexuality, just as in my family there is a TENDENCY to breast cancer and alcoholism. Because of these two potential issues, I’ve been very vigilant about both alcohol as well as the other risk factors for breast cancer.

The PROBLEM with the homosexual agenda is that they want to emphasize the biological (we can’t help it!!!) factors thereby taking away their responsibility. THe culture embracing, uplifting and supporting this inclination makes it even more difficult to address. It would be like my saying that if I’m born to have breast cancer, that’s just the way I am so I’m going to ignore the other risk factors and never get a mammogram. I mean this is who I am right???

As a result the detrimental aspects of this world are soft pedalled and anyone pointing out such facts as the promiscuous behavior that spread AIDS rapidly in the early days or the other physical problems (lower GI, STDs, mental health problems at higher rates) is called hateful and a bigot.

If someone really thinks about it, there is really no benefit to being homosexual but the lifestyle is glamorized on fashion runways and TV programs and in publications. Then we wonder why homosexuals think their lifestyle is equivalent to heterosexual marriage and they want white gowns, champagne and to raise children.

Lisa N

 

[Werner]

rlg94086:

Werner,

You skipped a few parts of the canon:

The posts here have been about the nature of the sin itself, not about the sinners. If someone is struggling with this “grave depravity”, we certainly want to help them as loving Christians. We are not called to accept or approve their lifestyle. On the contrary, we are to do this “under no circumstances”.

couragerc.net/

God Bless,

Robert.

I didn’t skip anything of interest as i wasn’t arguing about the sinfulness of homosexuality here but rather about how violating, disrespectful and offensive many posters here deal with homosexuals.

Don’t come with “we love the sinners, we ony hate the sin”

People who say homosexuels are like cleptomaniacs or notorical lyers, who say that homosexuals choose their “cross” (as the Catechism calls it), who say homosexuals are most likely pederasts, who say homosexuals are “better killers” than heterosexuals, and who say that homosexuals are irrational and must be kept away from all offices of responsibility where clarity of thought and emotional stability are required don’t talk about a sin, they talk about their brothers and sisters in Christ

And all those pharisees are crucifying Christ again with every post like that.

Yes, homosexuals may be sinners, but you people here are like the pharisee who prayed “thank you Lord that i’m not like the other people”. You will be given what you deserve some day if you don’t change your attitude.

Werner