Born That Way?
January 4, 2013
Joshua Gonnerman
The causes of homosexuality are infamously difficult to pin down. Science (in the American Psychological Association) and religion (in the Catechism of the Catholic Church) have agreed that, in the current state of things, there is no single cause to which we can definitively point and say, “Here, we have found it!” Indeed, in some circles, the discussion is about homosexualities, to remain open to the possibility that one person’s homosexuality might not have the same origin as another person’s homosexuality. These questions never cease to intrigue, and once again, they have hit the news with a new study suggesting that epigenetics may lie at the root of the development of homosexual orientation.
Investigations of the etiology of homosexuality may be interesting, especially insofar as they shed light on the origins of human sexuality in general. However, these investigations have tended to be ideologically driven on all sides. This has particularly tended to manifest around the idea that one is “born gay,” with many gay activists flatly refusing to consider the possibility that a gay person is not “born gay,” while many religious conservatives have responded with a mirror refusal to consider the possibility that one is. What exactly is meant by “born gay” often seems to have little significance; the phrase itself becomes the shibboleth which one camp must blindly accept and the other must utterly anathematize.
This ideological commitment to a particular answer to these questions suggests underlying premises. It seems that all are agreed that, if one is born gay, it would necessitate revising traditional morality in ways which one side wants, and the other does not. There seems to be an echo of the old zoological argument, where one points to homosexuality among bonobos and dolphins to prove that it should not be opposed among human beings. There, the traditional moralist was usually quick to see through the facade, and see that “nature” was being used equivocally.
But the fact that we are now talking about human beings does not mean that our understanding of nature is in any more danger than it was with the bonobo. From a theological perspective, “natural” does not mean “biological” or even, despite etymological origins, “inborn.” The Second Vatican Council’s Gaudium et Spes tells us the kind of questions we really need to look for, if we are to understand nature theologically. “What is the ultimate significance of human activity throughout the world?” Indeed, “What is man?” The same document provides us with the answer we seek to these questions: “Christ, the final Adam, by the revelation of the mystery of the Father and His love, fully reveals man to man himself and makes his supreme calling clear.”
The normative status of Christ’s humanity is not only expressed in the head, but in the body as well. It is expressed in Christ’s example and the teaching of the Church he established, with the firm assurance that “the gates of Hell will not prevail against it,” that we learn the answer to the questions at hand. What does it mean to be a human being? What is the end to which human beings are called? How are human beings to order their lives and affections?
Because our answers to these questions are not fundamentally biological, but teleological and mediated through the teaching of Christ’s Church, the questions that fall within the scope of science offer no threat to our perspectives on sexual ethics. This is not to say that there is no value to the investigation. Scientific inquiry is capable of functioning as an act of worship to the Creator of an intelligible world. What it does mean is that our theological anthropology is not changed by the outcome. Where the obscure origins of homosexuality can seem like a darkness, our guiding light is not biology, but Christ and his Church. This light is not swallowed up by the darkness, but shines through it, lighting our path so that we need fear nothing hidden by the shadows of uncertainty.
Joshua Gonnerman lives in Washington, D. C., where he is a doctoral student in historical theology at the Catholic University of America.
RESOURCES
Study Finds Epigenetics, Not Genetics, Underlies Homosexuality
Homosexuality as a Consequence of Epigenetically Canalized Sexual Development
Alan Yoshioka, The Latest Gay Genetics Claim—Chill, People
Joshua Gonnerman, False Hope
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
1.4.2013 | 10:00am
David Nickol says:
I presume Joshua Gonnerman would agree that homosexuality (having a homosexual orientation) is not a choice, but there are many people who seem to genuinely believe that it is. So finding a biological cause in humans, or observing naturally occurring and adaptive homosexual behavior in numerous animal species is solid evidence that homosexuality is indeed not a choice. However, I doubt that most people who maintain homosexuality is a choice will give much weight to evidence.
While demonstrating that certain behaviors occur naturally in other species in no way proves they are appropriate for human beings or that they are not grossly immoral for human beings—I am thinking here of the female praying mantis biting off the head of the male she mates with—it does prove that they are not "against nature." Moral arguments that homosexuality is "unnatural" and immoral based on appeals to evolution are just as wrongheaded as arguments that because homosexuality appears in nature, it is morally permissible to engage in homosexual acts.
While demonstrating that certain behaviors occur naturally in other species in no way proves they are appropriate for human beings or that they are not grossly immoral for human beings—I am thinking here of the female praying mantis biting off the head of the male she mates with—it does prove that they are not "against nature." Moral arguments that homosexuality is "unnatural" and immoral based on appeals to evolution are just as wrongheaded as arguments that because homosexuality appears in nature, it is morally permissible to engage in homosexual acts.
1.4.2013 | 10:01am
Thomas Murray says:
I find it interesting that the gay activists are now on the "born that way" path. Earlier in their advocacy, many disagreed with this notion, fearing that this would lead some to find a "cure", and stigmatize them that they were somehow "defective" and needed fixing. As the lifestyle choice strategy failed to produce the desired results, they had to go back to the idea that since they were born this way (with the false analogy that this was just like being born black), there should be no attempts to convert them to heterosexuality (as we have seen recently in California) and all sorts of accomodations made to them.
Doubtless there is a mixture of both sides in the final accounting. Some studies have shown that brain structures in some homosexual men are similar to those found in women (although there were no corresponding findings among homosexual women that I am aware of). On the other hand, there have been many who, after a lifetime of living as a heterosexual, changed over to the other side (or vice versa).
While we should pray for our homosexual/transgender brothers and sisters, that does not equate to overturning the history of mankind with respect to familial relationships, to include marriage.
Doubtless there is a mixture of both sides in the final accounting. Some studies have shown that brain structures in some homosexual men are similar to those found in women (although there were no corresponding findings among homosexual women that I am aware of). On the other hand, there have been many who, after a lifetime of living as a heterosexual, changed over to the other side (or vice versa).
While we should pray for our homosexual/transgender brothers and sisters, that does not equate to overturning the history of mankind with respect to familial relationships, to include marriage.
1.4.2013 | 10:15am
R says:
Thank you for this thoughtful article. Whether homosexual inclinations are the result of genetic or epigenetic factors--or whether it's different for each individual--I only know that such inclinations are an elemental part of me, and always have been. But the truth of biblical teachings is also beyond dispute in my mind: the only legitimate place for sexual expression is between a married couple, male and female. No matter how much my homosexual inclinations are elemental to me, they are disordered and have to be resisted. "If your right eye offends you ..." This is a cross that I and others like me are called to bear.
1.4.2013 | 11:26am
Carroll says:
On a related note, I find it interesting that the so-called gay rights movement is against "restorative," or "curative" counseling treatments for homosexuals on the grounds that it is wrong and unnatural, but they also seem to be in support of sex-change operations. I ask them, which is more contrary to nature, to try to align ones sexual desires to members of the opposite sex, or to have a doctor surgically mutilate and re-design ones sexual organs?
1.4.2013 | 11:51am
Ye Olde Statistician says:
@David Nickol
That's not what "natural" means in the context. A ball falling to the ground exhibits natural motion. A ball thrown by a pitcher toward the batter exhibits unnatural motion.
That's not what "natural" means in the context. A ball falling to the ground exhibits natural motion. A ball thrown by a pitcher toward the batter exhibits unnatural motion.
1.4.2013 | 11:56am
ALS84 says:
David, I think "unnatural" would still be at issue until the difference between "born that way" and "conceived that way" (prior to epigenetic changes in the womb, for example) is articulated in such a way as to determine whether homosexuality is an ideal or a flaw. And then there is also the "unnatural" homosexual act to contend with.
1.4.2013 | 12:27pm
Mike D'Virgilio says:
These are fascinating times we live in. The "born that way" argument is really a can of worms for those who believe such a possibility means acting on that orientation is de facto moral. Where does one draw the line? I have no doubt that some men have a sexual orientation to be turned on by minors. Does that make acting upon that moral, because if I don't I'm "denying" my true identity? Even the most hard core atheist secularists out there believe pedophilia is wrong. But why, if they were born that way? Same with bestiality. And it doesn't have to be sexually driven. How about those who are born to steal, be violent, lie, cheat, and one could go on and on. Part of morality is in fact denying our natural inclinations. But it's pretty much impossible to have a nuanced and dispassionate conversation with those who think re-defining marriage is the essence of compassion and righteousness.
1.4.2013 | 12:37pm
Michael PS says:
It should not be overlooked that genetic and environmental factors may be a function of each other.
Consider the condition that used to be called cretinism and is now known as phenylketonuria. Here, brain damage results from the presence of phenylalanine in the diet, an environmental factor, but only in the tiny minority of people who are unable to metabolize it, which is a genetic condition. The reason the condition was thought to be wholly genetic is that phenylalanine is found in virtually all naturally occurring proteins.
In a population in which everyone smoked, lung cancer would be considered a genetic disorder.
Consider the condition that used to be called cretinism and is now known as phenylketonuria. Here, brain damage results from the presence of phenylalanine in the diet, an environmental factor, but only in the tiny minority of people who are unable to metabolize it, which is a genetic condition. The reason the condition was thought to be wholly genetic is that phenylalanine is found in virtually all naturally occurring proteins.
In a population in which everyone smoked, lung cancer would be considered a genetic disorder.
1.4.2013 | 12:53pm
Ray Ingles says:
"There seems to be an echo of the old zoological argument, where one points to homosexuality among bonobos and dolphins to prove that it should not be opposed among human beings."
I've referred to the bonobos before, but not with quite that intent. What the case of bonobos in particular seems to point out is, *if* homosexuality is to be opposed in humans, a more elaborate case needs to be made than just "it's against nature". One might use theology to argue specifically about the nature of humans... but on the other hand, not everyone agrees about theology (to put it mildly).
There's also the question of exactly how far the *law* should conform to a particular *theological* understanding.
I've referred to the bonobos before, but not with quite that intent. What the case of bonobos in particular seems to point out is, *if* homosexuality is to be opposed in humans, a more elaborate case needs to be made than just "it's against nature". One might use theology to argue specifically about the nature of humans... but on the other hand, not everyone agrees about theology (to put it mildly).
There's also the question of exactly how far the *law* should conform to a particular *theological* understanding.
1.4.2013 | 1:02pm
Steve M. says:
"Born that way" cannot impel moral approval. It would seem equally likely that other "orientations" are also congenital, viz. pedophilia. Now, I am no more comparing homosexuals to pedophiles than I am comparing heterosexuals (also "born that way") to them. There is a vast gulf there, hinging upon the concept of the consenting partner (assuming that children are unable to consent).
That said, R's remarks reminded me that above all we must love our homosexual brothers and sisters, however they "got that way".
That said, R's remarks reminded me that above all we must love our homosexual brothers and sisters, however they "got that way".
1.4.2013 | 1:41pm
maineman says:
David, I doubt that you will find that many people who think that same-sex attraction is itself a choice (even though you will find many who make the narrow-minded assumption that a negative perspective on homosexual behavior must mean just that).
What is more to the point is that engaging in homosexual activity is rightly understood as a choice and that unbiased understanding of the data argues that same-sex attraction is almost certainly the result of a combination of biological and environmental influences, most probably more heavily weighted toward the latter than the former.
Finally, to say that homosexual behavior is unnatural is not the same as arguing that it is disordered, the second of which is justified on the basis of what sex is for.
What is more to the point is that engaging in homosexual activity is rightly understood as a choice and that unbiased understanding of the data argues that same-sex attraction is almost certainly the result of a combination of biological and environmental influences, most probably more heavily weighted toward the latter than the former.
Finally, to say that homosexual behavior is unnatural is not the same as arguing that it is disordered, the second of which is justified on the basis of what sex is for.
1.4.2013 | 1:52pm
Citizen Jerry says:
So far there has been absolutely zero scientific evidence to support the "born that way" falsehood. The fundamental question for me is: If homosexuality is genetic and something out of a person's control, why is it soundly condemned throughout the biblical record? Are they saying that God is wrong? "Abomination" is pretty clear, actually.
1.4.2013 | 1:54pm
kim says:
I still can't figure out why it matters whether one is born gay or not. A discovery as to what makes a person want to do something isn't automatically validation that the behavior is one that society ought to promote. If scientists discovered what makes my mother love alcohol so much, would society then need to endorse her drinking behaviors? No. So the problem with homosexuality isn't settling the question of whether one is born gay or not. The problem with homosexuality is no one is willing to engage in an adult discusion on whether homosexual behavior ought to be promoted by our society. And I suspect people don't want to engage in that discusion because they also don't want to discuss whether other behaviors related to human sexuality should be promoted, such as out of wedlock sex, abortion, contraception, etc.
1.4.2013 | 2:02pm
ALS84 says:
Ray, it's not like "more elaborate" and not explicitly theological case hasn't been made with respect to marriage (where public opposition generally focuses) by the likes of George, Anderson, and Girgis.
1.4.2013 | 2:48pm
David Nickol says:
Steve M,
You say: "Born that way" cannot impel moral approval.
You are absolutely correct. However, it does make a major difference whether a homosexual orientation is the result of factors not within a person's control or merely results from someone saying, "I've decided to be sexually attracted only to people of my own gender." If it is the latter, then those who oppose homosexual behavior can say, "Well, just change your mind!"
I *think* we're all agreed here (so far) that sexual orientation is not a matter of choice, but many people seem to believe it is.
You say: "Born that way" cannot impel moral approval.
You are absolutely correct. However, it does make a major difference whether a homosexual orientation is the result of factors not within a person's control or merely results from someone saying, "I've decided to be sexually attracted only to people of my own gender." If it is the latter, then those who oppose homosexual behavior can say, "Well, just change your mind!"
I *think* we're all agreed here (so far) that sexual orientation is not a matter of choice, but many people seem to believe it is.
1.4.2013 | 2:55pm
Guest says:
One more thing I am curious about: what if you fantasize about something but never act on it, does that make you say "gay"? What if you fantasize about both sexes but only act heterosexually, does that? Seems to me there a lot of permutations to take into consideration.
One other thing: Personally, I don't think that being attracted to or let's say "turned on" by a person of the same sex is necessarily some sort of a defect for lack of a better term, but what I do suspect is, perhaps even some sort of genetic defect although again I doubt it, is actually being unable to be "turned on" by a member of the opposite sex. Wouldn't a billion years of evolution and billions and billions of mutations have pretty much dealt with this mystery?
End of the day I suspect we all know the truth, in our hearts: beauty is in the eye of the beholder and we humans are infamous for our ability to post-rationalize our behaviour.
One other thing: Personally, I don't think that being attracted to or let's say "turned on" by a person of the same sex is necessarily some sort of a defect for lack of a better term, but what I do suspect is, perhaps even some sort of genetic defect although again I doubt it, is actually being unable to be "turned on" by a member of the opposite sex. Wouldn't a billion years of evolution and billions and billions of mutations have pretty much dealt with this mystery?
End of the day I suspect we all know the truth, in our hearts: beauty is in the eye of the beholder and we humans are infamous for our ability to post-rationalize our behaviour.
1.4.2013 | 3:56pm
Ray Ingles says:
Guest -
"Wouldn't a billion years of evolution and billions and billions of mutations have pretty much dealt with this mystery?"
Sometimes traits that are detrimental in some contexts are advantageous in others. If you get one copy of the sickle-cell gene, you have an increased resistance to malaria. If you get two copies, though, you develop sickle-cell anemia. There's some evidence that RH-negative women tend to miscarry more, but get pregnant more easily.
If there were genes (or complexes of genes, or developmental conditions) that, say, tended to encourage attraction to males, this could be advantageous (from an evolutionary perspective) for females, and disadvantageous for males. If the female advantage outweighed the male disadvantage, evolution wouldn't weed it out.
Then there's the fact that humans are *social* creatures. The other major classes of social creatures on this planet - insects - seem to get along just fine when the majority of their members don't breed. It's possible the traits that *sometimes* result in homosexuality lead, other times, to advantageous results.
Evolution's a lot more complicated than simple 'survival of the fittest'. A good introduction is David Sloan Wilson's "Evolution For Everyone".
"Wouldn't a billion years of evolution and billions and billions of mutations have pretty much dealt with this mystery?"
Sometimes traits that are detrimental in some contexts are advantageous in others. If you get one copy of the sickle-cell gene, you have an increased resistance to malaria. If you get two copies, though, you develop sickle-cell anemia. There's some evidence that RH-negative women tend to miscarry more, but get pregnant more easily.
If there were genes (or complexes of genes, or developmental conditions) that, say, tended to encourage attraction to males, this could be advantageous (from an evolutionary perspective) for females, and disadvantageous for males. If the female advantage outweighed the male disadvantage, evolution wouldn't weed it out.
Then there's the fact that humans are *social* creatures. The other major classes of social creatures on this planet - insects - seem to get along just fine when the majority of their members don't breed. It's possible the traits that *sometimes* result in homosexuality lead, other times, to advantageous results.
Evolution's a lot more complicated than simple 'survival of the fittest'. A good introduction is David Sloan Wilson's "Evolution For Everyone".
1.4.2013 | 5:41pm
Army Knowledge Online says:
Whether or not people are born gay doesn't really matter. In the end it depends on how they choose to live their life. If they choose to ignore such desires and not act on them, or instead act on them that is ultimately their choice, it is not, and should not be, the choice of others imposing such restrictions. People should be free to pursue any avenue of happiness they so choose, as long as it doesn't prevent another person from doing the same.
1.4.2013 | 7:04pm
dover_beach says:
"What the case of bonobos in particular seems to point out is, *if* homosexuality is to be opposed in humans, a more elaborate case needs to be made than just "it's against nature"."
The natural law tradition's use of the phrase "against nature" means that a certain practice is against or contrary to that practice's purpose or end. So, here, any type of sexual activity that frustrates procreativity AND unitivity is considered to be against or contrary to nature. The phrase has never meant that this or that practice is absent from the animal kingdom.
The natural law tradition's use of the phrase "against nature" means that a certain practice is against or contrary to that practice's purpose or end. So, here, any type of sexual activity that frustrates procreativity AND unitivity is considered to be against or contrary to nature. The phrase has never meant that this or that practice is absent from the animal kingdom.
1.4.2013 | 8:47pm
Reta says:
After all is said and done as well as investigated, it doesn't really matter much how or where homosexuality comes about in someone anymore than it matters about a person afflicted with a need to drink alcohol. Being something of a genetic disorder doesn't cut it either in so far as giving it a pass as 'well-they-can't-help it.' We all must come to grips with various demons inside ourselves and we all have them. It's part of the package that came with our First Parents.
What needs to be done is once we realize we have a disorder we try to get in balance with good direction. With most of us it is usually minor......having an irascible temperament perhaps where we must constantly keep in check our thoughts words and deeds. Whether a person is religious or not isn't in play here either because even secular atheists wrestle with these things too and anyone wanting to make progress with his personal habits and instincts wants to shed them if possible or at least hold them in check.
Speaking of homosexuality as being something someone is born with sounds like someone is selling something and the people who sell it the most often are in the phychology business from what I've been able to discern.
Whether one's disorder is from a bad gene in our parents that we got stuck with or whether it was an acquired kind of thing or even if we got it unintentionally all by ourselves by going with the wrong kind of people or reading or listening ..........the disorder does need to be 'named and claimed.' We have to man up to that and if Christians or Catholics the need is great to get it settled in our conscience how to handle it by seeking the Grace to do it.
What needs to be done is once we realize we have a disorder we try to get in balance with good direction. With most of us it is usually minor......having an irascible temperament perhaps where we must constantly keep in check our thoughts words and deeds. Whether a person is religious or not isn't in play here either because even secular atheists wrestle with these things too and anyone wanting to make progress with his personal habits and instincts wants to shed them if possible or at least hold them in check.
Speaking of homosexuality as being something someone is born with sounds like someone is selling something and the people who sell it the most often are in the phychology business from what I've been able to discern.
Whether one's disorder is from a bad gene in our parents that we got stuck with or whether it was an acquired kind of thing or even if we got it unintentionally all by ourselves by going with the wrong kind of people or reading or listening ..........the disorder does need to be 'named and claimed.' We have to man up to that and if Christians or Catholics the need is great to get it settled in our conscience how to handle it by seeking the Grace to do it.
1.4.2013 | 10:30pm
Dr. Rick Fitzgibbons says:
In regard to the origins of Same Sex Attractions (SSA) several major research studies of adult and adolescent males with SSA have also demonstrated low self-esteem as being a major conflict in their lives. The first study from the Netherlands of 7,076 adults demonstrated that lesser quality of life in men was predominantly explained by low self-esteem. The authors recommended the importance of finding out how lower sense of self-esteem comes about in homosexual men.(1.)
In a 2010 Israeli study of ninety homosexual and 109 heterosexual men with mean age of 26 and with no significant differences with respect to country of birth, ethnic origin, education level, military service, or participation in psychotherapy, homosexual young adults scored lower on the self-esteem measure and higher on narcissism compared to their heterosexual counterparts.(2.)
A 2011 UK study of 10,000 adolescents was notable for boys with some same-sex experience reporting less self-esteem and more experiences of forced sex.(3.)
Also, participants in Spitzer’s study were presented with a list of several ways that therapy might have been “very helpful” (apart from change in sexual orientation). Notable were feeling more masculine (males) or more feminine (females) (87%). (4.)
1. Sandfort, T.G., et al. (2003) Same-sex sexuality and quality of life: findings from the Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence Study. Arch Sex Behav. 32: 15-22.
2. Rubinstein, G. (2010). Narcissism and Self-Esteem Among Homosexual and Heterosexual Male Students. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 36:24–34.
3. Parkes, A., et. al. (2011). Comparison of teenagers' early same-sex and heterosexual behavior: UK data from the SHARE and RIPPLE studies. Journal of Adolescent Health, 48, 27-35
4. Spitzer, R.L. (2003) “Can some gay men and lesbians change their orientation? Archives of Sexual Behavior, 32:403–17. p. 412
In a 2010 Israeli study of ninety homosexual and 109 heterosexual men with mean age of 26 and with no significant differences with respect to country of birth, ethnic origin, education level, military service, or participation in psychotherapy, homosexual young adults scored lower on the self-esteem measure and higher on narcissism compared to their heterosexual counterparts.(2.)
A 2011 UK study of 10,000 adolescents was notable for boys with some same-sex experience reporting less self-esteem and more experiences of forced sex.(3.)
Also, participants in Spitzer’s study were presented with a list of several ways that therapy might have been “very helpful” (apart from change in sexual orientation). Notable were feeling more masculine (males) or more feminine (females) (87%). (4.)
1. Sandfort, T.G., et al. (2003) Same-sex sexuality and quality of life: findings from the Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence Study. Arch Sex Behav. 32: 15-22.
2. Rubinstein, G. (2010). Narcissism and Self-Esteem Among Homosexual and Heterosexual Male Students. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 36:24–34.
3. Parkes, A., et. al. (2011). Comparison of teenagers' early same-sex and heterosexual behavior: UK data from the SHARE and RIPPLE studies. Journal of Adolescent Health, 48, 27-35
4. Spitzer, R.L. (2003) “Can some gay men and lesbians change their orientation? Archives of Sexual Behavior, 32:403–17. p. 412
1.5.2013 | 10:32am
Chris says:
Why is concupiscence never mentioned in these discussions? "Concupiscence stems from the disobediance of the first sin. It unsettle's man's moral faculties and, without being itself an offense, inclines man to commit sins." (CCC 2515)
Homosexual biased scientific research is in a headlong rush to justify this type of behavior. There is a presumptiom that many disordered behaviors are genetic. Alcoholism, drug addiction, sex addiction, gambling, over eating, habitual shopping etc. Where do we draw the line with trying to explain away behaviors that are contrary to both Divine design & natural law? Did God make us where we will be born with behavioral defects? How can the brain in its infant formative years already be prewired for these behaviors? I find these scientifc assumptions troubling.They are proposed as means to justify behaviors that are contrary to Revelation. All of these behaviors are potentially self-destructive. I find it unacceptable to believe that a loving & merciful God designed us to self-destruct. I believe the following: "sow a thought, reap an act; sow an act, reap a habit; sow a habit, reap a character, sow a character, reap a destiny." Peter Kreeft, Catholic Christianity, p.256
Homosexual biased scientific research is in a headlong rush to justify this type of behavior. There is a presumptiom that many disordered behaviors are genetic. Alcoholism, drug addiction, sex addiction, gambling, over eating, habitual shopping etc. Where do we draw the line with trying to explain away behaviors that are contrary to both Divine design & natural law? Did God make us where we will be born with behavioral defects? How can the brain in its infant formative years already be prewired for these behaviors? I find these scientifc assumptions troubling.They are proposed as means to justify behaviors that are contrary to Revelation. All of these behaviors are potentially self-destructive. I find it unacceptable to believe that a loving & merciful God designed us to self-destruct. I believe the following: "sow a thought, reap an act; sow an act, reap a habit; sow a habit, reap a character, sow a character, reap a destiny." Peter Kreeft, Catholic Christianity, p.256
1.5.2013 | 10:44am
Jon Rowe says:
For some time I've been of the (what I believe very "informed" and well thought out) opinion that there are multiple causes for the homosexual orientation.
That said, I don't think Mr. D'Virgilio poses any kind of difficult dilemma when he notes, "[e]ven the most hard core atheist secularists out there believe pedophilia is wrong. But why, if they were born that way?" That begs the question WHY do even "hard core atheist secularists" believe pedophilia wrong. And the answer is simple: It harms the children involved in the act. Something, by the way, entirely absent from homosexual relations between consenting adults.
That said, I don't think Mr. D'Virgilio poses any kind of difficult dilemma when he notes, "[e]ven the most hard core atheist secularists out there believe pedophilia is wrong. But why, if they were born that way?" That begs the question WHY do even "hard core atheist secularists" believe pedophilia wrong. And the answer is simple: It harms the children involved in the act. Something, by the way, entirely absent from homosexual relations between consenting adults.
1.5.2013 | 10:50am
Jon Rowe says:
"One other thing: Personally, I don't think that being attracted to or let's say 'turned on' by a person of the same sex is necessarily some sort of a defect for lack of a better term, but what I do suspect is, perhaps even some sort of genetic defect although again I doubt it, is actually being unable to be 'turned on' by a member of the opposite sex."
Honestly I don't think either is a defect. But from a Catholic and biblical perspective, this probably has it backwards. Or at least, there is nothing "disordered" from such perspective about lack of sexual desire for the the opposite or ANY kind of sex.
Honestly I don't think either is a defect. But from a Catholic and biblical perspective, this probably has it backwards. Or at least, there is nothing "disordered" from such perspective about lack of sexual desire for the the opposite or ANY kind of sex.
1.5.2013 | 11:27am
Dina says:
My belief is that God did not make man homosexual. In Genesis we read that man was created in the image and likeness of God, and God said that it was all good. The Bible is God's Word and His Word never changes. It also states very clearly that homosexuality is sinful. So why then would God purposefully make man, whom He loves sinful? He didn't, however, because of original sin, we now have disordered passions. These passions branch out from the root, which is again related to original sin. To be tempted or attracted to the same sex is not sinful. To act on that temptation is then commiting a sin. If people want to stop offending God with their lifestyle, they need to repent and live a chaste life.
1.5.2013 | 11:38am
dover_beach says:
"That begs the question WHY do even "hard core atheist secularists" believe pedophilia wrong. And the answer is simple: It harms the children involved in the act. Something, by the way, entirely absent from homosexual relations between consenting adults."
Setting aside the fact that some people believe acts contrary to nature harm those that engage in them where or not they consent to them, the claim that all acts of pedophilia harm the child (we might also argue they harm the adult too) is now openly being questioned even on the pages of the Guardian:
http://m.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/jan/03/paedophilia-bringing-dark-desires-light
Setting aside the fact that some people believe acts contrary to nature harm those that engage in them where or not they consent to them, the claim that all acts of pedophilia harm the child (we might also argue they harm the adult too) is now openly being questioned even on the pages of the Guardian:
http://m.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/jan/03/paedophilia-bringing-dark-desires-light
1.5.2013 | 1:55pm
That Hat Lady says:
If such a thing as a gay gene existed, it's a good bet scientists would have found it by now and made pre-natal tests available to give a pregnant woman another reason for abortion. The reason the cause cannot be pinned down is because it is a disorder of the *soul* first, with physical, mental and emotional consequences to the body as a result. It is one type of human concupiscence. One isn't "born this way" anymore than one is born a compulsive spender, gambler, adulterer, pedophile, drinker, drug addict, spouse abuser, etc. These compulsions are not God's plan for us; they are original sins. The only solution is to live an ascetic, chaste, moral lifestyle. That is something that few souls (and medical professionals) are willing to comit to do, or to recommend to other. They're too busy glorifying and legitimizing sin, which is the fashionable thing to do nowadays.
1.5.2013 | 2:14pm
Susan Piper says:
The BIBLE is specific: It is a sin. An act against God, Nature. An abomination.
Pretty simple. I have some friends who are Gay, so no, I am not a hater of the Gays. I have also known people personally who were Gay, and then said that The Holy Spirit got hold of them, and they coldn't do it any longer. It also says in the Bible that when people continue in this practice, refusing to hear GOD, he "gives them over to a reprobate mind". I pray all the time for people to freed from that bondage, just like any other bondage we humans can fall into. Amen.
Pretty simple. I have some friends who are Gay, so no, I am not a hater of the Gays. I have also known people personally who were Gay, and then said that The Holy Spirit got hold of them, and they coldn't do it any longer. It also says in the Bible that when people continue in this practice, refusing to hear GOD, he "gives them over to a reprobate mind". I pray all the time for people to freed from that bondage, just like any other bondage we humans can fall into. Amen.
1.5.2013 | 2:37pm
maineman says:
i think you're oversimplifying things, Jon, by asserting that atheists believe what they do because one kind of activity is harmful and another is not.
For one thing, homosexuality is associated with a whole host of negative outcomes, including shortened life expectancy and higher rates of depression, substance abuse, and other mental illnesses.
For another, a high number of male homosexuals, in particular, are victims of pedophilia to begin with, meaning that continuing homosexual activity is a replication of the original trauma.
Besides, the whole notion of something being right or wrong, good or bad, better or worse asserts the existence of an absolute against which such relative comparisons can be made. That would contradict atheism, it seems to me.
For one thing, homosexuality is associated with a whole host of negative outcomes, including shortened life expectancy and higher rates of depression, substance abuse, and other mental illnesses.
For another, a high number of male homosexuals, in particular, are victims of pedophilia to begin with, meaning that continuing homosexual activity is a replication of the original trauma.
Besides, the whole notion of something being right or wrong, good or bad, better or worse asserts the existence of an absolute against which such relative comparisons can be made. That would contradict atheism, it seems to me.
1.5.2013 | 4:33pm
DeGaulle says:
Firstly, I wish to comment on " Science (in the American Psychological Association)...". When I went to university, the Psychology faculty was to be found in the Arts Department, as was Fiction.
Secondly, if Science (a real science, with results confirmable by falsifiable theory and repeatable, demonstrable experiment) proves a genetic link as the cause of 'homosexuality', it may become a case of 'be careful what you wish for' for homosexuals. Since the culture propagandising in favour of rendering homosexuality as being as 'natural' as and the 'equal' of heterosexuality, is overwhelmingly secular and materialist, it will find it difficult to oppose the theories of its prophet Richard Dawkins, that describe living organisms as merely vehicles for propagating their genes onward from generation to generation, and therefore concluding that homosexuality is simply a regressive mutation, incapable of replicating its organism's genes. Those who would engineer life in their own image might well come to deem homosexuals 'unworthy of life', starting, as some have already said, with their own parents who may decide to abort.
Secondly, if Science (a real science, with results confirmable by falsifiable theory and repeatable, demonstrable experiment) proves a genetic link as the cause of 'homosexuality', it may become a case of 'be careful what you wish for' for homosexuals. Since the culture propagandising in favour of rendering homosexuality as being as 'natural' as and the 'equal' of heterosexuality, is overwhelmingly secular and materialist, it will find it difficult to oppose the theories of its prophet Richard Dawkins, that describe living organisms as merely vehicles for propagating their genes onward from generation to generation, and therefore concluding that homosexuality is simply a regressive mutation, incapable of replicating its organism's genes. Those who would engineer life in their own image might well come to deem homosexuals 'unworthy of life', starting, as some have already said, with their own parents who may decide to abort.
1.5.2013 | 7:09pm
Jack says:
This is a quote from the Bible which is the inspired word of God.
It is from Leviticus Chapter 18 - Verse 22 - ‘You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. I, in all of my human stupidity, believes that GOD, not science nor religion, has the answers. If He said this, he meant this. You can't twist what he said to fit 2013.
It is from Leviticus Chapter 18 - Verse 22 - ‘You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. I, in all of my human stupidity, believes that GOD, not science nor religion, has the answers. If He said this, he meant this. You can't twist what he said to fit 2013.
1.5.2013 | 8:43pm
Jon Rowe says:
Maineman,
I've actually looked into the data and know that a lot of the negative outcomes to which you refer are bunk. I'm not saying all of it is bunk; but yes, a great deal of it is (there is, for instance, not one current, valid statistic that shows lower life expectancy for homosexuals).
There is also data -- again questionable -- that shows very positive outcomes (higher rates of education, income, and wealth) for homosexuality. There is also a lot of anecdotal evidence that connects homosexuality to human achievement and artistic talent (i.e., something about the gay male brain seems to produce more Cole Porters and Marcel Prousts).
dover_beach: It is interesting to note that some argue pedophilia doesn't harm children; but it's ultimately irrelevant to the point I make. Why is pedophilia wrong? The only reason I can come up with is that it harms the underaged actor involved. Do you have a better reason? I don't think the natural law arguments against pedophilia convince, because such would instruct that once a young teen girl can get pregnant (12? 13?) (or once the young male becomes seed bearing) the act no longer violates nature.
I've actually looked into the data and know that a lot of the negative outcomes to which you refer are bunk. I'm not saying all of it is bunk; but yes, a great deal of it is (there is, for instance, not one current, valid statistic that shows lower life expectancy for homosexuals).
There is also data -- again questionable -- that shows very positive outcomes (higher rates of education, income, and wealth) for homosexuality. There is also a lot of anecdotal evidence that connects homosexuality to human achievement and artistic talent (i.e., something about the gay male brain seems to produce more Cole Porters and Marcel Prousts).
dover_beach: It is interesting to note that some argue pedophilia doesn't harm children; but it's ultimately irrelevant to the point I make. Why is pedophilia wrong? The only reason I can come up with is that it harms the underaged actor involved. Do you have a better reason? I don't think the natural law arguments against pedophilia convince, because such would instruct that once a young teen girl can get pregnant (12? 13?) (or once the young male becomes seed bearing) the act no longer violates nature.
1.5.2013 | 9:26pm
Dr. Rick Fitzgibbons says:
Jon chooses to deny, as do so many who are trying to redefine marriage, that the homosexual lifestyle is associated with very serious health risks to youth and adults as documented in articles in numerous peer reviewed journals. These include the findings in the study published in the journal Cancer in May 2011 revealed that men with same sex attractions in men in California are twice as likely to report a cancer as heterosexual men. Most troubling was the median age of onset of cancer in the men with SSA - 41 years old.(1.)
Another example was a 2002 study a lifetime abuse victimization that revealed 7% of heterosexual males reported being abused whereas 39% of males with SSA reported being abused by other males with SSA.(2.)
Youth and adults have the right to be provided informed consent about the serious medical and psychiatric illnesses and risks of the homosexual lifestyle. Pediatricians, mental health professionals, physicians, nurses and school counselors have a clear legal responsibility to do so and parents, family members, educators and clergy have a moral responsibility. www.childhealing.com/articles/ssayouth-if-imh.php .
1. Boehmer, U., et al. (2011) “Cancer Survivorship and Sexual Orientation,” Cancer 117 (2011): 3796–3804.
2. Greenwood, G. et al. (2002) . Battering victimization among a probability-based sample of men who have sex with men. American Journal of Public Health, 92:1964–69.
Another example was a 2002 study a lifetime abuse victimization that revealed 7% of heterosexual males reported being abused whereas 39% of males with SSA reported being abused by other males with SSA.(2.)
Youth and adults have the right to be provided informed consent about the serious medical and psychiatric illnesses and risks of the homosexual lifestyle. Pediatricians, mental health professionals, physicians, nurses and school counselors have a clear legal responsibility to do so and parents, family members, educators and clergy have a moral responsibility. www.childhealing.com/articles/ssayouth-if-imh.php .
1. Boehmer, U., et al. (2011) “Cancer Survivorship and Sexual Orientation,” Cancer 117 (2011): 3796–3804.
2. Greenwood, G. et al. (2002) . Battering victimization among a probability-based sample of men who have sex with men. American Journal of Public Health, 92:1964–69.
1.6.2013 | 1:56am
bornskeptic says:
@Dr. Rick Fitzgibbons:
Does that study you cite explain WHY homosexual males scored low on the self-esteem matrix? For example, does it prove that their low self-esteem was directly caused by their homosexuality? Does it prove that their low self-esteem was caused by the stress of trying to live within a society that does not accept who they are at their core?
If I'm not wrong (and correct me if I am), it appears you cite this study as "proof" that homosexuality causes low self-esteem, something the study clearly does not. And if that is, indeed, your premise, then what is the cause of low self-esteem among heterosexual males and females?
Your cause-and-effect case is not holding up very well.
Does that study you cite explain WHY homosexual males scored low on the self-esteem matrix? For example, does it prove that their low self-esteem was directly caused by their homosexuality? Does it prove that their low self-esteem was caused by the stress of trying to live within a society that does not accept who they are at their core?
If I'm not wrong (and correct me if I am), it appears you cite this study as "proof" that homosexuality causes low self-esteem, something the study clearly does not. And if that is, indeed, your premise, then what is the cause of low self-esteem among heterosexual males and females?
Your cause-and-effect case is not holding up very well.
1.6.2013 | 2:05am
bornskeptic says:
And for all you sinless do-gooders commenting here:
It's not a question of natural/unnatural or ordered/disordered. It's about the equal protection under the law according to the 5th, 10th and 14th Amendments of the Constitution.
You can't extrapolate your religious belief on someone else to behave in the manner you want them to. All this talk of alcoholism, pedophiles and bestiality are typical straw men, slippery slope arguments that the "faithful" always purvey.
I have no problem believing in God, if you show me some evidence of him. I don't know one way or the other, but thus far, I've seen no proof of it.
It's not a question of natural/unnatural or ordered/disordered. It's about the equal protection under the law according to the 5th, 10th and 14th Amendments of the Constitution.
You can't extrapolate your religious belief on someone else to behave in the manner you want them to. All this talk of alcoholism, pedophiles and bestiality are typical straw men, slippery slope arguments that the "faithful" always purvey.
I have no problem believing in God, if you show me some evidence of him. I don't know one way or the other, but thus far, I've seen no proof of it.
1.6.2013 | 9:22am
Nancy D. says:
We are not born according to sexual desire. God desires that young men grow up to be Good sons, brothers, husbands, and fathers, and that young woman grow up to be Good daughters, sisters, wives, and mothers.
Marriage exists for the Good of the husband, the Good of the wife, and the Good of the new family that is created when a man and woman are united as husband and wife. While it is true that we should never underestimate the value of a Good friendship, same-sex sexual acts do not serve for the Good of those who are engaging in same-sex sexual acts and should never be condone, nor should any sexual act that does not respect the personal and relational Dignity of the human person, created in The Image and Likeness of God to reflect Love.
Marriage exists for the Good of the husband, the Good of the wife, and the Good of the new family that is created when a man and woman are united as husband and wife. While it is true that we should never underestimate the value of a Good friendship, same-sex sexual acts do not serve for the Good of those who are engaging in same-sex sexual acts and should never be condone, nor should any sexual act that does not respect the personal and relational Dignity of the human person, created in The Image and Likeness of God to reflect Love.
1.6.2013 | 11:17am
Ray Ingles says:
dover_beach - "The natural law tradition's use of the phrase "against nature" means that a certain practice is against or contrary to that practice's purpose or end."
Ah, but that's exactly the point the bonobos illustrate. What we would term 'promiscuous' sex, including among the same gender, serves a very important social role for them. Sometimes the 'practice' serves the end of procreation, and sometimes it serves the end of reducing social tension and promoting bonding. In the bonobos, it doesn't seem that *either* end is 'illegitimate'.
In nature, almost nothing serves only *one* "purpose or end". As I've also noted before, sweat cools the body, helps eliminate wastes, *and* distributes pheromones.
I've also noted that 'natural law' proponents seem to have 'gaps in their coverage', so to speak. Sex that doesn't involve at least the potential for reproduction is supposed to be bad because "the" purpose of sex is reproduction. Similarly, since "the" purpose of eating is sustaining the body, bulimia is 'against nature'.
And yet, I can't find - despite a decent amount of searching - *any* natural law proponent arguing against aspartame or other artificial sweeteners - something that gives the pleasure of sugar without providing any nutrition or sustenance to the body at all.
Ah, but that's exactly the point the bonobos illustrate. What we would term 'promiscuous' sex, including among the same gender, serves a very important social role for them. Sometimes the 'practice' serves the end of procreation, and sometimes it serves the end of reducing social tension and promoting bonding. In the bonobos, it doesn't seem that *either* end is 'illegitimate'.
In nature, almost nothing serves only *one* "purpose or end". As I've also noted before, sweat cools the body, helps eliminate wastes, *and* distributes pheromones.
I've also noted that 'natural law' proponents seem to have 'gaps in their coverage', so to speak. Sex that doesn't involve at least the potential for reproduction is supposed to be bad because "the" purpose of sex is reproduction. Similarly, since "the" purpose of eating is sustaining the body, bulimia is 'against nature'.
And yet, I can't find - despite a decent amount of searching - *any* natural law proponent arguing against aspartame or other artificial sweeteners - something that gives the pleasure of sugar without providing any nutrition or sustenance to the body at all.
1.6.2013 | 11:24am
Ray Ingles says:
That Hat Lady - Why must it be a single gene? We *know* that there's a genetic component to diabetes. But guess what? Most of the time, when one identical twin has diabetes, the other doesn't. Genes usually influence probabilities, and some combinations of genes make developing a trait all-but-certain, and others make that trait possible, but remotely. Some people can be 'born diabetic', some are almost immune even if they eat cupfuls of sugar every day, and most people have varying degrees of risk for diabetes.
Biology is a *lot* more complicated than most popularizations manage to convey, unfortunately.
Biology is a *lot* more complicated than most popularizations manage to convey, unfortunately.
1.6.2013 | 12:17pm
Blossom says:
To David Nickol - I have read many testimonials by people for whom homosexuality was indeed a choice. I'll give you examples:
First example: I know a woman who had never been able to find a man to marry. Every long term relationship she had ended. She was getting frustrated. She moved into an apartment with 2 women, and she and one of them began feeling attracted to each other. The one wanted to run away and move out, as this made her uncomfortable, but the other said, "No...let's give this a try." So they had a lesbian relationship. It lasted a couple years, then they "broke up" and both went on their way. My friend is now married to a man with a couple children. This was 100% "choice" on both sides, more like an "experiment." This happens quite frequently in our modern society, especially with all the homosexual agenda out there.
Second example: I read an article where about 100 priests were interviewed, some of them being "homosexual", and they were asked certain questions. An overwhelming 90-something % of the priests who were "homosexual" said they had a father who never showed them any affection while they were growing up: no hugs, no kisses, no loving caresses. Those who were heterosexual said their fathers showed them lots of affection. It is a common effect, that a boy who does not receive physical affection from his father looks for it in other men, then thinks: "Oh! I must be homosexual!" This is mistaken identity: the reason for them seeking affection from other men is that they are looking for "fatherly" affection, NOT sexual affection.
First example: I know a woman who had never been able to find a man to marry. Every long term relationship she had ended. She was getting frustrated. She moved into an apartment with 2 women, and she and one of them began feeling attracted to each other. The one wanted to run away and move out, as this made her uncomfortable, but the other said, "No...let's give this a try." So they had a lesbian relationship. It lasted a couple years, then they "broke up" and both went on their way. My friend is now married to a man with a couple children. This was 100% "choice" on both sides, more like an "experiment." This happens quite frequently in our modern society, especially with all the homosexual agenda out there.
Second example: I read an article where about 100 priests were interviewed, some of them being "homosexual", and they were asked certain questions. An overwhelming 90-something % of the priests who were "homosexual" said they had a father who never showed them any affection while they were growing up: no hugs, no kisses, no loving caresses. Those who were heterosexual said their fathers showed them lots of affection. It is a common effect, that a boy who does not receive physical affection from his father looks for it in other men, then thinks: "Oh! I must be homosexual!" This is mistaken identity: the reason for them seeking affection from other men is that they are looking for "fatherly" affection, NOT sexual affection.
1.6.2013 | 3:47pm
Father Richard Bain says:
If a gosling is nurtured by a human during its first days rather than by its natural mother, it will bond with the human exactly as though it were its mother. This bonding - being both real and permanent and the result of epigenetics – will move the goose to fly opposite the human parent when it takes off in a small plane, which is a totally unnatural act for geese.
Understanding this dynamic, perhaps it is time for the Church to side with St. Thomas Aquinas who believed that the homosexual’s nature is different than that of the heterosexual’s and thus for one with this different nature homosexual acts are not contra natura.
I
Understanding this dynamic, perhaps it is time for the Church to side with St. Thomas Aquinas who believed that the homosexual’s nature is different than that of the heterosexual’s and thus for one with this different nature homosexual acts are not contra natura.
I
1.7.2013 | 6:51am
JOHN GRONDELSKI says:
I fear that the revisionists are moving on: in the current online edition of the NATIONAL CATHOLIC REPORTER. there is a new discussion of why we should regard transgenderism as the new "civil rights" movement. When I argued that sex has a biological basis, respondents shot back with precisely the error above, i.e., that just because a condition is does not make natural.
1.7.2013 | 10:11am
Dr. Rick Fitzgibbons says:
Bornskeptic, thank you for you challenge regarding self-esteem in those with same-sex attraction (SSA). As you rightly point out, we cannot state a cause-and-effect relationship between low self-esteem and SSA from the existing data, in that we cannot state for now that low self-esteem causes SSA. Yet, these studies, done in "gay-friendly" environments such as the Netherlands, are beginning to point to the hypothesis that low self-esteem causes SSA (of course, along with other variables, particularly environmental variables such as how the person is treated by others). As we both know, the Netherlands is one of the very best cultures in which to do this self-esteem work if the hypothesis of low-self-esteem being one cause of SSA is to have merit. Advocates for SSA "marriage" have a problem now because of these kinds of studies. They cannot make their oft-repeated claim that low self-esteem is caused by oppression from others in the community. As you and I are well aware, advocates for SSA "marriage" have trumpeted the false claim (I call it false because they have been too quick to see a cause where science has not definitively concluded) that oppression causes a host of difficulties for those with SSA. Data are now emerging to challenge that and the Netherlands study is one example of this. One more thing if I may, bornskeptic: You do not seem at all skeptical of these unwarranted claims, going on for years now, that SSA is caused by oppression. A true skeptic will examine the weaknesses from both sides. You did not do that in your post, which leads me to believe that your proud label of "skeptic" itself is unwarranted. Perhaps you should consider a name change.
Now to Fr. Bain's ideas. Father, because you are a man-of-the-cloth, I will be as gentle as I can with your dangerous statements. First, you know full well that a person is made in the image and likeness of God. A goose is not. Persons are not imprinted onto others, whereas geese are. Second, you proved my point without realizing it. Do you realize that your point is this: When a creature is deliberately deprived of its own mother, grave problems arise. So, I do hope you are not seriously considering advocating for SSA "marriage" as "natural" and therefore as "natural" for the children raised this way. Your post implies, and I agree with the implication because of the existing science on the matter, that children do best when raised by their mother and father in a stable relationship. Children have the right to and the need for a mother and a father. SSA relationships are not stable and so your ideas are dangerous because of their implications for children. I urge you to re-think your unwarranted position.
Now to Fr. Bain's ideas. Father, because you are a man-of-the-cloth, I will be as gentle as I can with your dangerous statements. First, you know full well that a person is made in the image and likeness of God. A goose is not. Persons are not imprinted onto others, whereas geese are. Second, you proved my point without realizing it. Do you realize that your point is this: When a creature is deliberately deprived of its own mother, grave problems arise. So, I do hope you are not seriously considering advocating for SSA "marriage" as "natural" and therefore as "natural" for the children raised this way. Your post implies, and I agree with the implication because of the existing science on the matter, that children do best when raised by their mother and father in a stable relationship. Children have the right to and the need for a mother and a father. SSA relationships are not stable and so your ideas are dangerous because of their implications for children. I urge you to re-think your unwarranted position.
1.7.2013 | 12:25pm
Father Richard Bain says:
Dr. Fitzgibbons, Thank you for going easy on me. Like you, I am simply seeking the truth in this complex issue that keeps so many good, prayerful, holy, honest, and sincere men and woman from receiving the Body of Christ. That breaks my heart! They have a right to the truth; simply saying this is what the Church has always taught is not enough. It is like saying the sun goes around the earth because this is what the Church has always taught.
Persons’ genes can indeed be turned on and off by nurture and this change can be permanent like the imprinting of geese. An example of a permanent change is the gene that gives the infant the ability to distinguish forms. It is turned on by light and only during the first few weeks after birth. If the SSA is the result of nurture (epigenetics) rather than nature, it is important to appreciate that the SSA can still be just as real, permanent, and a part of the person as if it were the result of nature.
I don’t quite understand where you are going with your thoughts on child raising as the homosexual act while being able to express love cannot produce a child.
Persons’ genes can indeed be turned on and off by nurture and this change can be permanent like the imprinting of geese. An example of a permanent change is the gene that gives the infant the ability to distinguish forms. It is turned on by light and only during the first few weeks after birth. If the SSA is the result of nurture (epigenetics) rather than nature, it is important to appreciate that the SSA can still be just as real, permanent, and a part of the person as if it were the result of nature.
I don’t quite understand where you are going with your thoughts on child raising as the homosexual act while being able to express love cannot produce a child.
1.7.2013 | 1:55pm
Sue Sims says:
Fr Bain: Where, precisely, does St Thomas make any such statement? References, please, or I simply deny your assertion: quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
1.7.2013 | 4:27pm
Father Richard Bain says:
Sue, Please understand, I am a retried priest not a scholar. I first come across the quote while taking a two unit course on homosexuality way back in the 1970s. It was a student who brought it to our teacher's attention. In the actual quote Thomas called it a "defective nature" not "different nature" as I did above. Anyway, the following week the student was able share where Thomas had written it and this satisfied the teacher. But, fair enough if you prefer to deny the saint held this.
By the way, I am sure today Thomas would write "different nature" rather than "defective nature" as SSA is no longer held to be disordered by the social sciences.
By the way, I am sure today Thomas would write "different nature" rather than "defective nature" as SSA is no longer held to be disordered by the social sciences.
1.8.2013 | 10:56am
Dr. Rick Fitzgibbons says:
Father Bain, I would like to offer some reasons for you to consider re-evaluating your views. Here are my reasons. When St. Thomas talks of a defective nature, he is referring to a person not fulfilling the perfection of his human nature. One of the end-points of sexuality is the creation and rearing of children. This of course directly implies intimacy between one man and one woman. When sexuality deliberately is used in other ways than this (male and female intimacy and openness to life) each person is not fulfilling his or her purpose in life, or one's nature. One then can and must talk of a defective nature because the person is choosing not to appropriate natural law ("natural," what is one's nature). This in no way---in no way---then implies that sexual acts apart from natural law's intended end points are therefore "natural" (outside of free will). Those with SSA do not have a different nature. Instead, it can be said that they are not fulfilling their intended nature, thus St. Thomas’ expression of a defective nature. Your 1970s professor was in error.
Your equating SSA with "Oh, I just cannot help it" is a blanket assumption that does no one any good. It shuts down true inquiry because your assumption---assumption---is treated subtly as fact. I hope you can see that, Father. That is dangerous because you then are justifying falsely sexuality that could be an addiction. Would you be serving people well if you claimed that smoking, for example, exists first and solely in a people's genes, giving them a smoking nature so that we cannot do anything about this? As you set up the scenario that those with SSA are outside of free will to change (because they have a different nature), you set up the situation in which society allows those with SSA to marry. You then set up the situation in which children are a “right” for those in SSA relationships, despite the scientific findings that such relationships are unstable, prone to violence (relative to unions between one married man and woman), and tend to place children more often into a variety of different caretaker situations (such as a man starting in a heterosexual relationship then going into an SSA relationship, taking the children with him).
I’m sure that many in the SSA community are pleased with your views because they are looking for the kind of affirmation that could radically alter human tradition by altering the definition of marriage. Society then puts children at-risk for psychological compromise as I have stated above.
You are convinced of your views. Science to date has shown statistically that the SSA lifestyle is not healthy compared to the heterosexual life style.(1.) Science is not convinced that SSA relationships are good for children’s well being.
For all of these reasons, I urge you, Father, to consider the scientific issues on SSA, marriage and children and re-consider your view.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. R. Herrell et al., “Sexual Orientation and Suicidality: A Co-Twin Control Study in Adult Men,” Archives of General Psychiatry 56.10 (1999): 867–74; S. Cochran and V. Mays, “Physical Health Complaints Among Lesbians, Gay Men, and Bisexual and Homosexually Experienced Heterosexual Indi- viduals: Results From the California Quality of Life Survey,” American Journal of Public Health 97:11 (2007): 2048-55;S. Gilman et al., “Risk of Psychiatric Disorders Among Individuals Reporting Same-Sex Sexual Partners in the National Comorbidity Survey,” American Journal of Public Health 91.6 (2001): 933–9; K. Skegg et al., “Sexual Orientation and Self-Harm in Men and Women,” American Journal of Psychiatry 160.3 (2003): 541–6; T. Sandfort et al., “Sexual Orientation and Mental and Physical Health Status: Findings From a Dutch Population Survey,” American Journal of Public Health 96.6 (2006): 1119–25.
Your equating SSA with "Oh, I just cannot help it" is a blanket assumption that does no one any good. It shuts down true inquiry because your assumption---assumption---is treated subtly as fact. I hope you can see that, Father. That is dangerous because you then are justifying falsely sexuality that could be an addiction. Would you be serving people well if you claimed that smoking, for example, exists first and solely in a people's genes, giving them a smoking nature so that we cannot do anything about this? As you set up the scenario that those with SSA are outside of free will to change (because they have a different nature), you set up the situation in which society allows those with SSA to marry. You then set up the situation in which children are a “right” for those in SSA relationships, despite the scientific findings that such relationships are unstable, prone to violence (relative to unions between one married man and woman), and tend to place children more often into a variety of different caretaker situations (such as a man starting in a heterosexual relationship then going into an SSA relationship, taking the children with him).
I’m sure that many in the SSA community are pleased with your views because they are looking for the kind of affirmation that could radically alter human tradition by altering the definition of marriage. Society then puts children at-risk for psychological compromise as I have stated above.
You are convinced of your views. Science to date has shown statistically that the SSA lifestyle is not healthy compared to the heterosexual life style.(1.) Science is not convinced that SSA relationships are good for children’s well being.
For all of these reasons, I urge you, Father, to consider the scientific issues on SSA, marriage and children and re-consider your view.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. R. Herrell et al., “Sexual Orientation and Suicidality: A Co-Twin Control Study in Adult Men,” Archives of General Psychiatry 56.10 (1999): 867–74; S. Cochran and V. Mays, “Physical Health Complaints Among Lesbians, Gay Men, and Bisexual and Homosexually Experienced Heterosexual Indi- viduals: Results From the California Quality of Life Survey,” American Journal of Public Health 97:11 (2007): 2048-55;S. Gilman et al., “Risk of Psychiatric Disorders Among Individuals Reporting Same-Sex Sexual Partners in the National Comorbidity Survey,” American Journal of Public Health 91.6 (2001): 933–9; K. Skegg et al., “Sexual Orientation and Self-Harm in Men and Women,” American Journal of Psychiatry 160.3 (2003): 541–6; T. Sandfort et al., “Sexual Orientation and Mental and Physical Health Status: Findings From a Dutch Population Survey,” American Journal of Public Health 96.6 (2006): 1119–25.
1.8.2013 | 4:53pm
Rev. Richard Bain says:
Thank you doctor for your fine reply. If procreation has to be an end in each and every sexual act then why does nature make achieving the end so very difficult? A woman is fertile a mere 12 hours of a 28-day cycle. If the Church is correct then it seems nature is in error or at least not doing her job well. Because, for procreation to be the end of every sex act the female would have to be fertile 28 days of 28 days. And, why do committed couples in loving relationships in their 50s, 60s 70s, 80s and even 90s – well past the age when child bearing makes sense – still want and enjoy sex and find it life giving? If procreation were the end of every sexual act one has to expect the libido to flat out die as we get into middle age – which clearly it does not - or, maybe nature is in error here too? And, why does the Church bless marriages of couples who can no longer conceive if they believe that one of the purposes of sex always has to include procreation? I am sure this must be most puzzling if one is a homosexual.
I am not saying they are wrong, only that the bishops need to do a much better job of explaining why they hold what they do. Heck, I am a priest who has been making a daily Holy Hour for 38 years. My heart wants to be in line with my superiors. But, right now it is very difficult for me to be honest and at the same time to accept their teaching.
I am not saying they are wrong, only that the bishops need to do a much better job of explaining why they hold what they do. Heck, I am a priest who has been making a daily Holy Hour for 38 years. My heart wants to be in line with my superiors. But, right now it is very difficult for me to be honest and at the same time to accept their teaching.
1.9.2013 | 6:10am
Michael says:
Rick,
One of the interesting points about all of your statistics is that you are talking each time about a *minority* of gay people. Even the highest number you select shows that MOST gay men (61%) are not abused by other gay men.
Because my church is a reconciling congregation, I’ve met a lot of gay men and women. As in any congregation, the ones who are ready to hear the good news and recognize grace stay, and those who are not ready leave. As in any congregation, we have our share of members who have low self-esteem, some of them gay, others straight.
And as in any congregation, we have our share of success stories. Two weeks ago, we celebrated the twentieth anniversary of one gay male couple who have raised and sent to college an adopted son.
Because we’re Methodist, we get to know each other’s business pretty well, and I have to say that the picture you paint of the horrors of gay life does not describe what I’ve seen. Our gay membership looks a lot like our straight. Some people are physically or psychologically healthier than others, but we don’t have abuse or HIV. The members of our congregation are committed to their faith, just like regular members of most congregations.
If my depiction of my congregation sounds statistically unlikely to you, you might think about who your statistics study. You look at big population samples, most of them unchurched, but if you want to see the difference Christianity makes, then you should look at the experience of congregations like mine.
One of the interesting points about all of your statistics is that you are talking each time about a *minority* of gay people. Even the highest number you select shows that MOST gay men (61%) are not abused by other gay men.
Because my church is a reconciling congregation, I’ve met a lot of gay men and women. As in any congregation, the ones who are ready to hear the good news and recognize grace stay, and those who are not ready leave. As in any congregation, we have our share of members who have low self-esteem, some of them gay, others straight.
And as in any congregation, we have our share of success stories. Two weeks ago, we celebrated the twentieth anniversary of one gay male couple who have raised and sent to college an adopted son.
Because we’re Methodist, we get to know each other’s business pretty well, and I have to say that the picture you paint of the horrors of gay life does not describe what I’ve seen. Our gay membership looks a lot like our straight. Some people are physically or psychologically healthier than others, but we don’t have abuse or HIV. The members of our congregation are committed to their faith, just like regular members of most congregations.
If my depiction of my congregation sounds statistically unlikely to you, you might think about who your statistics study. You look at big population samples, most of them unchurched, but if you want to see the difference Christianity makes, then you should look at the experience of congregations like mine.
1.9.2013 | 11:59am
Dr. Rick Fitzgibbons says:
Thank you, Michael. I am unsure what precise point you wish to make by this post. Yes, of course, some with SSA have no problems whatsoever. Some who smoke have no problems whatsoever, especially if we studied only those in their 20s. My point is this: Smoking has been shown statistically to be associated with problems. We need to give informed consent to those considering smoking. SSA activity has been shown statistically to be associated with serious medical and psychological problems. We need to give informed consent to those considering this activity from the literature as I cited in earlier comments and in the study below of 5,898 adults from the Netherlands in which 2.1% identified as homosexual.
Lifetime prevalence of DSM- III- R Psychiatric Disorders
Homosexual (SSA) Heterosexual
______________________________________________________________________________
Mood disorders 39.0% 13.3%
______________________________________________________________________________
Major depression 39.3% 10.9%
______________________________________________________________________________
Anxiety disorders 31.7% 13.2%
______________________________________________________________________________
One or more diagnoses 56.1% 41.4%
______________________________________________________________________________
Two or more 37.8% 14.4%
_______________________________________________________________
Stanford et al. (2001) Same-sex sexual behavior and psychiatric disorders: findings from the Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence Study (NEMESIS). Arch Gen Psychiatry 2001 Jan;58(1):85-91.
Lifetime prevalence of DSM- III- R Psychiatric Disorders
Homosexual (SSA) Heterosexual
______________________________________________________________________________
Mood disorders 39.0% 13.3%
______________________________________________________________________________
Major depression 39.3% 10.9%
______________________________________________________________________________
Anxiety disorders 31.7% 13.2%
______________________________________________________________________________
One or more diagnoses 56.1% 41.4%
______________________________________________________________________________
Two or more 37.8% 14.4%
_______________________________________________________________
Stanford et al. (2001) Same-sex sexual behavior and psychiatric disorders: findings from the Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence Study (NEMESIS). Arch Gen Psychiatry 2001 Jan;58(1):85-91.
1.9.2013 | 1:27pm
Dr. Rick Fitzgibbons says:
Father, we are communicating about Thomist philosophy because you initiated it. No one who has studied St. Thomas would say that each and every marital act has to result in new life. An end point is not something that is to be achieved in each act or even by each couple.
If certain couples cannot bear children because of age, their marital act is still in conjunction with what I said in an earlier post: an end point of marriage is the creation and rearing of children by one man and one woman in an intimate relationship. The intimacy is still there and the act signifies openness to life because of their complementarity.
But what then of those couples that are same-sex attracted? None can fulfill the end point of procreation---not one ever in a natural way. They are not part of what it means to be married. I hope you can see this so that you can stand with Mother Church.
As long as married couples in general can procreate, the small group of those who cannot does not diminish the end point in the slightest because of the accidents of infertility of some. Surely you know that intimacy alone is not the exclusive end point of marriage. If it were so, humanity would soon cease to exist.
It believe that your arguments are a misunderstanding of the Thomist position and therefore a distortion of what marriage is. This misunderstanding could lead to an unfounded criticism of the Church.
If certain couples cannot bear children because of age, their marital act is still in conjunction with what I said in an earlier post: an end point of marriage is the creation and rearing of children by one man and one woman in an intimate relationship. The intimacy is still there and the act signifies openness to life because of their complementarity.
But what then of those couples that are same-sex attracted? None can fulfill the end point of procreation---not one ever in a natural way. They are not part of what it means to be married. I hope you can see this so that you can stand with Mother Church.
As long as married couples in general can procreate, the small group of those who cannot does not diminish the end point in the slightest because of the accidents of infertility of some. Surely you know that intimacy alone is not the exclusive end point of marriage. If it were so, humanity would soon cease to exist.
It believe that your arguments are a misunderstanding of the Thomist position and therefore a distortion of what marriage is. This misunderstanding could lead to an unfounded criticism of the Church.
1.9.2013 | 6:20pm
Michael says:
Rick,
You’re welcome.
My point is this: your science doesn’t match up with the fact that there are so many psychologically and physically healthy gay people. Even by your own numbers, there are more psychologically and physically healthy gays than unhealthy.
The shorthand way of describing the attempt to discriminate against a group of people by the actions and characteristics of a minority of those people is bigotry.
Because bigotry is such a loaded term, I hasten to add that philosophical and religious arguments against homosexuality are generally NOT bigoted because they usually raise questions about the purpose of marriage or sex that apply to all people. Health arguments are as bigoted when used against gays as they were when used against blacks, Jews, and women. You're on safer ground when you root your arguments in St. Thomas.
The example of smoking is interesting, but you were listing low self-esteem as a CAUSE of homosexuality not an effect.
You’re welcome.
My point is this: your science doesn’t match up with the fact that there are so many psychologically and physically healthy gay people. Even by your own numbers, there are more psychologically and physically healthy gays than unhealthy.
The shorthand way of describing the attempt to discriminate against a group of people by the actions and characteristics of a minority of those people is bigotry.
Because bigotry is such a loaded term, I hasten to add that philosophical and religious arguments against homosexuality are generally NOT bigoted because they usually raise questions about the purpose of marriage or sex that apply to all people. Health arguments are as bigoted when used against gays as they were when used against blacks, Jews, and women. You're on safer ground when you root your arguments in St. Thomas.
The example of smoking is interesting, but you were listing low self-esteem as a CAUSE of homosexuality not an effect.
1.11.2013 | 12:42pm
Dr. Rick Fitzgibbons says:
Michael, with all due respect, you are playing with statistics. Science is the search for what "is" and never, ever should be twisted for political gain. When science shows that those practicing SSA are at a statistical disadvantage regarding the occurrence of cancer and the age of onset for this disease, it is a cause for concern. When science shows that those practicing SSA are at greater risk for psychiatric disorders and being abused, it is a cause for concern. When science shows drug use, suicides and abuse victimization as more prevalent in the practicing-SSA community, this is a cause for concern.
Statistical significance in one sample is valuable for showing trends and not definitive conclusions for a given person's future. This why we need informed consent: to let unsuspecting people (unaware of this statistical trend) know of the risks.
Also, please do not distort my position. The association between low self-esteem and engaging is SSA behaviors is statistically reliable and valid. No one, including me, is claiming that the existing science shows cause-and-effect. I am saying this: The findings are important and lend themselves now to the emerging hypothesis, worthy of test, that low self-esteem is one cause of SSA. This is especially important to test when clinicians, through case studies, do see that when self-esteem is raised, SSA decreases and the client is happier with his or her life.
Statistical significance in one sample is valuable for showing trends and not definitive conclusions for a given person's future. This why we need informed consent: to let unsuspecting people (unaware of this statistical trend) know of the risks.
Also, please do not distort my position. The association between low self-esteem and engaging is SSA behaviors is statistically reliable and valid. No one, including me, is claiming that the existing science shows cause-and-effect. I am saying this: The findings are important and lend themselves now to the emerging hypothesis, worthy of test, that low self-esteem is one cause of SSA. This is especially important to test when clinicians, through case studies, do see that when self-esteem is raised, SSA decreases and the client is happier with his or her life.
I'd also add that unless there is also some epigenetic mechansim that makes some men prefer blondes to brunettes I don't think there is much hope for discoving what makes some men prefer people who are generally taller, more muscular etc. etc. to women. Taste, is in the eye of the beholder. Additionally I've also wondered if there's every been any research done to see if some people who are attracted to people of the same sex are attracted more to their physical attributes or to the idea of being with a person of the same sex. I think that would be an interesting research project. But I also suspect it'd be a mixed bag.