The "Gay Gene": Does it Matter?

[itsjustdave1988]

I am being forced to leave the one person in this life that loves me though. That is incredibly cruel.

My heart goes out to you. All I can say is that you are not alone, although your circumstances are clearly your alone.

For instance, I know someone who due to illness, can never have sex with their husband again. I know of another who sustained injury in combat and can never have sex again. There are a gazillion other stories just like these. Sometimes the circumstances which demand that we live a life of celibacy is something thrust upon us.

Yet love is not the same as sex. There a ways which one can love another and still be celibate.

I recommend the following book:

Courage to be Chaste
by Benedict J Groeschel

 

[Al_Clerc]

To quote the catechism “homosexual acts are 'objectively disordered”. While I know and understand the Church’s teaching that word ‘objectively’ says something important. A person who has an exclusively homosexual orientation is objectively disordered while he/she may be subjectively ‘ordered’ toward homosexuality. The American Psychological Association says that a homosexual orientation is normal i.e. for a homosexual. While understandably we cannot justify all homosexual acts it seems that in view of the fact that the Church and for the most part society does not grant a sanctioned union between gays and lesbians then are we to assume that all gays and lesbians are called to celibacy? I think not. It seems that we unfairly burden those with this orientation to a life of loneliness without attempting to understand the natural need for companionship and intimacy. Let those who advocate practise what they preach. Convince me that i am wrong.

 

[Bennie_P]

CCC
2357
2358

Church says “probably” to gay gene, “no” to homosexual activity, “yes” to loving them without indicating approval of the sinful activity.

that last part-- that “yes” applies to all people and any visible sin.

Deep seated doesn’t equate to “gay gene” nor does it give a definition of what the Church means by deep seated.

As to the OPs question, does it matter, that is, the idea there is a gay gene? Consider this two reasons why it does matter, first, the idea that one is born that way gives an excuse for the person not strive toward a chaste and holy life, though it may be a heavy cross to bare, it is better to bare the cross then to give in and live in a lifestyle that is destructive to life. Wouldn’t you think?
Two if there is such a thing as a “gay gene” then those that have no compassion to those that suffer with SSA, wouldn’t it give them an excuse to correct the genetic “defect”. As in genetic engineering, eugenics, selective breeding, genocide by “sexual orientation”, well do you get my drift OP?.

Many in the gay rights movement in many circles has drifted away from the idea of “gay gene” and moved the issue to more a “rights” issue. Further eveidence that it is really an issue of choice. And that is why for so many it is more important to negate moral issues as they are defined by the Church. The Church, though it has compassion for those that have “deep seated” homosexual inclinations, giving them the benefit of the doubt of the cause, recognize it is still a choice to act on them no matter the root of them.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

… then are we to assume that all gays and lesbians are called to celibacy? I think not.

It is not morally licit for men to have sex with men, or women to have sex with women, no matter the intent or circumstances. They are not “necessarily” called to celibacy. Perhaps they are called to therapy.

For instance, one homosexual I know of, after his mother died, was abandoned by his father. The father left him with his mother. His mother always wanted to have a girl, so from the time she had custody of him (age 2 onward), the grandmother dressed him in girls clothing. Now, is it likely that “nurture” or lack of it may be the principal cause of at least this man’s same-sex attraction? I think that it is a least likely.

Another homosexual I know had bed-wetting problems into his teenage years. The father was abusive, and beat him unmercifully for wetting his bed. He told me that his father forced him in his teenage years to wear only a diaper outside in view of all his neighbors and friends. Again, is it probable that a defect in parental nurturing may have had something to do with this man’s same-sex attraction? This too seems likley.

According to the Spitzer study, some individuals whose sexual orientation is predominantly homosexual can, with some form of reparative therapy, become predominantly heterosexual.

It seems that we unfairly burden those with this orientation to a life of loneliness without attempting to understand the natural need for companionship and intimacy.

That you believe “celibacy” is equivalent to “loneliness” shows that your understanding of celibacy if severely flawed. Jesus Christ was celibate, as was St. Paul, as are many pious men and women who live healthy and morally upright lives filled with non-sexual intimacy and loving relationships with their friends and families.

We each have burdens. Those with same-sex attraction have burdens as well. Are any of them “fair?” We are not called to live burden free, but called to live in accordance with the will of God, despite the difficulties.

 

[peso73]

That you believe “celibacy” is equivalent to “loneliness” shows that your understanding of celibacy if severely flawed. Jesus Christ was celibate, as was St. Paul, as are many pious men and women who live healthy and morally upright lives filled with non-sexual intimacy and loving relationships with their friends and families.

Im pretty sure Jesus and St. Paul were in very different circumstances than most people, after all, Jesus, being God the Son specifically here for 1 purpose, and St. Paul, being knocked off his horse and recieving heavenly visions, and even before that, a man of religious fervor to say the least completely occupied with religious issues, a average person cannot be compared to those two, or any other religious for that matter, it may be that those who choose celibacy as a lifestyle to give themselves completely to God and His people are so close to God they don’t need that human companionship the rest of us do. It is natual to want to have sex and have a companion to share intimacy with in all aspects of life, and I think that unless someone has attained an extraordinary level of closeness with God, loneliness will be there, big time…friends and family are friends and family, and a spouse is entirely another thing, the differences are obvious and do not require explanation…celibacy = lonliness, in almost all circumstances, I say most definitely, it’s just that most of those choosing that lifestyle are religious enough to feel the sacrifice is worth the spiritual benefit

 

[itsjustdave1988]

celibacy = lonliness, in almost all circumstances

Rubbish. I’ve been celibate, and during that time I was never lonely. I’m no more pious than the average guy. The claim that celibacy is necessarily equated to loneliness is myth of the modern era. Furthermore, I know of many married non-celibates who are profoundly lonely.

…most of those choosing that lifestyle are religious enough to feel the sacrifice is worth the spiritual benefit

As I already indicated above, there are many many examples where one is simply incapable of having sex, either due to injury, illness or other circumstances. While there are many who choose celibacy, there are also many who do not choose celibacy, and yet carry that burden nonetheless. Does that mean they must be lonely? Not at all. I know this from experience.

 

[TShawn]

Hi, I’m new to this forum but I wanted to address this thread. I’m personally struggling with the Church’s teaching on this matter but will post nothing in opposition to it on Catholic Answers. When discussing the topic of homosexuality, I find that people primarily think of the sex acts between the homosexual couple and not at all of just the close non-sexual intimacy that they also share just as any heterosexual couple would. Imagine being told that being heterosexual (something you did not choose) was a sin and you must remain celibate and must go without the close-ness that an intimate relationship such as marriage allows. All I ask is that one think of that perspective when speaking of the cross the homosexual must bear and remain faithful to God as well. The heterosexual person can CHOOSE the single life, the consecrated life or married life. The homosexual cannot! So, all I ask is that be kept in mind. Thanks from a struggling celibate Catholic

 

[blessedtoo]

When discussing the topic of homosexuality, I find that people primarily think of the sex acts between the homosexual couple

Because most Christians, as well as Orthodox Jews and Muslims, believe it is homosexual ACTS that are sinful. That is why this is the primary topic of discussion.

and not at all of just the close non-sexual intimacy that they also share just as any heterosexual couple would.

They are not the same.

Imagine being told that being heterosexual (something you did not choose) was a sin and you must remain celibate and must go without the close-ness that an intimate relationship such as marriage allows.

BEING homosexual is NOT a sin, just as BEING a heterosexual is NOT a sin. Homosexual behavior is. Immoral heterosexual behavior is. There is no discrimination here at all.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Matrimony derives from the Latin word “mater” which connotes motherhood, procreation. It is OK for persons of the same sex to be roommates and have close personal non-sexual friendship. They do not need matrimony to have such a friendship. It is not morally licit for persons of the same sex to engage in genital activity which is intrinsically antithetical to the very purpose of the reproductive system. Likewise, it is not morally licit for persons of opposite sex to engage in genital activity which is intrinsically antithetical to the very purpose of the reproductive system.

Imagine being told that…you must remain celibate

No imagination necessary. I’ve had to deal with this very thing.

Consequently, the barrier to normal sexual relations is not ONLY a cross unique to homosexuals. That too is a myth. There are heterosexuals who for many reasons, such as birth defect, illness, or injury, cannot have sexual relations, which is a barrier to entering into matrimony. Or sometimes after they have entered into matrimony, they cannot have sexual relations with their spouse due to illness or injury. Yes, this is a burden. However, it is not only a homosexual burden. Such difficulties are a call toward piety and courage, whether homosexual, heterosexual or intersexed.

 

[johnlal]

What I *would *like to discuss is whether or not it even matters if there is a “gay gene”.

I think it does matter. Every new scientific discovery matters, and the more we study our own biology, the more we will learn about ourselves.

I don’t think we should turn our back on scientific inquiry just because we don’t like what our research may reveal, or we’re afraid of how the knowledge may be used politically.

Furthermore, if we continue to study the biological differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals, our investigation may lead to other useful information that we haven’t thought of before.

For me, I really don’t care how other people gratify themselves. However, if there is a theory of a “gay gene”, science has the obligation to look into it, and either prove or disprove the theory. I think that what biologists have only reached the tip of the iceberg as far as studying the phenomenon of homosexuality. I would like to see knowledge in this area expand. There’s a lot of space on these boards and others used by people who want to give their opinion about homosexuality. If we’re going to discuss it endlessly, then inserting more and more knowledge into the discussion can only help.

 

[LittleDeb]

Hi, I’m new to this forum but I wanted to address this thread. I’m personally struggling with the Church’s teaching on this matter but will post nothing in opposition to it on Catholic Answers. When discussing the topic of homosexuality, I find that people primarily think of the sex acts between the homosexual couple and not at all of just the close non-sexual intimacy that they also share just as any heterosexual couple would. Imagine being told that being heterosexual (something you did not choose) was a sin and you must remain celibate and must go without the close-ness that an intimate relationship such as marriage allows. All I ask is that one think of that perspective when speaking of the cross the homosexual must bear and remain faithful to God as well. The heterosexual person can CHOOSE the single life, the consecrated life or married life. The homosexual cannot! So, all I ask is that be kept in mind. Thanks from a struggling celibate Catholic

Welcome! I hope your stay here at CAF is fruitful!

Please define ‘intimate’ and ‘non-sexual.’ Those words seem to be at the crux of your struggle. As a married woman I can have intimate, non-sexual contact with whomever God has chosen to bring into my life. However, I am joined as one with my husband. Our ‘intimate’ and ‘non-sexual’ life is completely different with each other than it is with our friends. As a married couple we are never really ‘non-intimate.’ (At least I hope not!) Society talks a lot about ‘non-sexual.’ The term is a misnomer. Catholic theologian Peter Kreeft says, “Sex isn’t something you have. Sex is something you are.”

When “two become one” it isn’t just about where all the body parts are. It isn’t just biological. I could have chosen to be “joined” with any number of men from my past (in fact I did.) That doesn’t mean that what I did with those people was actually becoming one as God intended it. It is still about the choice to engage in the behavior or not.

When you speak of acts of affection between same sexes what do you really mean? I don’t think you mean the kiss I give my female best friend when we say good-bye? (We’re both theatre people, very gregarious.) Since my husband isn’t a cuddly-huggy type, the phrase, “I just want someone to hold me” just doesn’t carry much weight with me. I don’t get that type of affection either.

The kind of intimacy in a marriage is impossible anywhere other than in marriage. That is one of the key points of Church teaching. Regardless of attraction or genetics, marital intimacy on any level is impossible without marriage. However, that doesn’t make marital life superior to the celibate life. It just makes it different. In fact it has been successfully argued that the celibate life is superior to marriage, (though that is a topic for another thread.)

All of us are called to chastity no matter our orientation or marital state. Please help me to understand where you are coming from. God bless you in your commitment to living your life according to the Truth.

 

[Joe_5859]

I think it does matter. Every new scientific discovery matters, and the more we study our own biology, the more we will learn about ourselves.

I don’t think we should turn our back on scientific inquiry just because we don’t like what our research may reveal, or we’re afraid of how the knowledge may be used politically.

I suppose I should clarify. The posed question in the OP (Does it matter?) was meant from a strictly moral standpoint. IOW, does the fact that SSA is gentic or not determine the morality of homosexual acts? As I attempted to say and as Dave more precisely said, the objective immorality of the acts remains unchanged, but it may have bearing on the subjective culpability of those who engage in such acts.

I certainly was not advocating that we squelch scientific inquiry into the matter. Indeed, if research results in more accurate information as to how people come to have SSA, it can only help in our ministry. Of course, it can be difficult to glean the truth of the results of the research from the popular press because so many people are agenda-driven (on both sides). If we really want to move on any of the results we see, we should definitely look into the studies ourselves.

 

[Joe_5859]

By the way, great answer, LittleDeb. I don’t think I can add anything else to that.

 

[johnlal]

Of course, it can be difficult to glean the truth of the results of the research from the popular press because so many people are agenda-driven (on both sides). If we really want to move on any of the results we see, we should definitely look into the studies ourselves.

I have often had the same thoughts in regard to bias. I also think that there is bias among the people who are researching the possibility of biological factors relating to homosexuality (on both sides). It may take several generations or longer to get a better understanding.

 

[steve_n_theresa]

CCC
2357
2358

Church says “probably” to gay gene, “no” to homosexual activity, “yes” to loving them without indicating approval of the sinful activity.

that last part-- that “yes” applies to all people and any visible sin.

 

[vrlobo88]

steve_n_theresa:
The Church says no to activity, but doing so makes no sense…If we are to accept homosexuality as a natural condition, then acting upon this condition cannot be unnatural…The Church wants sex reserved for married peoples, but it refuses to marry a gay couple, so what are gays to do?

 

[TShawn]

Lil Deb

Thank you for your welcome. Now to answer your question of what I mean by intimate in a relationship? To me, it means having someone special that you live with to share your most intimate secrets, your everyday joys and aggravations, pains, etc. It means having someone to care for you when you are sick, everything that your relationship with your husband entails. To compare such a thing as the kiss you might share with your girlfriend in a greeting only…well, I think you know that is NOT what I meant. I’m done talking about this topic with anyone here. I only wanted to share my views and maybe try to see if people who are opposed to homosexuality (which I will never argue), to at least try and put themselves in these people’s shoes to understand better. By the way, I am not gay, I am transexual. So basically as a Catholic, whatever the Church teaches about homosexuality does indeed apply to me as well and I have some serious issues with this part of Catholic teaching. Thanks for your question, God bless! - Shawn

 

[buffalo]

The Church says no to activity, but doing so makes no sense…If we are to accept homosexuality as a natural condition, then acting upon this condition cannot be unnatural…The Church wants sex reserved for married peoples, but it refuses to marry a gay couple, so what are gays to do?

First off God says no to the sin and the Church follows it.

 

[buffalo]

I am being forced to leave the one person in this life that loves me though. That is incredibly cruel.

Remember, God loves you more than any human can.

 

[buffalo]

I think it does matter. Every new scientific discovery matters, and the more we study our own biology, the more we will learn about ourselves.

I don’t think we should turn our back on scientific inquiry just because we don’t like what our research may reveal, or we’re afraid of how the knowledge may be used politically.

Furthermore, if we continue to study the biological differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals, our investigation may lead to other useful information that we haven’t thought of before.

For me, I really don’t care how other people gratify themselves. However, if there is a theory of a “gay gene”, science has the obligation to look into it, and either prove or disprove the theory. I think that what biologists have only reached the tip of the iceberg as far as studying the phenomenon of homosexuality. I would like to see knowledge in this area expand. There’s a lot of space on these boards and others used by people who want to give their opinion about homosexuality. If we’re going to discuss it endlessly, then inserting more and more knowledge into the discussion can only help.

The real question would be did Adam and Eve have a homosexual gene? We have to go back to the beginning and the intent.