The Science Of Sexual Orientation

[Jennifer123]

goofyjim:

I don’t care for this science stuff. I don’t care what causes same-sex attraction because I find nothing wrong with it as long as it does not lead to the behavior.

The point of this thread in particular is about the science of sexual orientation so you may not find it interesting. Ultimately it is not relevant how it is formed because it is inherently disordered, but medical findings may help in disgnosis and treatment, so IMHO it is still important. :twocents:

 

[setter]

what you are talking about are pathological behaviors. homosexuality is not a pathological behavior.

psych.org/psych_pract/co…dendum83100.cfm

apsa.org/ctf/cgli/reparative_therapy.htm
apa.org/pi/lgbc/publicat…stthefacts.html
clgs.org/5/5_6_1.html
Your above sources are under the guise of the APA and fail to acknowledge the natural law understanding of what constitutes ordered human sexuality. Your sources fail to present a coherent or convincing case to the Catholic medical community understanding of SSA as a dis-ordered desire and a symptom of an underlying psychological disorder. The Catholic medical community believes that SSA is a treatable condition via reparation/re-orientation therapy. Those who are under the political influence of the gay activits would have those so afflicted with SSA that there is no medical/psychological basis for one to change their homosexual orientation, i.e., what other palusible position for their agenda would they have (besides, HMO’s really do not mind not having another mental health diagnosis to have to provide treatment coverage for).

It is a destructive myth that 'once a homosexual, always a homosexual." It has made and will make millions more committed homosexuals. What is more, not only have I but many other reputable psychiatrists (Dr. Samuel B. Hadden, Dr. Lionel Ovesey, Dr. Charles Socarides, Dr. Harold Lief, Dr. Irving Bieber, and others) have reported their successful treatments of the treatable homosexual." (Tripp & Hatterer 1971)

Unfortunately, a number of influential persons and professional groups ignore this evidence (APA 1997[81]; Herek 1991[82]) and there seems to be a concerted effort on the part of “homosexual apologists” to deny the effectiveness of treatment of same-sex attraction or claim that such treatment is harmful. Barnhouse expressed wonderment at these efforts: “The distortion of reality inherent in the denials by homosexual apologists that the condition is curable is so immense that one wonders what motivates it.” (Barnhouse 1977

)
cathmed.org/publications/homosexuality.html

I understand yr faith says homosexuality is a sin. OK. But Catholic teaching does not say homosexuality is a mental illness. Neither does any health or mental health professions. Rather, professional health care associations know homosexuality is a normal varient of human sexuality.

Normal means this sexual orientation is found in most cultures through out history. The threat is about the “SCIENCE of sexual orientation” and not the theology.
I do observe your persistence. This is simply more lies and biased science. The etiology properly understood, homosexuality in adulthood is basically GID not diagnosed or properly treated.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual IV (APA 1994[50]) of the American Psychiatric Association has defined Gender Identity Disorder (GID) in children as a strong, persistent cross gender identification, a discomfort with one’s own sex, and a preference for cross sex roles in play or in fantasies. …Several studies have shown that children with Gender Identity Disorder and boys with chronic juvenile unmasculinity are at-risk for same-sex attraction in adolescence. (Newman 1976; Zucker 1995; Harry 1989[52])

Early identification (Hadden 1967[53]) and proper professional intervention, if supported by parents, can often overcome the gender identity disorder. (Rekers 1974[54]; Newman 1976) Unfortunately, many parents who report these concerns to their pediatricians are told not to worry about them. …This attraction appears to be the result of a failure to identify positively with one’s own sex.

It is important that those involved in child care and education become aware of the signs of gender identity disorder and chronic juvenile unmasculinity and have access the resources available to find appropriate help for these children. (Bradley 1998; Brown 1963[55]; Acosta 1975[56]) Once convinced that same-sex attraction is not a genetically determined disorder, one is able to hope for prevention and a therapeutic model to greatly mitigate, if not eliminate, same-sex attractions.

cathmed.org/publications/homosexuality.html

 

[Granny_D]

goofyjim:

I don’t care for this science stuff. I don’t care what causes same-sex attraction because I find nothing wrong with it as long as it does not lead to the behavior.

It is a bit presumptious to believe that sheer will power will prevent SSA from leading to the behavior… Again I admire your honesty and your desire not to enter into the activity, but the presupposition that there is nothing wrong with it… could be a rationalization. I believe we all experience SSA as part of our psycho-sexual development…it is part of what helps us to form strong friendships…We get through it… it passes…for some it goes unnoticed… but if there is a sexual trauma somewhere along the spectrum… and conflict with the father…or same sex parent is present… then arrested development can happen… and the needle is stuck. I think if we understand it in that light…we would want to get unstuck…

Yours for “LIFE” Granny D

 

[setter]

MikeinSD:

Also posted “SSA = colored.” When southern whites said “colored” we refered to African Americans. “Colored” was the polite term for us whites to use. We have lots of less polite names to refer to African Americans. Some christians have lots of less polite terms to refer to gay men. Also the slang provided much amusement when talking about “colored gentlemen” or “colored ladies.” Southerners in the 50s and 60s knew there was no such thing as black “gentlemen” or black “ladies.”

When some christians say SSA they are talking about gay men. The terms are different but the the sentiment is the same. “Colored” was slang for African American. “SSA” is slang for homosexual. African Americans at the time asked that us whites call them “black.” It was a point of pride, even today, that us southern men do not refer to African Americans as “blacks.” That would be giving into them. I guess christians refer to us gay men as SSA for the same reason.

This is simply another ploy of the gay activists to attempt to equate SSA with the discrimination against our fellow black citizens. The agenda strategy: get official status as an oppressed or discriminated against minority based on sexual preference as the basis for legislation to legally recognize toward the goal of normalizing and making mainstream the gay lifestyle.

 

[wabrams]

setter:

This is simply another ploy of the gay activists to attempt to equate SSA with the discrimination against our fellow black citizens. The agenda strategy: get official status as an oppressed or discriminated against minority based on sexual preference as the basis for legislation to legally recognize toward the goal of normalizing and making mainstream the gay lifestyle.

Tell me about it: SSA is a medical term, “colored” was a way people bit their tongues to not say something far more harsh.

 

[MikeinSD]

This now resembles the threads on evolution. One would have to believe the medical professions decided to engage in a decades long conspiracy to move the public perception of homosexuality from a mental illness to just another lifestyle.

Evelyn Hooker, Seymour Halleck, Dr. Wardell Pomeroy, Alan Bell, Charles Silverstein, Judd Marmor, Richard Green, and Martin Hoffman must have distorted their data and conclusions in peer reviewed journals for decades. And somehow managed to pull off this massive fraud on scientists and researchers across the plant.

Or maybe, just maybe, scientists researching human sexuality are honest people. And publish their findings and data in peer reviewed journals. Their data and methodology is there to be challenged by other researchers. So far, research confirms homosexuality is normal varient of human sexuality evident in most cultures across time.

I’m surprised that this thread seems to frighten so many folks. Many Christians believe homosexuality is a sin. Ok. Why isn’t that enough? Why engage in psuedo-science or conspiracy theories? Isn’t faith enough for believers?

Like in the evolution threads, some folks think the science in human sexuality must be completely discredited.

 

[Granny_D]

Science has its place… but did God make Man in His Image and Likeness… or did Science re-make man in its image and likeness?

It is as much philosophical as it is scientific…

Male and Female He made them… the two in one flesh…begets LIFE. through LOVE… and this is the Image of The Trinity…

Two women or two men…cannot make this same image

Yours for “LIFE” Granny D

 

[Digger71]

wabrams:

Tell me about it: SSA is a medical term, “colored” was a way people bit their tongues to not say something far more harsh.

SSA? A medical term? Just to check I went to the following on-line medical disctionaries. I search on SSA and “same sex attraction”

cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/omd/ — nope.

medical-dictionary.com/ — nope.

online-medical-dictionary.org/ — nope.

sciencekomm.at/advice/dict.html — yes, top hit, 1. Same-Sex Attraction A Parents’ Guide.(Book Review)
Catholic Insight; April 1, 2005; Dooley, David; 701 Words

nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/mplusdictionary.html —nope.

stedmans.com/ — nope.

So, SSA and “same sex attraction” got once positive hit in the dictionaries I checked, and that was a reference to a Catholic publication. That web-site however was not purely medical but accessed a vast range of documents.

I think, it’s fair to say that if ‘SSA’ is a medical term, it is not a widely used medical term.

 

[Digger71]

MikeinSD:

This now resembles the threads on evolution. One would have to believe the medical professions decided to engage in a decades long conspiracy to move the public perception of homosexuality from a mental illness to just another lifestyle.

Like in the evolution threads, some folks think the science in human sexuality must be completely discredited.

Mike, these are good points.

Trawling through my memory, I remembered there were pheremone studies. They will not matter to those who argue the ‘origin’ of sexual orientation is not important, just the sin of homosex, but it adds grist to the mill of biological causation.

Another point I should raise is that all scientific frauds related to evolutionary theory were exposed by other scientists using the scientific method.

Anyway…

freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1399762/posts

*The Swedish researchers divided 36 subjects into three groups — heterosexual men, heterosexual women and homosexual men. They studied the brain response to sniffing the chemicals, using PET scans. All the subjects were healthy, unmedicated, right-handed and HIV negative.

When they sniffed smells like cedar or lavender, all of the subjects’ brains reacted only in the olfactory region that handles smells.

But when confronted by a chemical from testosterone, the male hormone, portions of the brains active in sexual activity were activated in straight women and in gay men, but not in straight men, the researchers found. *

and…

*And when estrogen, the female hormone was used, there was only a response in the olfactory portion of the brains of straight women. Homosexual men had their primary response also in the olfactory area, with a very small reaction in the hypothalamus, while heterosexual men responded strongly in the reproductive region of the brain. *

And…

*n a separate study looking at people’s response to the body odors of others, researchers in Philadelphia found sharp differences between gay and straight men and women.

“Our findings support the contention that gender preference has a biological component that is reflected in both the production of different body odors and in the perception of and response to body odors,” said neuroscientist Charles Wysocki, who led the study.

…

They found that gay men differed from heterosexual men and women and from lesbian women, both in terms of which body odors gay men preferred and how their own body odors were regarded by the other groups.

Gay men preferred odors from gay men, while odors from gay men were the least preferred by heterosexual men and women and by lesbian women in the study. Their findings, released Monday, are to be published in the journal Psychological Science in September.
In all honesty this caveat must be reported…

*Whether humans respond to pheromones has been debated, although in 2000 American researchers reported finding a gene that they believe directs a human pheromone receptor in the nose. *

 

[setter]

Originally Posted by MikeinSD
This now resembles the threads on evolution. One would have to believe the medical professions decided to engage in a decades long conspiracy to move the public perception of homosexuality from a mental illness to just another lifestyle.

Like in the evolution threads, some folks think the science in human sexuality must be completely discredited.

Digger71:

Mike, these are good points.

Trawling through my memory, I remembered there were pheremone studies. They will not matter to those who argue the ‘origin’ of sexual orientation is not important, just the sin of homosex, but it adds grist to the mill of biological causation.

Another point I should raise is that all scientific frauds related to evolutionary theory were exposed by other scientists using the scientific method.

Anyway…

What these two mutually affirming posters neglect to tell you, is that there are simply no public grant monies available (that I know of) which support research into the pathology and treatment of SSA. Why is this? Because the homosexual lobbyist have all but pressured organizations to research SSA as simply part of the array of sexual variation, not a deviation from the normative.

Originally Posted by MikeinSD
One would have to believe the medical professions decided to engage in a decades long conspiracy to move the public perception of homosexuality from a mental illness to just another lifestyle.

No conspiracy theory here, it is simply that the radical gay activists camp has been quite successful in their strategic initiatives to further normalize and mainstream the aberrant phenomenon of SSA and the immoral gay lifestyle.

 

[Digger71]

setter:

What these two mutually affirming posters neglect to tell you, is that there are simply no public grant monies available (that I know of) which support research into the pathology and treatment of SSA.

As noted, medical dictionaries do not recognise the term ‘SSA’ or ‘same sex attraction’; it is not listed as a pathology. SSA was never the official term anyway, it was “homosexuality”. So strictly speaking “pathology” is not the right word.

But allowing for your determination to use the word ‘pathology’ regardless of it’s strict meaning, we should point out that loads of work is being done on the origins of homosexuality. Examples of this are:

Hypermasculinisation
Studies of the hypothalamus in homosexual people and animals
Pheremone research
Birth order research
Twin Study research

It may not be public money, but the research in to the so-called pathology of so-called same sex attraction (so-called because medical dictionaries do not use these terms) is being done.

It may have unfortunate side effects, if that causes of homosexuality are discovered to be pre-natal then some might abort fetuses, it may be ‘reparable’, in which case we get to the same point as we do with euthenasia, changing people for ‘our’ benefit, not their own.

But I wont be narrow minded on this. You said, “pathology and treatment”. Assuming you meant a logical and, that is the statement must be taken as a whole, then we can provide an answer.

Well, in that case you are quite correct. Though research is being done in to causes, no work is being done to fix it. That is because homosexuality is not considered a pathology, and is not considered to need treatment.

Why is this? Because the homosexual lobbyist have all but pressured organizations to research SSA as simply part of the array of sexual variation, not a deviation from the normative.

I have read some of the background research that led to the de-classificatition of homosexuality and it was declassified becuse the empirical evidence demonstrated no syndrome, no patterns, and no patholoogy other than being homosexual.

No conspiracy theory here, it is simply that the radical gay activists camp has been quite successful in their strategic initiatives to further normalize and mainstream the aberrant phenomenon of SSA and the immoral gay lifestyle.

It is conspiracy theory, you are claiming that scientists have deliberately supressed research that would demonstrate pathology.

That’s impuning a lot of people and a lot of integritty, and is exactly the trick pulled by creationists. I also note, without surprise that NARTH, for example, has misrepresented twin studies in much the same way that darwinismrefuted misrepresents fossils.

The parallels are exact.

 

[Granny_D]

WOW… to Digger’s report from Sweden… This backs up what I read a long time ago…I have been trained in N.F.P and have a degree in Health Science…so everything that pertains to the effects of SYNTHETIC HORMONES…is of interest to me…

What I had read…was that women who were on the Birth Control Pill…or Patch…or Shot… or Implants… or Hormone Replacement Therapy… were less likely to “sniff” out a guy with DNA that would be distant to theirs. Women on the pill would be more likely to be attracted to guys who were closer to their own DNA… (relatives…etc) The reason women are smell driven is so they can choose a partner whose DNA is far enough removed so as not to have problems with offspring…such as birth defects… but now thanks to our pharmecutical companies…that has been altered.

Then I had the opportunity to invite Lloyd Duplantis of Pharmacists for Life to give talks to local parishes on the dangers of SYNTHETIC STEROIDAL HORMONES… He explained how the Japanes Govt. had invited him to give a presentation on his findings… so that they could decide whether or not to legalize the Pill. Abortion was commonplace…but not the Pill. The Government was not so much concerned about adverse reactions on the populace as it was on the environment. Lloyd explained how he viewed the gallery of photos showing the devastation on Nagasaki and Hiroshima… and then photos showing a time frame afterwards… He could see the speed with which vegetation grew… in fact it was so fast that it was OVERGROWTH. This is because of the “plastics” or estrogen like materials that were deposited in the soil from the bomb. Estrogen is to cancer what fertilizer is to soil…(my words) … so we see that hormones are so powerful as to change the growth of plants…and cause mutations in sea life…etc… and cancers in humans…and now we have just discovered that our WATER SUPPLY is full of these drugs and hormones… and chemotherapy… that CANNOT be filtered out… So we must be very compassionate to those who have SSA…It was not that God made them HOMOSEXUAL…but in fact we who very probably have reaped what we have sowed.

Truely we can all say… it could be anyone of us…so Chastity is a Must… and no one should presume that they or their family members will not have this cross to carry

Yours for “LIFE” Granny D

 

[gilliam]

We need to keep in mind that sin is behavior and not caused by biology. We can be predisposed to sin or more inclined to certain behaviors because of biology. For example, some people seem to be genetically more inclined to habitual alcohol consumption, but that doesn’t give someone the right to be an alcoholic.

 

[Granny_D]

gilliam:

We need to keep in mind that sin is behavior and not caused by biology. We can be predisposed to sin or more inclined to certain behaviors because of biology. For example, some people seem to be genetically more inclined to habitual alcohol consumption, but that doesn’t give someone them the right to be an alcoholic.

Good explanation… and that is why it is imperative that whatever our Gender Identity is…we must be chaste…

Yours for “LIFE” Granny D

 

[Digger71]

Granny D:

WOW… to Digger’s report from Sweden… This backs up what I read a long time ago…I have been trained in N.F.P and have a degree in Health Science…so everything that pertains to the effects of SYNTHETIC HORMONES…is of interest to me…

In these experiments the hormones were not synthetic. But as a general point of interest you’re right.

What I had read…was that women who were on the Birth Control Pill…or Patch…or Shot… or Implants… or Hormone Replacement Therapy… were less likely to “sniff” out a guy with DNA that would be distant to theirs. Women on the pill would be more likely to be attracted to guys who were closer to their own DNA… (relatives…etc) The reason women are smell driven is so they can choose a partner whose DNA is far enough removed so as not to have problems with offspring…such as birth defects… but now thanks to our pharmecutical companies…that has been altered.

I read this as well, but I read further research that suggested what is smelt is difference in immune systems. While there are clearly social conditions behind interracial marriages, it struck meIR marriags are exceptional evidence of mate selection based on differing immune systems.

and chemotherapy… that CANNOT be filtered out… So we must be very compassionate to those who have SSA…It was not that God made them HOMOSEXUAL…but in fact we who very probably have reaped what we have sowed.

Most interesting, but homosexuality predates synthetic hormones, and there does not seem to be a change in rate. Perhpas longitudinal studies are called for.

 

[Granny_D]

I think longitudinal studies is a must… but I do believe there are many levels to this… like peeling an onion… NARTH has focused on one level… psycho-social… . but the biological or hormonal-environmental influence has been neglected…to a great degree. I think the airborne hormones have been around since the beginning of time… The fact that they are now in our soil and our drinking water… only increases the load.

For example, when menstruating women live together…their menses get closer until they merge…happening at the same time.
Even after menapause…when my daughter or granddaughter are sleeping over… I get pimples on my chin… all an effect of air borne hormones… Men go through similar things… Maybe that is why absentee fathers… or men going off to war… leaving some behind… with the women… had such an impact of male bonding and those who might be called Mammas Boys etc

Now we have women in the military going to sea for long periods of time…on board our war ships… AFFECTING …each other and the men they board with…on the hormonal levels…

There are just so many levels to this onion…but again…we must have charity…and chastity… and not discriminate or judge others not even ourselves…that is why confession is such a blessing.

Yours for “LIFE” Granny D

 

[setter]

As noted, medical dictionaries do not recognise the term ‘SSA’ or ‘same sex attraction’; it is not listed as a pathology. SSA was never the official term anyway, it was “homosexuality”. So strictly

speaking “pathology” is not the right word.
Please, extend yourself for the purposes of discussion that SSA=Homosexual attraction.

BTW–I never claimed SSA as part of the medical nomenclature.

Well, in that case you are quite correct. Though research is being done in to causes, no work is being done to fix it. That is because homosexuality is not considered a pathology

, and is not considered to need treatment.
This is my entire point exactly. Yet, you go on to claim that this is unbiased “scientific research” when you are operating from the premise that “homosexuality is not considered a pathology, and is not considered to need treatment” …need I say more? You have all but indicted yourself and the so called “medical community” that purports to be independent of the political influence of the radical gay activists.

I have read some of the background research that led to the de-classificatition of homosexuality and it was declassified becuse the empirical evidence demonstrated no syndrome, no patterns, and no patholoogy other than being homosexual.

My background research has all but indicated that is was NOT scientific findings but political pressure from the gay activists lobby that resulted in homosexuality being dropped from the DSM APA diagnostic manual for mental disorders.

It is conspiracy theory, you are claiming that scientists have **deliberately supressed research **

that would demonstrate pathology.
Please quote me where I ever made this assertion.

That’s impuning a lot of people and a lot of integritty, and is exactly the trick pulled by creationists. I also note, without surprise that NARTH, for example, has misrepresented twin studies in much the same way that darwinismrefuted misrepresents fossils.

The parallels are exact.

You are impugning guilt and pulling straws to an assertion that I never made. This sounds alot like how the gay activists got homosexuality removed from the DSM – not based on the facts. A most revealing parallel.

 

[Digger71]

setter:

Please, extend yourself for the purposes of discussion that SSA=Homosexual attraction.

BTW–I never claimed SSA as part of the medical nomenclature.

SSA = homosexual attraction, yes I did that already. However, I would argue ‘homosexual attraction’ itself is an inaccurate description which seeks to avoid admitting these peple ARE homosexual.

You’re right in as much you did not claim SSA was a medical term. Instead you used 'pathology.

pathology

noun the science of the causes and effects of diseases,
• Medicine pathological features considered collectively; the typical behavior of a disease : the pathology of Huntington’s disease.
• mental, social, or linguistic abnormality or malfunction : the city’s inability to cope with the pathology of a burgeoning underclass.

It is disingenuous to mix SSA with pathology. It’s a conflation of dehumanising term with a medica and scientific term potentially giving spurious authority to the former through association with the latter.

‘SSA’ is arguably, not even accurate.

This is my entire point exactly. Yet, you go on to claim that this is unbiased “scientific research” when you are operating from the premise that “homosexuality is not considered a pathology, and is not considered to need treatment” …need I say more? You have all but indicted yourself and the so called “medical community” that purports to be independent of the political influence of the radical gay activists.

You left out the reasons I noted. Again to return the comparison with creationists, they too as a matter of course claim powerful lobbies act to stifle legitimate debate; and they too selectively drop facts. In their case it’s the Evil Atheist Conspiracy (cyberdespot.com/home.html?eac.html&frames/left.html&frames/top.html)), and in your case the the homosexual agenda (netfunny.com/rhf/jokes/99/Sep/agenda.html)

My background research has all but indicated that is was NOT scientific findings but political pressure from the gay activists lobby that resulted in homosexuality being dropped from the DSM APA diagnostic manual for mental disorders.

I have read this too, and all papers I have referenced that talk about the lobbying involved never, ever, ever refer to the case note and psychiatric reports that were used to support the move. Again, drawing the parallel with creationism, why not deal with the supporting documents and evidence?

The fact is the anti-gay movement cannot deal with the scientific evidence, and so ignore it, framing the whole debate in terms of politics. This is made worse by such people as NARTH misrepresting science for political end (for example: discussing twin studies without discussing penetrance).

You are impugning guilt and pulling straws to an assertion that I never made. This sounds alot like how the gay activists got homosexuality removed from the DSM – not based on the facts. A most revealing parallel.

My apologies if that is how it came across.

 

[setter]

SSA = homosexual attraction, yes I did that already. However, I would argue ‘homosexual attraction’ itself is an inaccurate description which seeks to avoid admitting these peple ARE homosexual.

You’re right in as much you did not claim SSA was a medical term. Instead you used 'pathology.

pathology

noun the science of the causes and effects of diseases

,
• Medicine pathological features considered collectively; the typical behavior of a disease : the pathology of Huntington’s disease.
• mental, social, or linguistic abnormality or malfunction : the city’s inability to cope with the pathology of a burgeoning underclass.

It is disingenuous to mix SSA with pathology. It’s a conflation of dehumanising term with a medica and scientific term potentially giving spurious authority to the former through association with the latter.

‘SSA’ is arguably, not even accurate.
That really depends upon which side of the natural law fence that one draws their conclusions. The Catholic medical community recognizes that SSA/homosexual orientation is a disorder and is a symptom of an underlying psychological disorder, i.e., a mental/psychological dis-ease, • mental, …abnormality or malfunction, if you will.

You left out the reasons I noted. Again to return the comparison with creationists, they too as a matter of course claim powerful lobbies act to stifle legitimate debate; and they too selectively drop facts. In their case it’s the Evil Atheist Conspiracy (cyberdespot.com/home.html?eac.html&frames/left.html&frames/top.html))

, and in your case the the homosexual agenda (netfunny.com/rhf/jokes/99/Sep/agenda.html)
I am not buying this comparison.

I have read this too, and all papers I have referenced that talk about the lobbying involved never, ever, ever refer to the case note and psychiatric reports that were used to support the move. Again, drawing the parallel with creationism, why not deal with the supporting documents and evidence?

The fact is the anti-gay movement cannot deal with the scientific evidence, and so ignore it, framing the whole debate in terms of politics. This is made worse by such people as NARTH misrepresting science for political end (for example: discussing twin studies without discussing penetrance).

More of an apples and oranges comparison, or he said, she said
debate. I stand by the integrity of my sources.

My apologies if that is how it came across.

I was simply reporting my observations which have not changed.

 

[Digger71]

setter:

That really depends upon which side of the natural law fence that one draws their conclusions. The Catholic medical community recognizes that SSA/homosexual orientation is a disorder and is a symptom of an underlying psychological disorder, i.e., a mental/psychological dis-ease, • mental, …abnormality or malfunction, if you will.

Back to creationism, theology vs science. Natural Law is theology.

I am not buying this comparison.

More of an apples and oranges comparison, or he said, she said
debate. I stand by the integrity of my sources.

It doesnt matter if you ‘buy it’ or not, the evidence is bountiful.

Oh, and the “he said, she said” line has also been trotted out by creationists.

How can you stand by the integrity of the sources (such as NARTH) when they dont mention penetrance in twin studies?

Have you read any of the psychiatric reports from the 1950s-1990s of military men discharged from the forces?

But enough of this.