When Does Homosexuality Begin?

[JenDeMaria]

A lot of interesting comments. But does it make sense to try to analyze any of this without addressing the fact that we live in a culture which is massively hyper-sexualized?

That's the real essence of the problem and it boils down to the root of everything that pits the Church against the secular world. You see, it doesn't matter if homosexuality is nature or nurture if we live in an environment where marital relations are an act of great intimacy occurring between a husband and wife attempting to have a child. In that sort of world everyone is expected to live with a certain level of self-control no matter what kind of tendencies they have or whether those tendencies began at birth, in childhood, adolescence or adulthood.

Our modern secular culture, however, insists that intercourse between willing partners is an absolute right and that no limits should be set on the expression of anyone else's whims or fancies, so long as those whims or fancies refrain from actual, undesired physical harm. In this kind of environment where acts of intimacy are engaged in solely for the sake of pleasure, the idea that certain acts might be out of bounds becomes completely meaningless -- as does the entire concept of self-control, which is why anyone promoting the agenda of the sexual revolution (homosexual or otherwise) is so eager to mock any and all attempts at chastity or therapy for unwanted same sex attraction. Compulsive self-pleasure is the root agenda of the sexual revolution and self-mastery is its obverse.

Yet, our culture is so focused on freedom-without-consequences that any discussion of sexual morality is simply shouted down by cries of "oprression!". I personally wish the current magisterium would more clearly vocalize its true concern regarding sexual immorality -- every act of sexual immorality (indeed every mortal sin) is about as glamorous as watching someone slash their wrists open. Marital relations are intended to bind two people together in a permanent emotional and spiritual bond that makes them ready for the life-time committment of raising children -- and whenever people engage in sexual intimacy in a frivilous and thoughtless way, they place deep sutures in themselves and then rip them right back out. The result is an emotional deadening that produces a whole culture of death in our society -- it produces the spiritual deadening which allows for abortion, euthenasia and assisted suicide and the decline of workable marriages becomes an excuse par excellence for those wishing to advance the argument that there is no difference between heterosexual and homosexual relationships.

[Lumiere]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1297038159' post='2209492']
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)[/quote]

So what we are arguing about here is the size of the torture not whether it existed? If there was between 3000 and 5000 people put to death during the Inquisition then that makes the Inquisition worse than Osama Bin Laden according to your resource.

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1297038159' post='2209492']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
[/quote]

Here is some history:

Below is the text of a 1946 Vatican directive on Jewish children sheltered by French Catholics. Sources: The New York Times and a translation from the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera.

"With regards to Jewish children, who during the German occupation, were entrusted to Catholic Institutions and families and whose return is being sought by Jewish Institutions, the Holy Congregation of the Holy Office has taken a decision that can be summarized thusly:

1) Avoid, whenever possible, replying in writing to Jewish authorities, do so orally

2) Every time it is necessary to reply, it must be said that the Church has to investigate and study each individual case

3) Children who have been baptized must not be entrusted to institutions that would not be in a position to guarantee their Christian upbringing

4) For children who no longer have their parents, given the fact that the church has responsibility for them, it is not acceptable for them to be abandoned by the church or entrusted to any persons who have no rights over them, at least until they are in a position to choose for themselves. This, obviously, is for children who have not been baptized

5) If the children have been turned over (to the Church) by their parents, and if the parents reclaim them now, providing that the children have not received baptism, they can be given back

It should be noted that this decision taken by the Holy Congregation of the Holy Office has been approved by the Holy Father."

[b]In other words, baptised Jewish children were not to be returned to their families.[/b]

[url="http://www.jpost.com/Features/InThespotlight/Article.aspx?id=169378"]Here[/url] is another report about activities in Croatia.

The Internet is full of charges aginst the activities of the Church in WWII. Do I believe all of them? No! Many are from obviously anti-Catholic organisations or individuals, but there are some from valid sources which should be treated with respect.

Remember "history is written by the victors". (Winston Churchill)

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='ExCorde' timestamp='1296906138' post='2208995']
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.
[/quote]

Ridiculous? Why, it's [i]natural. [/i]Adult gerbils eat their young when stressed. Dolphins "rape" other dolphins. Baby pelicans shove their siblings out of the nest to get more food. Chimpanzee bands beat the tar out of rival bands with clubs. See, it happens in nature. That means it's OK for us to do it.

~Sternhauser

Edited February 7, 2011 by Sternhauser

[Ice_nine]

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

Dr. Phil lol.

[quote name='JenDeMaria' timestamp='1297043518' post='2209522']
A lot of interesting comments. But does it make sense to try to analyze any of this without addressing the fact that we live in a culture which is massively hyper-sexualized?

That's the real essence of the problem and it boils down to the root of everything that pits the Church against the secular world. You see, it doesn't matter if homosexuality is nature or nurture if we live in an environment where marital relations are an act of great intimacy occurring between a husband and wife attempting to have a child. In that sort of world everyone is expected to live with a certain level of self-control no matter what kind of tendencies they have or whether those tendencies began at birth, in childhood, adolescence or adulthood.

Our modern secular culture, however, insists that intercourse between willing partners is an absolute right and that no limits should be set on the expression of anyone else's whims or fancies, so long as those whims or fancies refrain from actual, undesired physical harm. In this kind of environment where acts of intimacy are engaged in solely for the sake of pleasure, the idea that certain acts might be out of bounds becomes completely meaningless -- as does the entire concept of self-control, which is why anyone promoting the agenda of the sexual revolution (homosexual or otherwise) is so eager to mock any and all attempts at chastity or therapy for unwanted same sex attraction. Compulsive self-pleasure is the root agenda of the sexual revolution and self-mastery is its obverse.

Yet, our culture is so focused on freedom-without-consequences that any discussion of sexual morality is simply shouted down by cries of "oprression!". I personally wish the current magisterium would more clearly vocalize its true concern regarding sexual immorality -- every act of sexual immorality (indeed every mortal sin) is about as glamorous as watching someone slash their wrists open. Marital relations are intended to bind two people together in a permanent emotional and spiritual bond that makes them ready for the life-time committment of raising children -- and whenever people engage in sexual intimacy in a frivilous and thoughtless way, they place deep sutures in themselves and then rip them right back out. The result is an emotional deadening that produces a whole culture of death in our society -- it produces the spiritual deadening which allows for abortion, euthenasia and assisted suicide and the decline of workable marriages becomes an excuse par excellence for those wishing to advance the argument that there is no difference between heterosexual and homosexual relationships.
[/quote]

I think this post is total domination of the entire thread, and that everyone should go home because what we're arguing about is essentially useless. There's nothing more disordered than attempting to have sex with yourself for the sole purpose of masturbatory pleasure, but most of us have been guilty of that no? And the culture cries out and says it's healthy and normal and resisting said urge is harmful to your well-being and will lead to psychological turmoil etc etc. Every sexual sin in its nature is masturbatory. That's the root of the problem: self-pleasure, lust and all those ugly things. The same driving force manifesting itself in different sexual sins. Right? I think we concede to the secular culture by giving the homosexual issue so much attention while usually side-stepping the root of the problem.

So why are we arguing whether it's nature vs. nurture? What's the importance in terms of the Christian life?

[Semper Catholic]

[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]

There are people who overcome all kinds of genetic traits and/or diseases.

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='Semper Catholic' timestamp='1297061691' post='2209599']
There are people who overcome all kinds of genetic traits and/or diseases.
[/quote]

Are you suggesting that homosexuality is genetic. Or are you just making a general statement?

[AudreyGrace]

What if it's hormonal? Both men and women have estrogen and testosterone. Men have more testosterone than women, and women have more estrogen. What if there was a hormonal imbalance to the extent of women producing higher than normal levels of testosterone and men producing higher than normal levels of estrogen? Sometimes, I can't help but look at a lesbian and think [i]wow... her face/structure even [u]looks[/u] masculine[/i] and for gay men, that they look more feminine (without makeup) than most men and even some women.

[kafka]

It is clear to me that it is not biological. God does not create human persons inherently ordered in an attraction which culminates in an objective mortal sin. If this were the case He would not be Goodness. Human persons, their totality, soul-body-spirit are inherently ordered toward the good, justice, mercy, love, etc. The fact that we are created with concupiscence and without sanctifying grace does not destroy the inherent goodness of human nature.

So I am not sure what the cause is. I think it is complex, but an homosexul orientation seems to imply that a person has committed some serious sins to get him to that state and they do not have to necessarily be actual mortal sins or exterior acts. They could be objective mortal sins. They could be interior acts. They could be a renunciation of the goodness of attraction between male and female, a renunciation God who created and ordered nature. Many small acts of effiminacy (for man) leading to effeminacy of character and same sex attraction. And so on. But I am not sure.

Beyond acts there are psychological factors, environmental factors like for men not having a strong manly father to teach and lead, concupiscence, selfish self-centeredness, influences of sinful secular society teaching errors, temptations of fallen angels.

So I think the question is how does a person get to that same sex attraction after he is born. And that is not an easy answer. Evil is complex, confusing, absurd. Goodness is pure, simple, profound, subtle.

But I think the God can heal this with the person's cooperation, determination, prayer, self-denial, works of mercy. So there is hope.

Edited February 7, 2011 by kafka

[Socrates]

[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. If you looked through the literature, you would see that not every professional researcher agrees with every other professional researcher on this issue, but they do expect the research to meet certain minimum requirements. If the above authors aren't publishing in peer reviewed scientific journals, then I suspect they aren't meeting the minimum requirements.

Personally I am uncomfortable with all social research because their sample size (the number of people being studied) is so small, usually less than 50 and often less than 20 people. In the link I gave you [url="http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/137/12/1553"]here[/url], the study group was only 11 white men. How can one apply the results of a study of 11 white men to the general population?

Whether the researchers are left-wing atheists or not is immaterial.
[/quote]


[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]
As the topic of homosexuality has become extremely politicized, I honestly don't trust trust anything to be completely unbiased on the topic. From my readings, it appears scientific journals and such are just as infected with politics as everything else. "Peer review" often is nothing more than a popularity vote, and in too many cases those in charge of the reviews simply reject studies if they don't like the results.

In any case, one of the studies Lumiere linked to concluded that:
"For many reasons, it is concluded that the participants' self-reports were, by-and-large, credible and that few elaborated self-deceptive narratives or lied. Thus, there is evidence that change in sexual orientation following some form of reparative therapy does occur in some gay men and lesbians."

This basically boils down to trusting people's testimony of their own experiences, and this isn't exactly something that can be tested in a lab.
There are plenty of verified cases of men who used to be flaming homosexuals who are now happily married with children, so I know this isn't all just bogus propaganda.

Simply dismissing the testimony of individuals concerning their own experiences as lies because they does not conform to your own ideological biases is hardly scientific.

People successfully change their behavior patterns all the time in other areas of life, so there's really no reason to be shocked and incredulous about this being accomplished in the area of sexuality.
People can and do change their behavior from homosexual to heterosexual, and that is the bottom line. No one claimed it was a quick or easy process.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Lumiere' timestamp='1296858701' post='2208844']
Actually, according to [url="http://www.primates.com/bonobos/bonobosexsoc.html"]this article[/url] published in Scientific America:

"The species is best characterized as female-centered and egalitarian and as one that substitutes sex for aggression. Whereas in most other species sexual behavior is a fairly distinct category, in the bonobo it is part and parcel of social relations--and not just between males and females. [b]Bonobos engage in sex in virtually every partner combination[/b] (although such contact among close family members may be suppressed). And sexual interactions occur more often among bonobos than among other primates. Despite the frequency of sex, the bonobo's rate of reproduction in the wild is about the same as that of the chimpanzee. A female gives birth to a single infant at intervals of between five and six years. So bonobos share at least one very important characteristic with our own species, namely, a partial separation between sex and reproduction."

(emphasis mine)
[/quote]
If you'd read more in-depth accounts of these studies, you'd note that the same-sex behavior among males never involves any kind of penetration or ejaculation, and is not a substitute for copulation with females. All the boy apes mate with the girl apes. It's quite a bit different than human homosexuality.

But if you're trying to argue that the behavior of these apes should be used as a basis for what should be acceptable human behavior, then go ahead . . .
Apes also like to eat their own poo.

I think it's telling that seculariast liberals apparently think human beings should act like a bunch of monkeys.

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1297045074' post='2209532']
Ridiculous? Why, it's [i]natural. [/i]Adult gerbils eat their young when stressed. Dolphins "rape" other dolphins. Baby pelicans shove their siblings out of the nest to get more food. Chimpanzee bands beat the tar out of rival bands with clubs. See, it happens in nature. That means it's OK for us to do it.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]
Human being = chimp = dog = rat = lizard = fish = worm = bacterium.

We're all just blobs of protoplasm trying to pass on our genes.
Morality is a bogus concept; survival of the fittest is all that matters.

[Socrates]

[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]
Oooh! He brought up the Spanish Inquisition!





























































I never expected that!

[MIKolbe]

no one ever expects the spanish inquisition.

[ExCorde]

[quote name='AudreyGrace' timestamp='1297093658' post='2209656']
What if it's hormonal?[/quote]

Just think for a minute, if it's as easy as testing people at their current age for hormonal levels, that would have been figured out by now: "all gay people have hormonal levels more typical of the opposite sex", but no, far from that. That kind of visible trait is more related to instances of Gender Identity Disorder than same-sex attraction.

The way people look masculine or feminine has also something to do with the development of their affection towards the opposite sex. A woman who was born looking more masculine (and we all know someone like that and they still get married) could quite understandably have grown in such a way that she was continuously negated the flourishing of a healthy femininity, not wanting to be pretty, not finding herself attractive and resenting not being courted from boys, let alone how bullied she must have been. I'm sure there's a number of lesbians like that - and again, we could probably tell we all know a few just like that... Why's it hard to accept? Because to know the truth of how they've lived and arrived at what they are today can be severely taxing. This fact makes them force public attention away from their inner struggles as well as illustrates just why exactly is it so hard to change or why is it feared that sexual orientation change efforts would cause harm - because you really would be having to look at those scars, and it's terrible.

Again, before someone jumps at it, I'm strongly opposed to the perpetuation of stereotypes and offensiveness. But this happens to be the truth...

[Socrates]

[quote name='Lumiere' timestamp='1297044415' post='2209527']
So what we are arguing about here is the size of the torture not whether it existed? If there was between 3000 and 5000 people put to death during the Inquisition then that makes the Inquisition worse than Osama Bin Laden according to your resource.



Here is some history:

Below is the text of a 1946 Vatican directive on Jewish children sheltered by French Catholics. Sources: The New York Times and a translation from the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera.

"With regards to Jewish children, who during the German occupation, were entrusted to Catholic Institutions and families and whose return is being sought by Jewish Institutions, the Holy Congregation of the Holy Office has taken a decision that can be summarized thusly:

1) Avoid, whenever possible, replying in writing to Jewish authorities, do so orally

2) Every time it is necessary to reply, it must be said that the Church has to investigate and study each individual case

3) Children who have been baptized must not be entrusted to institutions that would not be in a position to guarantee their Christian upbringing

4) For children who no longer have their parents, given the fact that the church has responsibility for them, it is not acceptable for them to be abandoned by the church or entrusted to any persons who have no rights over them, at least until they are in a position to choose for themselves. This, obviously, is for children who have not been baptized

5) If the children have been turned over (to the Church) by their parents, and if the parents reclaim them now, providing that the children have not received baptism, they can be given back

It should be noted that this decision taken by the Holy Congregation of the Holy Office has been approved by the Holy Father."

[b]In other words, baptised Jewish children were not to be returned to their families.[/b]

[url="http://www.jpost.com/Features/InThespotlight/Article.aspx?id=169378"]Here[/url] is another report about activities in Croatia.

The Internet is full of charges aginst the activities of the Church in WWII. Do I believe all of them? No! Many are from obviously anti-Catholic organisations or individuals, but there are some from valid sources which should be treated with respect.

Remember "history is written by the victors". (Winston Churchill)
[/quote]
Ooh, look! He played the "Nazi" card as well!

I guess the Nazism of the Church during WWII explains why the Chief Rabbi of Rome voluntarily converted to Catholicism after witnessing Pope Pius XII's work to save Jewish people.
And then there's the inconvenient truth of the Church condemning Nazism from the beginning in Pope Pius XI's 1937 encyclical[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/P11BRENN.HTM"][i] Mit Brennender Sorge[/i][/url].
(I could go on and on, but I'll let the boy do his own homework. Plenty to read here: [url="http://www.phatmass.com/directory/index.php/cat/344"]The Church and the Holocaust[/url].)



Looks like Lumiere's still holding onto the Crusades Card for now, and, of course, the real clincher, the Galileo Card.



(Psst. Don't tell him those cards have already been played by every two-bit atheist troll who wanders onto this site. I was starting to think this guy might be good, but he seems like an amateur. His play's awfully predictable so far.)

[ExCorde]

Lumiere, please stick to the subject and face the sources already posted. I won't be repeating myself, I'm afraid. Thanks in particular to the contributions of Socrates, kafka and others, I don't even need to.

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1297051101' post='2209561']
Every sexual sin in its nature is masturbatory. That's the root of the problem: self-pleasure, lust and all those ugly things. The same driving force manifesting itself in different sexual sins. Right? I think we concede to the secular culture by giving the homosexual issue so much attention while usually side-stepping the root of the problem.

So why are we arguing whether it's nature vs. nurture? What's the importance in terms of the Christian life?
[/quote]

Ice, I get you and thanks Jen for the sobering post, the culture is surely a major player. But the matter here is to realize what has happened to people in order to make them sexually fixated in their own sex. It's a legitimate concern.

I hope we can learn better not only to understand those we know who live with same-sex attraction but also offer them pastoral care. The importance is about not letting those people be hostages of an aggressive activism that really doesn't care about them as persons. And it's about bringing the healing power of Christ to those with very specific needs, often therapeutic as well. Please don't look at same-sex attracted persons as sexually-addicted monsters who should know better...