Is homosexuality just emptiness?

[at9009]

I would hope so, but from my experience it seems like some – not all, but some – posters speak of homosexual persons as though they were subjects to perform experiments on.

When you think of people in the abstract of theoretical 'homosexual person’s rather than John Doe or Jane Doe, a friend who struggles with this particular cross, it is very easy to not realize how insensitive, depersonalizing, dehumanizing, and discouraging some of the discussions can be. I’m trying to work on exercising my charity and looking for the best in people. Like I have said before, I’ve been dealing with this issue personally so I’ve had to really invest in understanding the topic, seeing what I believe and why, and ultimately really invested in trying to find ways to live out my life under a Catholic ethic.

There are definite posters on here who seem more interested in the culture war mentality but that is hard to defuse and a natural tendency I think when one feels on the defensive. An example that was recent was a poster asked something to the extend of how to reach out to gay/ssa Christians and secular people alike to help them see a Catholic ethics and look to Christianity. The responses were basically well why would they agree with it and one person pulling Romans to imply that they must just have hardened hearts (I guess to imply why try, it’s unclear).

The issue a theme I find discouraging is that in some cases if a person talks about struggling to accept or live out a Catholic sexual ethic when dealing with this cross, the response more often than not feels like ‘suck it up and if not, then don’t let the door hit you on the way out.’ Yes, the Catholic teaching of same sex sexual actions as intrinsically disordered isn’t hard to understand. However, the perception is that for a same sex attracted individual is to follow God, they must give up all possibilities of love, endure a life of loneliness, and honestly feel like they are in the middle between two worlds. It takes time, compassion, patience, and charity to help break that narrative and show that although a celibate vocation is a challenge with trials and tribulations; it is not one without love, single does not mean alone, and it can lead to God affirming and fulfilling life.

When someone is struggling with a difficult cross, support (even small gestures) is incredibly important. Otherwise, the small victories are going to feel meaningless, the failures inevitable leading to the one of two conclusions: either they’ll think their eternally damned so why bother (self-harming pathway) or lose faith all entirely and just live out a secular life).

 

[Thorolfr]

Next - heterosexuality is not deemed “normal” by virtue of being in the majority - but by virtue of reasoned observation. Two men exchanging their gametes makes no sense at all. The intended venue for the male ejaculate is evident by simple observation. Thus your remark about minorities misses the point entirely.

So is reproduction the only intended purpose for sex? Is it possible that it could have more than ONE purpose?

If I eat some food, my saliva starts the digestion process (there are enzymes in saliva that do this), moistens the food, etc. It’s connected with eating. But what if I lick a stamp? Is that a bad use of saliva? Or what if two people engage in kissing and saliva is exchanged, is that an improper thing to do considering that it doesn’t seem to have anything to do with eating or digestion?

 

[WingsOfEagles]

I have a new theory on homosexuality (specifically male homosexuality).

I believe people for sure are gay in that they are highly inclined toward liking other men. But are they born that way? I doubt it.

It seems a lot of gay men have had sort of broken or isolated childhoods and seem to turn to the gay scene as an easy form of love of acceptance and even validation which they haven’t really had before.

I also sort of object to the way the gay lifestyle is portayed in the media. Mostly the idea that they are happy and festive people, because the more I see of it (and based off several gay friends I have) it just strikes me as something to fill a massive hole in their lives/souls.

could this be true?

As someone with a gay brother, no, this does not hold true.

 

[Thorolfr]

As someone with a gay brother, no, this does not hold true.

I’m gay and I had a perfectly normal childhood and have a happy adult hood. I live with my partner, socialize with both gay and straight friends, go with my partner to a Lutheran church every Sunday, go on vacations, go to the movies sometimes and do just about everything most straight people do. I’m not unhappy and don’t feel any emptiness.

 

[Peter_J]

So is reproduction the only intended purpose for sex? Is it possible that it could have more than ONE purpose?

But that doesn’t make gay sex morally permissible. Or contraception, masturbation, etc. for that matter.

(Pardon me for jumping in.)

 

[Thorolfr]

But that doesn’t make gay sex morally permissible. Or contraception, masturbation, etc. for that matter.

(Pardon me for jumping in.)

Rau’s argument about the purpose of gametes wasn’t based on morality.

 

[Peter_J]

Rau’s argument about the purpose of gametes wasn’t based on morality.

I agree with his conclusion (see preceding post) … Can’t entirely speak to his argument; some aspects of it I’ve never heard before.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I have a new theory on homosexuality (specifically male homosexuality).

I believe people for sure are gay in that they are highly inclined toward liking other men. But are they born that way? I doubt it.

It seems a lot of gay men have had sort of broken or isolated childhoods and seem to turn to the gay scene as an easy form of love of acceptance and even validation which they haven’t really had before.

I also sort of object to the way the gay lifestyle is portayed in the media. Mostly the idea that they are happy and festive people, because the more I see of it (and based off several gay friends I have) it just strikes me as something to fill a massive hole in their lives/souls.

could this be true?

Everyone in this thread has an opinion, but few of them are really qualified to speak authoritatively. One person who is qualified wrote this article:

The Traumatic Foundation of Male Homosexuality
Joseph Nicolosi, PhD
crisismagazine.com/2016/traumatic-foundation-male-homosexuality

Dr. Nicolosi is the Clinical Director of the Thomas Aquinas Psychological Clinic in Encino, CA and author of four books on homosexuality, including Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality and Shame and Attachment Loss. To learn more, visit JosephNicolosi.com.

 

[Thorolfr]

Everyone in this thread has an opinion, but few of them are really qualified to speak authoritatively. One person who is qualified wrote this article:

The Traumatic Foundation of Male Homosexuality
Joseph Nicolosi, PhD
crisismagazine.com/2016/traumatic-foundation-male-homosexuality

Dr. Nicolosi is the Clinical Director of the Thomas Aquinas Psychological Clinic in Encino, CA and author of four books on homosexuality, including Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality and Shame and Attachment Loss. To learn more, visit JosephNicolosi.com.

Except that Nicolosi’s theories about homosexuality are not accepted by the vast majority of his peers who are psychologists and psychiatrists. They also run counter to the lived experience of many gay people, myself included. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, “NARTH has emerged as the preeminent source of what many regard as ‘junk science’”

 

[Thorolfr]

Mr. Nicolosi is a proponent of the theory that boys become gay because they had a distant/abusive/absent father and therefore did not have a “normal masculine identification process.” I’ve seen that theory being pushed for decades. It was also the theory that appeared in the book by the Rev. Tim LaHaye (the author of the Left Behind series), The Unhappy Gays: What Everyone Should Know About Homosexuality. Nicolosi is also a supporter of “conversion therapy”/“reparative therapy”.

 

[at9009]

Everyone in this thread has an opinion, but few of them are really qualified to speak authoritatively. One person who is qualified wrote this article:

The Traumatic Foundation of Male Homosexuality
Joseph Nicolosi, PhD
crisismagazine.com/2016/traumatic-foundation-male-homosexuality

Dr. Nicolosi is the Clinical Director of the Thomas Aquinas Psychological Clinic in Encino, CA and author of four books on homosexuality, including Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality and Shame and Attachment Loss. To learn more, visit JosephNicolosi.com.

I’m sorry but Nicolosi theories are not proven and not helpful at all. I have had friends go through his program only to end with more scars and issues than when they started. His false hope and false support caused a lot of damage to many people. His entire research his based on poor sociological research that is a best correlation = causation assumptions.

He is not a good source and I would never recommend any same sex attracted Christian from approaching him. He will do more harm than help.

spiritualfriendship.org/2012/07/13/false-hope/
spiritualfriendship.org/2014/12/16/on-the-expectation-of-change/
spiritualfriendship.org/2014/02/01/honesty-about-orientation-change/

 

[Rau]

So is reproduction the only intended purpose for sex? Is it possible that it could have more than ONE purpose?

All the purposes are bound together in that one act. They are a “job lot”! An act which by its very nature transfers gametes. How could one, on seeing this, conclude that the appropriate sexual (repeat: sexual) partner for man is another man? It requires either very tight closing of ones eyes and ears, or some kind of mental gymnastics to reach that conclusion.

 

[Rau]

…However, the perception is that for a same sex attracted individual is to follow God, they must give up all possibilities of love, endure a life of loneliness, and honestly feel like they are in the middle between two worlds. It takes time, compassion, patience, and charity to help break that narrative and show that although a celibate vocation is a challenge with trials and tribulations; it is not one without love, single does not mean alone, and it can lead to God affirming and fulfilling life.

When someone is struggling with a difficult cross, support (even small gestures) is incredibly important. Otherwise, the small victories are going to feel meaningless, the failures inevitable leading to the one of two conclusions: either they’ll think their eternally damned so why bother (self-harming pathway) or lose faith all entirely and just live out a secular life).

While I cannot appreciate the issues you speak of “from an insiders perspective”, your outlook sounds exactly right to me.

 

[Thorolfr]

All the purposes are bound together in that one act. They are a “job lot”! An act which by its very nature transfers gametes. How could one, on seeing this, conclude that the appropriate sexual (repeat: sexual) partner for man is another man? It requires either very tight closing of ones eyes and ears, or some kind of mental gymnastics to reach that conclusion.

The only purpose of sex is not reproduction. Even among other primates besides humans (apes, for example), homosexual behavior sometimes takes place perhaps for the purpose of social bonding. So sex can also serve social purposes, not just reproductive ones. Why assume that every behavior that humans and animals engage in has only one purpose or that a body part can only do one thing?

 

[Rau]

The only purpose of sex is not reproduction…Why assume that every behavior that humans and animals engage in has only one purpose or that a body part can only do one thing?

Straw man. I didn’t argue or rely that position at all. You manufacture it - its the way you “close your eyes and ears” to what the very nature of your body tells you must be - that the natural sexual partner for man is woman.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Straw man. I didn’t argue or rely that position at all. You manufacture it - its the way you “close your eyes and ears” to what the very nature of your body tells you must be - that the natural sexual partner for man is woman.

Here is the tension.

On the one hand, we have a received (traditional) understanding of sexuality maintained by the Christian tradition. This tradition, testified by scriptural passages and interpretations by the living church, says that God made man for woman and woman for man, so as to complement each other sexually and in others ways, as well as to bring forth children and so form a unit around these children. Okay.

But on the other hand, there exist real people with real same-sex attraction. Sometimes this attraction is so deep, so part of one’s personality, that it can truly be regarded as an “orientation.” People who have same-sex attraction or identify as gay will tell you that being homosexual defines or affects how one relates to people. How one behaves and acts. It’s not only about being tempted to perform certain sexual acts, which do appear to be outside “nature” in the sense of traditional Christian understanding of sex-for-procreation. Sometimes, sadly, it takes being gay (having SSA) to understand what this truly feels like. It’s irritating when people – often users of CAF – limit the discussion to gay sex. It’s unfortunate.

True, our desires don’t legitimize the ends or acts that we, in fact, desire. But the key here, if we as Christians are to make any progress in truly dialoguing with and caring for one another, is to understand how gay people experience what it means to “be gay.” I’m not talking about a cultural classification or political movement. I’m talking about deep feelings and inclinations. The desire to not be alone, the desire to have family, to form intimate relationships. The way the personality is truly different because one is gay/SSA. Everyone knows that sometimes there is a certain “something” about a gay person’s personality. It’s more than a temptation to a sexual act.

All of this is to say that the gay person does not simply “close ones ears and eyes to nature” (as you say). Traditional teaching and even observation may show sex is for procreation and that man-woman complement each other in a physical way. But the tension remains, for the gay person is also paying attention to their own selves. They are “listening” to their innermost wants and needs. That is why there is such a struggle to begin with. How they experience themselves simply does not mesh with how the church considers creation to be.

Therefore, you get people – even on these forums – who want to remain Christian by considering traditional sexual teaching to be wanting and instead adopting an affirming position. You also get people who, because they are gay, can testify that there is more to the story than just focusing on sexual acts, or this psychological study, or this STD, or this recent report on adopted children and gay parents.

We have to be willing to listen. Gay people cannot just be told NO! by the church. There has to be a YES paved by the church. As someone said, no one is called to a vocation of NO. But the church must better develop how gay people are to find a place in the church.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Except that Nicolosi’s theories about homosexuality are not accepted by the vast majority of his peers who are psychologists and psychiatrists. They also run counter to the lived experience of many gay people, myself included. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, “NARTH has emerged as the preeminent source of what many regard as ‘junk science’”

Mr. Nicolosi is a proponent of the theory that boys become gay because they had a distant/abusive/absent father and therefore did not have a “normal masculine identification process.” I’ve seen that theory being pushed for decades. It was also the theory that appeared in the book by the Rev. Tim LaHaye (the author of the Left Behind series), The Unhappy Gays: What Everyone Should Know About Homosexuality. Nicolosi is also a supporter of “conversion therapy”/“reparative therapy”.

I’m sorry but Nicolosi theories are not proven and not helpful at all. I have had friends go through his program only to end with more scars and issues than when they started. His false hope and false support caused a lot of damage to many people. His entire research his based on poor sociological research that is a best correlation = causation assumptions.

He is not a good source and I would never recommend any same sex attracted Christian from approaching him. He will do more harm than help.

spiritualfriendship.org/2012/07/13/false-hope/
spiritualfriendship.org/2014/12/16/on-the-expectation-of-change/
spiritualfriendship.org/2014/02/01/honesty-about-orientation-change/

If what you say is correct (and I have no reason to believe that it isn’t), then I will not reference Dr. Nicolosi again.

However, given the pro-gay position of the media, our education system, and our legislative and legal systems, if Dr. Nicolosi is correct, how would we ever know?

You may have the last word.

 

[Peter_J]

Except that Nicolosi’s theories about homosexuality are not accepted by the vast majority of his peers who are psychologists and psychiatrists. They also run counter to the lived experience of many gay people, myself included. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, “NARTH has emerged as the preeminent source of what many regard as ‘junk science’”

Indeed, the last thing I want is for people to get the idea that Nicolosi represents conservatives overall … or even that he represents the Catholic Church, which is a major concern because very very often people see something posted on this forum and automatically assume it’s the Catholic view.

 

[Peter_J]

Mr. Nicolosi is a proponent of the theory that boys become gay because they had a distant/abusive/absent father and therefore did not have a “normal masculine identification process.” I’ve seen that theory being pushed for decades. It was also the theory that appeared in the book by the Rev. Tim LaHaye (the author of the Left Behind series), The Unhappy Gays: What Everyone Should Know About Homosexuality.

I didn’t know that, but I can’t say I’m too surprised. Evangelicals/Fundamentalists can be pretty nuts.

 

[at9009]

If what you say is correct (and I have no reason to believe that it isn’t), then I will not reference Dr. Nicolosi again.

However, given the pro-gay position of the media, our education system, and our legislative and legal systems, if Dr. Nicolosi is correct, how would we ever know?

You may have the last word.

The issue with secular media is this: They assume that if something is genetic or congenital that means it must be okay. That itself is a faulty assumption. We already know we live in a broken world and all have disordered desires. To assume something is unchosen therefore morally okay is a weak argument. We could get into the idol of romantic love too but that is an entirely different discussion (that does greatly impact this issue).

The problem with Dr. Nicolsi is this. Some people who have this particular cross and want nothing more than to have it taken away go to him. He basically promises that He knows the cause (after all he is an expert with a PHD). His theories are generally relating to poor same sex parent relationship or overbearing opposite sex parent which are unproven and at best correlative not causative. The truth is we don’t know the etiology, it’s faulty to assume that its the the same cause for everyone, it’s false hope to basically promise change, and it’s misleading to define someone as straight (which some research does) when the only thing different is they are now celibate with same sex attractions and not sexually active.

Theories like his have a lot of issues because of skewed perspective. All healing is looked through the lens of sexuality. If there is a poor father-son relationship, the mark of healing is skewed to reduction or elimination of same sex attractions. It should be to heal the fractured relationship and if that alleviates some attraction great, if not, then you at least healed that wound and built up the relationship. These type of theories put so much hope in to making one straight and removing this cross that people don’t really learn how to carry their cross. Not to mention if change doesn’t happen, they can become distraught to the point of suicide (and some have taken their lives sadly).

Orientation has seemed possible for some while for many others it has not changed. The life experiences of people with same attraction are not universal and there aren’t really this easy causative link one can find. We live in a broken world that is affected by the fall, society, social factors… same sex attractions is just one way (It’s not like heterosexual people don’t also experience many disordered sexual desires: the difference is they have one outlet that is morally acceptable according to Catholic teaching while same sex sexual actions are always intrinsically disordered and not acceptable according to the Church’s teachings). Instead of trying to find the etiology and focus on fixing the same sex attraction/gay person, maybe it would be more productive to help support them and find a way to live within a Catholic sexual ethic. If healing came at some point that resulted in reduction in same sex attractions great. However, our primary focus is not and should not be to eliminate same sex attractions and become straight but rather to live a holy and acceptable life to God which could mean just bearing this thorn in the side this side of Heaven.