There’s No Gay Gene, Says Scientists

[epan]

Yes. The point being that the priest abuse was not pedophilia which is very young children, those who have not started to develop sexually and are under 13. While some were in that range, your own statistics noted a tiny percentage 11 or under. Does this make it any more excusable? No. But the point is that the priests were more likely dealing with SSA as well, not just wanting sexual relations with pre-pubescent children. My understanding is that the behavior is called pedastry. Hair splitting perhaps but the media used the term pedophilia which was even more perjorative. In addition at the time it was thought the priests were “cured” and thus sent back into other parishes which proved to be disasterous.

Lisa

Tiny percentage 11 or under? Forgive me, if I seem uncharitable, but my definition of pedophilia is when the victim is too young to give consent. I don’t know how many 14 year olds whom you know that are ready for sexual relations with an adult.

According to the Fay report 22% were age 10 years or less, and 51% were 10-14. My limited understanding of pedophiles leads me to believe that the majority of them go for victim just entering puberty. These statistics bear that out.

I guess I was a cute kid, because sexual predators approached me a number of times. One early in the morning when I was walking around a camp site, at the age of 6. One parked outside of a summer YMCA day camp, when I was 9. My Big Brother of America (who was also the head umpire for the Little League for a very large city), at my age of 12. The director of the teen center where I boxed, at my age of 14. A stranger who offered me money, when I was 15.

Based on my own experience, I would say that I was able to give informed consent at the age of 15 or 16. I chose to say “no”. The guy asked once or twice more, but was never threatening. At that age, I was also able to defend myself fairly well.

Of the earlier experiences, one of them was forced on me - the director of the teen center cornered me in a dark room, after a boxing workout. He got his hands into my pants, and said that he wanted to “play a game”. I hit him as hard is I could, which took him by surprise, and I escaped unharmed. The big brother of america, suggested as one of our activities that we “wrestle”, which was fine with me. I liked wrestling and boxing. However, it turned out that he liked wrestling in jock straps. I was still OK with that, though it was starting to get creepy. The next step was that the loser had to give the winner a massage. That was definitely creepy, and I ended the relationship. The other instances were all verbal approaches, and nothing happened, because I refused them and ran away.

Sorry, but based on my own experiences, and on my knowledge of kids, I don’t buy the argument that an 11-14 year old is capable of giving informed consent, or necessarily resisting the advances of an older predator, particularly one who is in a trusted relationship, or position of authority.

 

[livingwordunity]

Yes. The point being that the priest abuse was not pedophilia which is very young children, those who have not started to develop sexually and are under 13. While some were in that range, your own statistics noted a tiny percentage 11 or under. Does this make it any more excusable? No. But the point is that the priests were more likely dealing with SSA as well, not just wanting sexual relations with pre-pubescent children. My understanding is that the behavior is called pedastry. Hair splitting perhaps but the media used the term pedophilia which was even more perjorative. In addition at the time it was thought the priests were “cured” and thus sent back into other parishes which proved to be disasterous.

Lisa

 

[ringil]

Doubt it. Biologically based or not, it still isn’t open to life and there is no sexual complementarity.

Also, other sins that have biological basis haven’t changed. Murder is still a sin even if committed by a psychopath. Adultry is still a sin even though the person is attracted to someone other than their spouse.

I agree with you. In Catholic teaching biological causation doesn’t have a bearing on the ethical nature of an act.

Homosexuals are held to the same ethical standards that all of us are.

My problem is with those who would seek to “change” a sexual orientation. It is such a disservice to that individual and, especially to any future relationship and family they might enter into under a desire to fake a heterosexual life. THis can be cruel to any spouse and children. THese people have no right to “test” the success of a misguided intervention on others who would depend and love them.

 

[ringil]

I would bet pretty big money that Sandusky was a closeted homosexual who deliberately set himself up to have opportunities to spend time with boys. He, unlike the priests, was clearly a pedophile as well. The boys were young, not teenagers.

Again that Sandusky or that disgraced governor or several men I know are married does not mean they are heterosexual. They are able to function in a heterosexual relationship but the real attraction and fulfillment is with other males.

I am a therapist. Pedophilia is not related to a homosexual orientation any more than heterosexuality is related to pedophilia- the sexual attraction to children is a different psychological construct than attraction to adults. THis attempted linking of Homosexuality to pedophilia is often an attempt to demonize and alienate homosexual persons.

Peer reviewed research bears out that there is no relation between pedophilia and heterosexuality or heterosexuality.

 

[ringil]

Do you mean the Fay report, commissioned by the Catholic Bishops? That is the link I provided, and the statistics I provided.

lololol:thumbsup:

 

[ringil]

Holy Mother Church doesn’t say ANYTHING about “helping” homosexuals change their sexual orientation.

Indeed, she does not.

 

[livingwordunity]

I am a therapist. Pedophilia is not related to a homosexual orientation any more than heterosexuality is related to pedophilia- the sexual attraction to children is a different psychological construct than attraction to adults. THis attempted linking of Homosexuality to pedophilia is often an attempt to demonize and alienate homosexual persons.

Peer reviewed research bears out that there is no relation between pedophilia and heterosexuality or heterosexuality.

When I took Sociology in a college class, the textbook taught that pedophile men who rape boys are heterosexual men which doesn’t make any sense. In the education system and the mainstream media, it’s the heterosexuals that have been getting blamed for everything that is evil while homosexuals never get blamed and are treated as if they are above any blame. And if anyone says anything bad about homosexuals they are labeled a bigot. When talking about marriage, the media and education system emphasizes the failures and encourages women to divorce their husbands, all while encouraging same-sex “marriage”.

 

[epan]

Do you mean the Fay report, commissioned by the Catholic Bishops? That is the link I provided, and the statistics I provided.

Sorry, I was not sure of the correct name. It is the report which the Catholic Bishops commissioned by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice at CUNY. I got the name Fay, from Msgr. William P. Fay who authorized the release of the report.

 

[epan]

When I took Sociology in a college class, the textbook taught that pedophile men who rape boys are heterosexual men which doesn’t make any sense. In the education system and the mainstream media, it’s the heterosexuals that have been getting blamed for everything that is evil while homosexuals never get blamed and are treated as if they are above any blame. And if anyone says anything bad about homosexuals they are branded with the hate label.

So, would your opinion be that over the past 500 years, that homosexuals have not been unfairly persecuted, but that heterosexual men have been unfairly persecuted, or discriminated against, for their sexual orientation?

My point is, that there is a sensitivity with any minority who has been treated unfairly, historically, be this racism, anti-semitism, sexuality…

When the majority complains of being persecuted, it tends not to raise as much concern, as they are not likely to suffer much in comparison to when this happens to a minority.

 

[ringil]

When I took Sociology in a college class, the textbook taught that pedophile men who rape boys are heterosexual men which doesn’t make any sense. In the education system and the mainstream media, it’s the heterosexuals that have been getting blamed for everything that is evil while homosexuals never get blamed and are treated as if they are above any blame. And if anyone says anything bad about homosexuals they are branded with the hate label.

You sound like you had a poor sociology text.

A pedophile is a pedophile. Some are attracted to one sex, the other, both, or anything they can get. Some desire only fondling. Some desire forceful rape. Many seek to create an illusion of “cooperation”. Pedophilia is a multi-faceted disorder whack manifests in a different way than adult sexual desire. Some pedophiles are only attracted to kids and some can be attracted to adults as well as kids.

There is no linking or causal relationship between pedophilia and homosexuality.

I don’t see the relevance or meaning of your writing of “blame” of homosexuals and/or heterosexuals.

 

[StevenFrancis]

So, let’s assume for a moment that the results of this study are accepted by the scientific community, and sexual orientation is accepted as being genetically determined. I already see some problems with this happening. For example, while identical twins have a much higher likelihood of being gay, there are also many cases of identical twins having differing sexual orientations.

But, if a strong genetic link were found, would this be likely to change the opinion expressed in the Catechism?

Hi:

No. I don’t believe it changes anything. In fact, I’ll accept, for the sake of argument, that it IS inborn. (that is, same sex attraction). That has never been the problem or even the argument. It’s a bit of a straw man. The same sex attraction is “disordered”, but not sinful. What is sinful is sexual immorality. This would be homosexual sex acts, actually performed, as well as adultery, fornication, masturbation, and pornography. These apply to persons with opposite sex attraction as well. Also, you say “gay”, as in “gay lifestyle”, rather than homosexual sexual acts. It is presumptuous, I suppose that persons identifying themselves as gay, do indeed engage in homosexual sex. Perhaps not. Maybe it’s just an effeminate life style choice for some men, but lived out in chastity. If so, I stand corrected.

We sin, when we are guilty of sexual immorality. The self identified homo and heterosexual alike are prey to the temptation to engage in sexual immorality. Those who love God see this as a struggle. They try to avoid the temptation, so probably wouldn’t live the “gay” lifestyle, as it would be frought with problematic temptations, just as if I, as a married man lived a lifestyle of going to house of ill repute every night, and just talking with a beautiful prostitute, but just planned on finishing my beer and going home to my wife. This might work for a while, but soon enough I would fall. When I confessed to my priest, I believe he’d suggest that I stay away from the house of ill repute, and perhaps go bowling or to a movie instead, and perhaps take my wife along. This way we don’t put our selves willingly in sin’s way. Being involved with “gay” lobbies, and protests, and obscene dressing, and lude behaviour, may not always end in sex acts, but they are more likely to end in sex acts than if one collects stamps, or plays tennis, or sings karaoke, or goes to a movie. Maybe with someone of the opposite sex.

We have to do what we have to do in this life to remain in friendship with God. The Church acknowledges that this might be more difficult for the same sex attracted, because they are seemingly called to chastity since they cannot marry or procreate. It is not in the natural order for them to have sexual relations, unless they are of the heterosexual variety, and then only in a valid heterosexual marriage. So if it’s important to them to love God, then they, like everyone else who is Christian, must pick up their cross and follow Jesus. Not keep petitioning civil society for a pass, (which isn’t the same as a pass from God or His Church anyway), and do it without much complaint, and with love. There are plenty of promiscuous heteros too, that are heading for the very same hell. We must avoid sin, and on the prayerfully rare occassions where we fail to do so, we must be sincerely repentant, contrite, and sorrowful, see absolution, then endeavor not to sin again. This is not what I’ve seen. Even from very many “gay” Christians. Their sexual activity is just as immoral as heterosexual activity outside of with one’s spouse. We all must atone. Not lobby congress and states for absolution. We must lobby with Jesus Christ for absolution. And we must MEAN it.

Yours in Christ,

Steven

 

[buffalo]

Unknown is how many were over 18 among those very same priests.

 

[lynnvinc]

When I took Sociology in a college class, the textbook taught that pedophile men who rape boys are heterosexual men which doesn’t make any sense. In the education system and the mainstream media, it’s the heterosexuals that have been getting blamed for everything that is evil while homosexuals never get blamed and are treated as if they are above any blame. And if anyone says anything bad about homosexuals they are labeled a bigot. When talking about marriage, the media and education system emphasizes the failures and encourages women to divorce their husbands, all while encouraging same-sex “marriage”.

Maybe they think young boys are sort of like girls – the way male heteosexual prisoners tend to pick on the younger male inmates.

Also, there are more physical factors in predisposing people toward homosexuality than simply genes (even if they do not have an effect), such as hormonal development of the child both in the womb and after birth. We are assaulted by natural and synthetic hormones and hormone disrupters in our food, products, and pesticides, it’s a wonder there are still plenty of people and animals who have normal sexuality and are able to reproduce normal, healthy offspring.

At any rate the sexual licentiousness in America and around the world is disgusting. Even if it could be partly be blamed on all those synthetic hormones in our foods and products, Hollywood, our culture of freedom (and lack of control), and/or our intense human sexuality (which is even greater than that of animals), it is mainly to be blamed on our cooperation with these factors and impluses.

 

[ringil]

Maybe they think young boys are sort of like girls – the way male heteosexual prisoners tend to pick on the younger male inmates.
.

There are unique and specific psycho-social factors which influence sexual activity in Prisons. It shouldn’t be applied to sexual orientation or behavior on a non-confined social context.

 

[TimeEntrance]

I am a therapist. Pedophilia is not related to a homosexual orientation any more than heterosexuality is related to pedophilia- the sexual attraction to children is a different psychological construct than attraction to adults. THis attempted linking of Homosexuality to pedophilia is often an attempt to demonize and alienate homosexual persons.

Peer reviewed research bears out that there is no relation between pedophilia and heterosexuality or heterosexuality.

Peer reviewed research - of which the Nazis had access too, and for which has been the promoter of many half-brained ideas - is no guarantee of objectivity or truth.

Logic alone connects pedophilia to heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality. All of which can be statistically correlated with pedophilia as much as any gene or epigenetic factor can be statistically correlated with homosexuality.

Fundamental to science is the search for simplicity or the simplest answer. Consequently, every human phenotypic behavior is sought to have a deterministic, genetic or biological cause and explanation. Or let me put it this way… the preference in the natural sciences is that free will not exist and that all theories can provide not just accuracy but predictive power.

Biology has largely moved away from this - all though neuroscience is the great champion of deterministic explanations (among the life sciences) - but within the field of biology you have persons religiously committed to their socio-political views and adamant they will prove their irrespective of any evidence contradicting their hypothesis. And statistics are one of the favorite choices of those wishing to recuse their hypothesis.

I just watched some PBS show a month or so ago about some psychologist concluding from the data of their research that racism and prejudice against “the other” are genetically heritable traits. Of course, to no surprise, they stated that although these are genetically determined traits, humans can be socially conditioned to repress these traits.

Biologists and other are of course finding a genetically determined cause for pedophilia as well. I should say some biologists or geneticists. It’s not all that difficult to find some statistical correlation between a pedophile; rapist; homosexual; beer drinker; black man that prefers white women to some gene characteristic respectively to each group. That’s the beauty of statistics. You can always find something - especially with a little tweak here or a little tweak there.

Pedophiles can indeed be heterosexuals, I’m sorry, especially if they are married and sexually molesting their own prepubescent daughters. And I don’t need any Bishops council or peer review “gods” of “truth” to let me know that. And I don’t care if heterosexuals or homosexuals don’t like the connect or “statistical correlations.”

 

[estesbob]

Where did you get this statistic? From what I can find, 73% were under the age of 14. The remainder were under 18.

The largest group of alleged victims (50.9%) was between the ages of 11 and 14, 27.3% were 15-17, 16% were 8-10 and nearly 6% were under age 7. Overall, 81% of victims were male and 19% female. Male victims tended to be older than female victims. Over 40% of all victims were males between the ages of 11 and 14.

Here is a link to a study of the demographics, giving a lot of detail, as far as it could be ascertained at the time of the study:

philvaz.com/apologetics/PriestAbuseScandal.htm

I got it from the Jay report:

The study listed the main characteristics of the sex abuse incidents reported. These included:

– An overwhelming majority of the victims, 81 percent, were males. The most vulnerable were boys aged 11 to 14, representing more than 40 percent of the victims. This goes against the trend in the general U.S. society where the main problem is men abusing girls.
-- A majority of the victims were post-pubescent adolescents with a small percentage of the priests accused of abusing children who had not reached puberty.
– Most of the accused committed a variety of sex acts involving serious sexual offenses.
– The most frequent context for abuse was a social event and many priests socialized with the families of victims.
– Abuses occurred in a variety of places with the most common being the residence of the priest.

 

[Peter_Plato]

There are unique and specific psycho-social factors which influence sexual activity in Prisons. It shouldn’t be applied to sexual orientation or behavior on a non-confined social context.

A non-confined social context has its own unique and specific psycho-social factors that influence sexual activity, no more providing justification for that activity.

 

[fix]

Peer reviewed research - of which the Nazis had access too, and for which has been the promoter of many half-brained ideas - is no guarantee of objectivity or truth.

Logic alone connects pedophilia to heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality. All of which can be statistically correlated with pedophilia as much as any gene or epigenetic factor can be statistically correlated with homosexuality.

Fundamental to science is the search for simplicity or the simplest answer. Consequently, every human phenotypic behavior is sought to have a deterministic, genetic or biological cause and explanation. Or let me put it this way… the preference in the natural sciences is that free will not exist and that all theories can provide not just accuracy but predictive power.

Biology has largely moved away from this - all though neuroscience is the great champion of deterministic explanations (among the life sciences) - but within the field of biology you have persons religiously committed to their socio-political views and adamant they will prove their irrespective of any evidence contradicting their hypothesis. And statistics are one of the favorite choices of those wishing to recuse their hypothesis.

I just watched some PBS show a month or so ago about some psychologist concluding from the data of their research that racism and prejudice against “the other” are genetically heritable traits. Of course, to no surprise, they stated that although these are genetically determined traits, humans can be socially conditioned to repress these traits.

Biologists and other are of course finding a genetically determined cause for pedophilia as well. I should say some biologists or geneticists. It’s not all that difficult to find some statistical correlation between a pedophile; rapist; homosexual; beer drinker; black man that prefers white women to some gene characteristic respectively to each group. That’s the beauty of statistics. You can always find something - especially with a little tweak here or a little tweak there.

Pedophiles can indeed be heterosexuals, I’m sorry, especially if they are married and sexually molesting their own prepubescent daughters. And I don’t need any Bishops council or peer review “gods” of “truth” to let me know that. And I don’t care if heterosexuals or homosexuals don’t like the connect or “statistical correlations.”

Well said. The post modern mind is “scientistic”. Just throw out peer- reviewed or “study”, “meta-analysis”,and the like and all bow to their new god.

 

[livingwordunity]

Hi:

No. I don’t believe it changes anything. In fact, I’ll accept, for the sake of argument, that it IS inborn. (that is, same sex attraction). That has never been the problem or even the argument. It’s a bit of a straw man. The same sex attraction is “disordered”, but not sinful. What is sinful is sexual immorality. This would be homosexual sex acts, actually performed, as well as adultery, fornication, masturbation, and pornography. These apply to persons with opposite sex attraction as well. Also, you say “gay”, as in “gay lifestyle”, rather than homosexual sexual acts. It is presumptuous, I suppose that persons identifying themselves as gay, do indeed engage in homosexual sex. Perhaps not. Maybe it’s just an effeminate life style choice for some men, but lived out in chastity. If so, I stand corrected.

We sin, when we are guilty of sexual immorality. The self identified homo and heterosexual alike are prey to the temptation to engage in sexual immorality. Those who love God see this as a struggle. They try to avoid the temptation, so probably wouldn’t live the “gay” lifestyle, as it would be frought with problematic temptations, just as if I, as a married man lived a lifestyle of going to house of ill repute every night, and just talking with a beautiful prostitute, but just planned on finishing my beer and going home to my wife. This might work for a while, but soon enough I would fall. When I confessed to my priest, I believe he’d suggest that I stay away from the house of ill repute, and perhaps go bowling or to a movie instead, and perhaps take my wife along. This way we don’t put our selves willingly in sin’s way. Being involved with “gay” lobbies, and protests, and obscene dressing, and lude behaviour, may not always end in sex acts, but they are more likely to end in sex acts than if one collects stamps, or plays tennis, or sings karaoke, or goes to a movie. Maybe with someone of the opposite sex.

We have to do what we have to do in this life to remain in friendship with God. The Church acknowledges that this might be more difficult for the same sex attracted, because they are seemingly called to chastity since they cannot marry or procreate. It is not in the natural order for them to have sexual relations, unless they are of the heterosexual variety, and then only in a valid heterosexual marriage. So if it’s important to them to love God, then they, like everyone else who is Christian, must pick up their cross and follow Jesus. Not keep petitioning civil society for a pass, (which isn’t the same as a pass from God or His Church anyway), and do it without much complaint, and with love. There are plenty of promiscuous heteros too, that are heading for the very same hell. We must avoid sin, and on the prayerfully rare occassions where we fail to do so, we must be sincerely repentant, contrite, and sorrowful, see absolution, then endeavor not to sin again. This is not what I’ve seen. Even from very many “gay” Christians. Their sexual activity is just as immoral as heterosexual activity outside of with one’s spouse. We all must atone. Not lobby congress and states for absolution. We must lobby with Jesus Christ for absolution. And we must MEAN it.

Yours in Christ,

Steven

 

[livingwordunity]

Maybe they think young boys are sort of like girls – the way male heteosexual prisoners tend to pick on the younger male inmates.

If that were the case, they would choose girls and not boys since we aren’t talking about prison where there are no girls there. But since the preference is for the same-sex it makes more sense to classify pedophiles as a type of homosexual since homosexuals prefer the same sex. But, I’m not saying that all homosexuals are pedophiles. I’m only saying that just as I would call a pedophile who goes after the opposite sex a heterosexual pedophile, a pedophile who goes after the same sex is a homosexual pedophile.