Why doesn't God heal homosexuals?

[Edward_H]

The attractions themselves may be sinful if they are nursed through porn, masturbstion or misusing the imagination.

They are also disordered to the nature of humans.

 

[theCardinalbird]

The attractions themselves may be sinful if they are nursed through porn, masturbstion or misusing the imagination.

What happens if I did all of that before I really cared about my soul and faith and now have to deal with the aftermath of encouraging this attraction?

I’m still attracted to men and I know I made a mistake. I guess I was curious and allowed myself to further this desire for men, but now I stopped encouraging it and now I’m stuck with SSA

 

[stupidisasstupiddoes]

Can you please be clear about which studies you are referring to (i.e. by name), I don’t believe there are many that fit that description you gave so let’s make sure we aren’t talking past each other and then it’ll be easy to move forward.

 

[tifischer]

Of course I will include the studies by name and percentiles…I have to divide the post because it is too large : )

Please remember that this information should NOT be used to judge or shame anyone about the way they feel. It is purely a way to help others understand that homosexuality is not directly due to an inherent genetic disorder. Whatever the cause leading to abnormal desires or even desires that are natural but not acceptable may be that God may heal anyone in need.

OVERVIEW
The key in understanding if behavior patterns, in this case attraction, is inheritable through genetics is to look at twin studies. If a trait is heritable and 100% genetic then you will see 100% correlation of that trait in identical twins. If it is lower, such as some mental illness show around 80% correlation would suggest some genetic factors and some environmental factors play an important role. As the genetic correlation decreases in identical twins the role of environmental factors in behavior increase.

However, homosexuality shows a range of 30 - 50% that is already lower than what we expect for a genetic factor…plus, keep in mind the environment of some of those studies were of prisons showing higher correlations.

So what does a correlation of 30-50% mean? There is a larger than normal identity factor in twins so to determine what the identity factor and environmental factor is one would need to do a different study…a study of identical twins separated at birth. The study that I read showed a 0% correlation in women and less than 2% correlation of men…that is indicative of no genetic factor. I expect 2% in males would be an indication of environment regardless if the children live together.

 

[tifischer]

STUDIES
Below are a few studies that have slightly higher rates than the ones I read previously…one factor for such variance could be the sample…as I mentioned previously studies in prisons show higher correlations. I am not sure where these were done but they are close to the numbers I recall reading. If I recall the approximate 30% study was from a non-incarcerated population of twins and the approximate 60% was from an incarcerated population.

Bailey and Pillard (1991): occurrence of homosexuality among brothers

52% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual men were likewise homosexual
22% of fraternal (dizygotic) twins were likewise homosexual
11% of adoptive brothers of homosexual men were likewise homosexual
J.M. Bailey and R.C. Pillard, “A genetic study of male sexual orientation,” Archives of General Psychiatry, vol. 48:1089-1096, December 1991.

Bailey and Pillard (1993): occurrence of homosexuality among sisters

48% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual women were likewise homosexual (lesbian)
16% of fraternal (dizygotic) twins were likewise homosexual
6% of adoptive sisters of homosexual women were likewise homosexual
Bailey, J. M. and D. S. Benishay (1993), “Familial Aggregation of Female Sexual Orientation,” American Journal of Psychiatry 150(2): 272-277.

Twin separated at birth…The study below shows
0% correlation of homosexuality in women and
2% correrlation in males (only 1 male pair were both homosexual thus not a significant genetic factor… 1/55 pairs were homosexual.). Homosexuality in monozygotic twins reared apart Article · May 1986 DOI: 10.1192/bjp.148.4.421 · Source: PubMed

May God guide us in His way, truth and life. In Jesus name, amen.

 

[Edward_H]

That’s what confession is for…to dump our junk and ask for God’s forgiveness, and to ask the Holy Spirit to repair our memories.

Sexual attractions - not just with homosexuals - can get way way disordered. Some men give in to porn and essentially train themselves to be only excited by…you name the peculiarity …big women, women of other races, short women, two women, bondage, blah blah blah.

This too is dis- orded but can be highly addicting.

The Church understands this and provides “means” of struggling toward the good. Is isn’t easy, but it’s possible. It may take years, it may take beginning again in Confession, it will involved lots of prayers, it may involve certain acts of temperance and training to re-bend our inclinations toward the good.

 

[stupidisasstupiddoes]

Thank you, so we’re talking about Bailey et al, good! Here’s a comment from Diamond & Rosky about the studies by Bailey:

Bailey and colleagues (in press) concluded from their review that sexual orientation is somewhat—but not
mostly—genetic, and that it is unquestioningly influenced by environmental factors, given the
relatively low concordance of same-sex orientation in identical twins. Concordance refers to the
probability that an individual is gay given that his or her identical twin is gay. Across the most reliable twin registry studies available, the median concordance estimate for sexual orientation among identical twins is.25. In summary, despite the fact that identical twins share 100% of their genes, gay/gay twin pairs are less common than gay/straight twin pairs. The twin data clearly show a genetic contribution to sexuality (because even a twin concordance as low as.25 is significantly greater than would be expected by chance, given the low base rate of same-sex sexuality in the population), but not genetic determination (which would produce perfect concordance in identical twins). (Diamond & Rosky, 2016) “Scrutinizing Immutability: Research on Sexual Orientation and U.S. Legal Advocacy for Sexual Minorities”.

This is why I said:

I think some or most of them had a birth predisposition that was triggered by environmental factors but then there are some who defy this explanation.

For what it’s worth, my working assumption is that most homosexuals were not born entirely destined on that path but it was triggered by environmental factors.

The predisposition being genetic and recognising the environmental factors.Hence why I also said:

I don’t think it’s clear cut enough to say you are not born with it. It might boil down to semantics

But i don’t understand why you said:

Clearly environmental not genetic

So i don’t want to misquote you or argue semantics, let’s not argue over genes vrs predisposition etc. Since we are both talking about Bailey et al, is it fair to say that bailey recognises a genetic and environmental component? and i make no claim that they are equally weighted, just that there are two parts to the equation.

 

[tifischer]

Nope sorry that is not considered significant in identical twins. It means that environment is the primary factor and a twin study separated at birth needs to be looked at to determine how much of the correlation is due to twin identity correlation.

The article that I provided for Twin separated at birth show that this is clearly environmental and a large twin identify correlation…twin identity may weigh in more in the environmental cause.

Clearly you disregarded the other articles that play a significant role in understanding homosexuality as an environmental or genetic trait. You are only relying on your limited understanding of correlations in one article.

 

[stupidisasstupiddoes]

Nope sorry that is not considered significant in identical twins. It means that environment is the primary factor and a twin studybseperated at birth needs to be looked at to determine how much of the correlation is due to twin identity correllation.

I didn’t ask which was primary and which was secondary. I simply asked you if you would acknowledge both exists? If not, what is your counter to the quote I posted?

 

[stupidisasstupiddoes]

Clearly you disregarded the other articles that play a significant role in understanding homosexuality as an environmental or genetic trait. You are only relying on your limited understanding of correlations in one article.

Now you are just misrepresenting me now which is poor form, i have recognised the environmental factors, i introduced them to the conversation before you did. Don’t start complaining about ‘one article’ - you introduced Bailey to the conversation, not me - just respond to the quote i posted rather than trying to attack my knowledge.

 

[tifischer]

Again looking at the twin study separated at birth the answer is that there is no genetic link. The study you are referring to did not take into account twin personality identify correlation that would have a significant effect on environment. I am sorry but the identical twin study was a weak correlation…primarily environment and the second study takes into account twin identity correlation (twins tend to identify more with each other than average siblings) confirms that it is environment. The studies are clear.

 

[stupidisasstupiddoes]

Again looking at the twin study separated at birth the answer is that there is no genetic link. The study you are referring to did not take into account twin personality identify correlation that would have a significant effect on environment. I am sorry but the identical twin study was a weak correlation…primarily environment and the second study takes into account twin identity correlation (twins tend to identify more with each other than average siblings) confirms that it is environment. The studies are clear.

So you’re saying that Diamond & Rosky are misrepresenting Bailey? Even though Bailey is central to their arguement that “arguments based on the immutability of sexual orientation are unscientific” which it appears you actually agree with.

 

[Kei]

He does. In various ways.
I may be reading into your post, but homosexuality is not just a genetic disorder.

 

[TheButler]

It is simple. The short explaination…twin studies. Identical Twin studies have a very low correlation. Twin studies where twins are separated at birth have no significant correllation. Clearly environmental not genetic. Wait I am going to get to a computer so I don’t have to text this all…I can provide a better explaination.

What about what happens in the womb? Can you guarantee both foetuses receive exactly the same nutrients?

 

[tifischer]

No I am saying

1. Baily & Pillard had a weak correlation that could be attributed to environment but they did not further investigate.
2. Eckert ED, Bouchard TJ, Bohlen J, Heston LL.
   performed a more accurate study to account for environment.

Either way its a no…even without the second article the stats are not significant…in genetic studies anything under 70% is considered to be heavily influenced by environment…meaning even if you have the gene for example depression (mental illness) it does not mean you will suffer from depression…depending on your environment.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

You must be reading a different Catechism. Same sex attraction is not a sin. Homosexuality is a sin. In case you are not aware “acts of grave depravity” means it is a sin.

CCC 2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

CCC 2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

When exactly did I say that homosexual acts were at all acceptable?

The Catechism does not say that homosexuality is a sin. That’s why you couldn’t find the quotation you were looking for.

You are right that the Catechism apparently has a definition of homosexuality that goes against common usage. If we want to be very clear about it (and we should), the attraction to the same sex is not sinful, but sexual actions with the same sex are.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Sexual attraction is a desire that can be changed for the better by God’s healing. As with any desire. Otherwise, God would not expect celibacy or monogamy.

Are you saying that straight men can only be faithful to their spouses if they cease being attracted to other women?

 

[tifischer]

Regarding nutrients…that would be environmental. And would not be a primary cause to homosexuality. Environment is still a secondary cause. Meaning the environmental factor does not have a 100% effect to causing homosexuality. People cope with environments differently. I have had homosexual and bisexual friends growing up but that did not effect my sexuality. I love my friends regardless and their sexual life style does not effect my love for them.

 

[TheButler]

Regarding nutrients…that would be environmental. And would not be a primary cause to homosexuality. Environment is still a secondary cause. Meaning the environmental factor does not have a 100% effect to causing homosexuality. People cope with environments differently. I have had homosexual and bisexual friends growing up but that did not effect my sexuality. I love my friends regardless and their sexual life style does not effect my love for them.

OK, let’s try this then:

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/11/health/11real.html

Bottom line: Identical twins don’t have identical DNA.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

The attractions themselves may be sinful if they are nursed through porn, masturbstion or misusing the imagination.

No, the consequences of sin are not sinful. One is always responsible for the consequence of sin, but only actions can be sinful. Being attracted is never an action; it is sometimes a temptation. Temptation is not sin.