When Does Homosexuality Begin?

[ParadiseFound]

[quote name='infinitelord1' timestamp='1296868761' post='2208886']
I wonder why there are 9 votes for homosexuality being genetic. Have those people considered the Fact that there are people who have overcome their homosexual feelings?
[/quote]
You mean they CLAIM to have overcome them. Plus, the 'cure' only had a 15% success rate, if memory serves.

Edited February 5, 2011 by ParadiseFound

[ParadiseFound]

[quote name='ExCorde' timestamp='1296814674' post='2208606']
Being in homosexual relationships has a much stronger correlation to infidelity, violence and substance abuse than heterosexual relationships. And notice that I'm talking about relatively stable relationships, but most homosexuals do not have them and have dozens of different partners every year. Their own researchers are baffled by this.
[/quote]
Sorry, but you can't just make statements like that and expect no one to ask you for some form of proof.

[ExCorde]

[quote name='Lumiere' timestamp='1296865585' post='2208879']
You are guaranteeing that this is the truth? What is the basis for that guarantee? Why do you think these authors have what is "best for these people"?
[/quote]
You accused me of bias, but I'm judging the evidence on its own merits while being clear about the perspective of my faith. The expression you used seemed to me to imply a decision to remain ignorant, telling me that there'd be nothing good coming from them, which is an impediment to reach the truth. I hope the expression "these people" didn't seem offensive, since I clearly didn't mean it that way but merely pointed at the reality of individuals.

[quote name='Lumiere' timestamp='1296858437' post='2208837']
If professionals aren't willing to have their work reviewed by their professional peers, then they [b]are[/b] suspect.
[/quote]
This is an example of the ignorance you incur when you talk about things you decided not to look into. I already told you that it just didn't make it to the publications [b]they wanted, namely, a non-religious publisher[/b]. They explain this in the first pages of the book. You don't seem to have any idea [b]how hostile the culture is when it comes to discussing this issue openly[/b]. I mean, when this topic started, in the chat here on phatmass, Dr. Fitzgibbons and people who defended him were being ridiculed, although I'm used to it and don't hold it against them, but I mean, even faithful Catholics can share that hostility for no good reason! (which also explains all those votes on the 1st option, in addition to the 2nd option being severely incorrect)

If you had even looked at it in the slightest, you'd have read these editorial reviews on the cover (also on Amazon):

"Research in the controversial area of homosexuality is fraught with ideology and plagued by a dearth of science. This study has broken new ground in its adherence to objectivity and a scientific precision that can be replicated and expanded, and it opens new horizons for investigation. It is the kind of scientific research I had in mind when[u] in the mid-1970s I introduced my successful resolution in the APA Council of Representatives that homosexuality is not a disease, but a complex constellation of factors that requires scientific investigation to further our understanding of its etiology, its many parameters and its subjectivity to change.[/u][u] I have waited over thirty years for this refreshing, penetrating study[/u] of an imperative, though controversial, human condition. This book is must-reading for psychotherapists and counselors, as well as academic psychologists studying human behavior and sexuality." -- [i]Nicholas A. Cummings, Ph.D., SC.D.,[b] Former President, American Psychological Association[/b]; Distinguished Professor, University of Nevada, Reno; President, Cummings Foundation for Behavioral Health
[/i]
"Congratulations on your book. It is well and thoughtfully done, and the [u]meticulous adherence to your experimental design gives added weight to
your findings. Your carefully executed research demands a substantial and credible reexamination of current, politically driven, politically correct dogma that homosexual orientation is immutable and that the therapeutic address thereof threatens patient well-being[/u]. In a best-case scenario, your research might even pursuade the organized mental health movement to return to almost forgotten principles that it is [i][b]the patient’s right to choose,[/b][/i] and that [i]the patient has the capacity to do so.[/i]" -- [i]Rogers H. Wright, Ph.D., [b]Fellow and Past President of Divisions 12 and 31 of the American Psychological Association[/b]; Founding President, Council for the Advancement of the Psychological Professions and Sciences; Diplomate in Clinical Psychology, American Board of Professional Psychology
[/i]
In addition, the Spitzer (2003) study was also made by the man who had come up with exactly how to remove homosexuality from the DSM and who was the main editor for that publication for several editions. He wanted to really *know* if people could change. He saw that yes, they could, even though it was hard. These people are of an intellectual caliber and personal honesty you should look up to.

[quote name='ParadiseFound' timestamp='1296894549' post='2208985']
You mean they CLAIM to have overcome them. Plus, the 'cure' only had a 15% success rate, if memory serves.
[/quote]
I already quoted that there is no "cure" for homosexuality since it isn't a disease, but a far more complex problem. I also said that in current practice, a lot more than 15% report change. If you aren't going to believe the reports of people who even after being tested are revealed to have underwent CHANGE [u]in their sexual fantasy and arousal[/u] (not just their external behavior!!), then go on to get married and have children, I'm afraid no proof will [i]ever[/i] be enough for you, even if you're talking face to face to one of them... Too much suspicion makes you believe in your own fantasies and expectations, not the real (often unexpected and demanding) truth.

Edited February 5, 2011 by ExCorde

[ExCorde]

[quote name='ParadiseFound' timestamp='1296894830' post='2208986']
Sorry, but you can't just make statements like that and expect no one to ask you for some form of proof.
[/quote]

Homosexuals experience significantly higher rates of psychiatric disorders than heterosexuals, as well as domestic violence. Then there's STDs, of course, but I'm not even going into that...

Check the Catholic Medical Association's pamphlet [url="http://www.cathmed.org/issues_resources/publications/position_papers/homosexuality_and_hope/"]Homosexuality & Hope: Questions and Answers About Same-Sex Attraction[/url] for details ("Why is it important to help individuals with same-sex attraction?" question on the last page of that PDF). I do have the references on my paper copy, which include studies mostly from the [i]American Journal of Public Health[/i], [i]Archives of General Psychiatry[/i] and the [i]American Journal of Psychiatry[/i]. This pamphlet is a shorter, Q&A version of a larger [url="http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0039.html"]document you can read here[/url] (@ CatholicEducation.org). Please read this if you're Catholic and can't wrap your head around this.

The attempted defense of homosexual activists and sympathizers has been to say it's a problem of social acceptance. This is mixed up with real issues of violent homophobia where people get killed or kill themselves. I already lamented how wrong that is. It's also sad because it gives a reason for homosexual activists to mix everything up and demand "equality" to heterosexuality. But anyway, what people need to know is that in countries like the Netherlands, Denmark or Sweden (or even New Zealand, as is referenced on the CMA pamphlet) where there has been a widespread acceptance of homosexuals for decades, the incidence of disorders and violence including suicide are significantly higher among homosexuals than heterosexuals.

[ExCorde]

One thing I do admit to find ridiculous is how people equate animal to human behavior... It does tell me how much they wish to insist on the "naturalness" of homosexual attraction and expression. Which is why it's so important for people to realize that they are never "born" gay. It's a rhetoric that loses all credibility in light of the facts of human development.

Here's some references about bonobos, dogs, what have you.

[url="http://narth.com/2010/09/the-animal-homosexuality-myth/"]The Animal Homosexuality Myth[/url]

And before you bring up rams too:

[url="http://narth.com/2010/09/gay-ram-claims-questioned-by-narth-leader/"]‘Gay’ Ram Claims Questioned By NARTH Leader[/url]

The only real argument for homosexual rights is the very essential [b]right to LOVE[/b]. This is true but also distorted, because although we were indeed made from love and for love, what that really means is how God loves and how God made us to be a free gift to one another. Sexual differentiation is part of real human nature and is reflected across creation. We are incomplete beings if we are sexually fixated in our own sex when were made for the other.

[Lumiere]

[quote name='ExCorde' timestamp='1296901937' post='2208988']

This is an example of the ignorance you incur when you talk about things you decided not to look into. I already told you that it just didn't make it to the publications [b]they wanted, namely, a non-religious publisher[/b]. They explain this in the first pages of the book. You don't seem to have any idea [b]how hostile the culture is when it comes to discussing this issue openly[/b]. I mean, when this topic started, in the chat here on phatmass, Dr. Fitzgibbons and people who defended him were being ridiculed, although I'm used to it and don't hold it against them, but I mean, even faithful Catholics can share that hostility for no good reason! (which also explains all those votes on the 1st option, in addition to the 2nd option being severely incorrect)
[/quote]


Scientific journals are non-religious and you can pick up any trash novel in the grocery store and find it covered with glowing reviews.

I am not saying this book is a trash novel (as I haven't read it), I am saying reviews can be easy to come by. "You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours." If the science is that good, then it should have been published in a peer reviewed journal.

For a homosexuals (or as you might say, former homosexuals) to marry and have children is nothing. In countries where homosexuality is punishable by death, homosexuals in hiding do that all the time. It does not change their sexual orientation.

What offends me is how the whole reorientation process and the people who claim they were successfully reoriented are used to attack all homosexuals. It implies that homosexuality is a choice. Why would anyone choose to be ridiculed and ostracized? In some places it is worse.
[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gARvwzFWSr4"]This[/url] is one of the least graphic videos of many showing the execution of homosexuals.

Remember the two boys in the above video (ages 14 and 16) are being executed for religious reasons. If we lived in a Roman Catholic theocracy would it be any different? After listening to some of the voices in this and other debates, I think not. I can hear the hatred and there is historical precedence.

I got this information from the most reliable source I could find on short notice, the [url="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/homosexuality/"]Stanford Encyclopedia[/url]:

"The latter part of the twelfth through the fourteenth centuries, however, saw a sharp rise in intolerance towards homosexual sex, alongside persecution of Jews, Muslims, heretics, and others. While the causes of this are somewhat unclear, it is likely that increased class conflict alongside the Gregorian reform movement in the Catholic Church were two important factors. The Church itself started to appeal to a conception of “nature” as the standard of morality, and drew it in such a way so as to forbid homosexual sex (as well as extramarital sex, nonprocreative sex within marriage, and often masturbation). For example, the first ecumenical council to condemn homosexual sex, Lateran III of 1179, stated that “Whoever shall be found to have committed that incontinence which is against nature” shall be punished, the severity of which depended upon whether the transgressor was a cleric or layperson (quoted in Boswell, 1980, 277). This appeal to natural law (discussed below) became very influential in the Western tradition. An important point to note, however, is that the key category here is the ‘sodomite,’ which differs from the contemporary idea of ‘homosexual’. A sodomite was understood as act-defined, rather than as a type of person. Someone who had desires to engage in sodomy, yet did not act upon them, was not a sodomite. Also, persons who engaged in heterosexual sodomy were also sodomites. There are reports of persons being burned to death or beheaded for sodomy with a spouse (Greenberg, 1988, 277). Finally, a person who had engaged in sodomy, yet who had repented of his sin and vowed to never do it again, was no longer a sodomite. The gender of one's partner is again not of decisive importance, although some medieval theologians single out same-sex sodomy as the worst type of sexual crime."

[thessalonian]

I think the Poll is flawed. It is kind of like asking "do you think Cancer is genetic, or do you think it is caused by what we eat, or do you think it is caused by too much exposure to the sun". Our minds like what is easily grasped and so we try to boil things down to what is simple and often we come to what we believe are facts based on too little evidence. I find it rather a waste of time getting in to an argument over whether homosexuality has a genetic component. There has been evidence presented that it is, though no smoking gun gay gene and the evidence seems to be tainted in my view and there has been evidence pointing to it being related to stress in the mother during pregnancy, i.e. homosexuality is higher among children born during world war II, and there is evidence that points to it being due to dominant mothers. Okay. Are these all contrary? No, not necessarily. Like the cancer there can be multiple non-competing causes. Does it make it any more "right" for those who are homosexuals to act on their behavior? From a natural law perspective, just as if cancer is genetic it is a deformity in the genes, so it is clear from natural law that homosexuality is a deformity of the genes. Genetic forms of cancer are not allowed to run rampant because "that is the way God made that person". They are still cured. So could a genetic form of homosexuality. We certainly don't let cancer patients die without a good fight. But they have to know they have cancer before they can fight it.

There is a big flap in a local school in minnesota today because two lesbians want to make an entrance at the snowball dance. My son said at his school it is "cool" for all the girls to declare themselves bi or lesbian. Now I am sure not all of them will act on it but unfortunately many of them will eat of this tree of good and evil and it will forever affect their lives and screw up their sexual identity. I think the high amount of porn and the abuse of women in this country also contributes toward women choosing these lifestyles. I do think more of it is because of societies screwed up sexuality. But there may be genetic factors as well.

Thess

[southern california guy]

I find this a bit of a provocative subject for a Catholic forum because boys that are molested are almost seven times more likely to become homosexuals than boys who aren't ( http://blowthetrumpet.org/WhatCausesHomosexuality.htm ). And the Catholic church has come under attack because of the number of molestations by priests... Remember the argument that the priests aren't really pedophiles because the "boys" were adolescents?

A simple question is: "Why are boys, that are molested, almost seven times more likely to become homosexuals?"

I wonder if homosexuality isn't a bit like a problem with porn. You get a thrill looking at increasingly more twisted porn. You know that it's wrong, and that it contributes nothing positive to your life -- yet you have a hard time getting yourself to stop.. Would somebody really do you a favor by arguing that you were just born that way and you shouldn't listen to people who argue that you shouldn't waste your time on such a stupid thing?

It seems to me that the "born this way" argument is a veiled support of a harmful way of thinking and living.

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='ParadiseFound' timestamp='1296894549' post='2208985']
You mean they CLAIM to have overcome them. Plus, the 'cure' only had a 15% success rate, if memory serves.
[/quote]

15% percent experience a complete shift in their attractions towards the opposite sex. The majority experiences attractions towards the opposite sex much less frequently than a straight person, but still experiences attractions towards the same sex. After that, the rest of people don't experience any change at all.

It is said that your success and chance of overcoming it completely are increased the more focus and effort you put into overcoming it. That means getting involved in groups and developing natural relationships with same sex peers who will not pursue sex with you. A church environment is good because people there are affirming of the feat that you are trying to accomplish. Where as in a secular environment it is going to be harder since people will exploit your weaknesses and affirm you as being gay. Which increases your chances of giving in to your same sex desires. And once you do that you crash and burn. Imagine an alcoholic who gives up drinking for a few months completely then decides to give in one day. That one day leads to him being hooked again. Same concept with Homosexuality. Its an addiction.

On top of all that, God plays a role in your healing process as well.

[MithLuin]

[b]Lumiere[/b], the chances of a modern society becoming a Roman Catholic theocracy are rather slim. But I should note that the Church repeatedly condemns capital punishment (in [u]all[/u] cases) when the society has the ability to use prisons instead. If a society cannot actually imprison a grave offender and keep them away from more potential victims...then capital punishment is acceptable by necessity.

So, no, I do not think the Church would advocate for the execution of sinners, given the chance to do so.

The 12th century reform is a very interesting time in Church history, and one of the theologians being referenced is St. Peter Damien. The reforms were meant to do away with corruption within the Church. Certainly, that is needed from time to time.... The two main targets of the reform, though, were kings who tried to install bishops on their own (the investiture controversy) and simony (buying your way into office). Priestly celibacy was also addressed, because holy priests were seen as a priority, particularly in confronting heresy. Sodomy was, of course, against the civil laws of the time, and I think you will find that many crimes in the 12th century were punishable by death. Fast forward to the 16th century, and sodomy is still illegal, but the punishment for the crime is not generally death (just look into the history of some of the famous Italian artists of the Renaissance, and this will come up).

I also agree with you that just because some people might be able to shift their sexual orientation through therapy does not mean that people 'choose' to be homosexual....or that therapy could be used to change everyone. Clearly that is not the case.

Basically, I consider sexual temptations to be very strong and very difficult to overcome, and that is true regardless of one's orientation. If people consider homosexual sex to be 'worse' than adultery, they're hypocrites. We're all called to live chastely, and that means mastering our passions and not committing grave sins (and making good use of confession).

[url=http://www.couragerc.net/]Courage[/url] is a good Catholic resource for anyone who wishes to live a celibate life, but it is geared towards Catholics who experience SSA.

Edited February 6, 2011 by MithLuin

[Lumiere]

[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1297004189' post='2209312']
[b]Lumiere[/b], the chances of a modern society becoming a Roman Catholic theocracy are rather slim. But I should note that the Church repeatedly condemns capital punishment (in [u]all[/u] cases) when the society has the ability to use prisons instead. If a society cannot actually imprison a grave offender and keep them away from more potential victims...then capital punishment is acceptable by necessity.

So, no, I do not think the Church would advocate for the execution of sinners, given the chance to do so.

The 12th century reform is a very interesting time in Church history, and one of the theologians being referenced is St. Peter Damien. The reforms were meant to do away with corruption within the Church. Certainly, that is needed from time to time.... The two main targets of the reform, though, were kings who tried to install bishops on their own (the investiture controversy) and simony (buying your way into office). Priestly celibacy was also addressed, because holy priests were seen as a priority, particularly in confronting heresy. Sodomy was, of course, against the civil laws of the time, and I think you will find that many crimes in the 12th century were punishable by death. Fast forward to the 16th century, and sodomy is still illegal, but the punishment for the crime is not generally death (just look into the history of some of the famous Italian artists of the Renaissance, and this will come up).

I also agree with you that just because some people might be able to shift their sexual orientation through therapy does not mean that people 'choose' to be homosexual....or that therapy could be used to change everyone. Clearly that is not the case.

Basically, I consider sexual temptations to be very strong and very difficult to overcome, and that is true regardless of one's orientation. If people consider homosexual sex to be 'worse' than adultery, they're hypocrites. We're all called to live chastely, and that means mastering our passions and not committing grave sins (and making good use of confession).

[url=http://www.couragerc.net/]Courage[/url] is a good Catholic resource for anyone who wishes to live a celibate life, but it is geared towards Catholics who experience SSA.
[/quote]

Dr. Phil says the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.

So, while I agree with you that there is little liklihood of having a Roman Catholic theocracy at this point, I think that it is[b] not[/b] a result of any changes in the Church. I think that it is a result of the growing separation of church and state and the resulting legal checks on the Church. As I said, I do hear hatred and the intolerance in posts all through this forum. And by the way, I do not consider Protestants, Jews, or Muslims to be innocent either. Religious theocracies of all kinds have blood on their hands.

Thank you for a more generous view on homosexuality in that you acknowledge that not all homosexuals choose to be homosexuals.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Lumiere' timestamp='1297035380' post='2209463']
Dr. Phil says the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.

So, while I agree with you that there is little liklihood of having a Roman Catholic theocracy at this point, I think that it is[b] not[/b] a result of any changes in the Church. I think that it is a result of the growing separation of church and state and the resulting legal checks on the Church. As I said, I do hear hatred and the intolerance in posts all through this forum. And by the way, I do not consider Protestants, Jews, or Muslims to be innocent either. Religious theocracies of all kinds have blood on their hands.
[/quote]

If given a choice between a Catholic thecracy or Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, Kin Il Sung, Stalin, Mussolini and all the great genocidists of the 20th century, I prefer the Church. If you want to look for blood, start with the State. If you want to look for champions of human rights, start with the Church. The concept of individual human rights as we know them today arose in the Spanish Church during the colonization of the "New World" in the 15th century when the Church upheld the rights of individuals over the state.

[Lumiere]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1297036560' post='2209476']
If given a choice between a Catholic thecracy or Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, Kin Il Sung, Stalin, Mussolini and all the great genocidists of the 20th century, I prefer the Church. If you want to look for blood, start with the State. If you want to look for champions of human rights, start with the Church. The concept of individual human rights as we know them today arose in the Spanish Church during the colonization of the "New World" in the 15th century when the Church upheld the rights of individuals over the state.
[/quote]

I'm sure the victims of the Spanish Inqusition in both the "Old World" and the "New World" will agree with you. Come to that, the native peoples of the "New World" would probably have something to say about this. If I think for a bit, I do recall that there is condemnation of the role the Roman Catholic Church played in Nazi Germany and fascist Italy in some circles, as well.

Yours is the blind obedience that is so dangerous. Teach yourself something of the real life history of the Church and then we can have a discussion.

[Lumiere]

For those who are open to other people's ideas and the reasons behind them, [url="https://www.themoth.org/listen"]here[/url] is a link to a podcast describing a most heartbreaking response of a mother upon learning her son was homosexual. Click on the "Jeffery Rudell, Under the Influence" podcast and listen to it patiently.

Why would this man choose to be homosexual, if it meant this kind of response from his mother?

It is this kind of response which is a result of the belief that homosexuality is chosen and is immoral.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Lumiere' timestamp='1297037135' post='2209483']
I'm sure the victims of the Spanish Inqusition in both the "Old World" and the "New World" will agree with you. Come to that, the native peoples of the "New World" would probably have something to say about this. If I think for a bit, I do recall that there is condemnation of the role the Roman Catholic Church played in Nazi Germany and fascist Italy in some circles, as well.

Yours is the blind obedience that is so dangerous. Teach yourself something of the real life history of the Church and then we can have a discussion.
[/quote]
The number of people involved in the Inquisition ( Wiki - the quickest resource ) states 3000-5000 people - pales into comparison of state sanctioned murder ( http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html) There also has been NO condemnation by any legitimate source of the Catholic Church in WWII.
Maybe you should study some history and not popular cultures version of history yourself.

If you learn nothing else at phatmass, kindly learn there is no such thing as blind obedience anywhere here at phatmass