The other curious thing is that if a man decides he is not truly homosexual at all but is meant to be heterosexual, then he's in denial. But if a man decides that he's not really heterosexual and decides to adopt a homosexual lifestyle, then he is just accepting his nature.
Funny how that works.
thomas tucker | 08.31.06 - 1:44 pm | #

Maybe I've just been in my own little denominational ghetto for a while, but my first thought was "I didn't know that the Anglican Province of America had a President!"
HokiePundit | Homepage | 08.31.06 - 2:17 pm | #

In today's society you are forced to believe that homosexuality is genetic. Its just the way you are and because of that its OK. I suppose that genetics can have a varying degree of influence but the choice is down to the individual. I personally know identical twins; one of them is heterosexual and one is homosexual. I admit that my anecdote is not exactly scientific but it says something.
Giacinto | 08.31.06 - 2:37 pm | #

The president of the APA better run for cover, and quick. I guarantee you that the radical homosexual community will be furious and will attempt to destroy him for daring to question their *dogma.*
Judith M. | 08.31.06 - 3:00 pm | #

My bet is the prez was looking for a way to resign his post and this offered him the quickest way "out".
paul scheibmeir | 08.31.06 - 3:45 pm | #

"In today's society you are forced to believe that homosexuality is genetic. Its just the way you are and because of that its OK."

Hemophilia is genetic, too. This condition is discovered when the attending physician cuts the newborn's umbilical cord, and the baby has to receive emergency care to stop the bleeding. Poor Alexei of Russia, the son of Tsar Nicholas and Alexandra: Any boy wants to run and jump, but young Tsarevich Alexei wasn't allowed to, because if he even so much as bumped his shin, it would be days of agonizing internal hemorrages . . . It was because of his seeming power to alleviate the boy's suffering that the louche Rasputin gained his ascendancy over the distraught Tsarina, and this relationship proved ultimately a factor in the downfall of the Romanovs.

Genetic. Lots of stuff is genetic. Doesn't make it healthy.
Marion | 08.31.06 - 8:24 pm | #

What you say is true Marion, but the point was that the fact that it's far from proven that Homosexuality is genetic, though a lot of people will affirm it has been because of their agenda.
sky | 08.31.06 - 10:11 pm | #

Many need to believe that homosexuality is always a choice to suit their agenda. It's easy to hate someone for a choice, to treat them as a little less than human.

Of course religion is undisputably a choice, and no matter how evil that choice is, it is protected. For now.
Xenu is my homeboy | 09.01.06 - 11:47 am | #

Sky,

I think people who say that homosexuality is genetic are really saying that it is biological, and either aren't educated enough to know the difference or are too lazy to get into it. Like when people say that men evolved from monkeys. We didn't, really, we just share a common ancestor with monkeys, but when people say it, they often assume you know what they mean.

Personally, I think homosexuality is partially genetic - but other factors such as hormone exposure in utero play a big role. As for it being a choice, come on. I'm gay and I knew I was gay when I was like five. No one's going to tell me it was a choice - like I chose to be disowned by my entire family! Uh huh.

Anyway, all the hubbub over the issue is just a flash in the pan, historically speaking. In another hundred years they will have identified what genes and prenatal environements code/predispose people to the development of a homosexual orientation, and "gay" fetuses will either be aborted out of existence, which would be sad, or subjected to gene therapy to beef up their chances of turning out straight, which is much less sad. Of course, even that option what piss of gay activists, but so what? Seriously, what responsible parent wouldn't tweak his or her developing fetus a bit to spare him the difficulties inherent to the homosexual lifestyle?
Marc | 09.01.06 - 9:05 pm | #

Marc,

Ever see the movie, Gattaca? It's a retelling of the story of Jacob and Esau. One brother has a better future because of his heredity. The other defeats heredity to claim his sibling's birthright.

I know many families in which the gay son became the more successful and, often, the more materially or emotionally helpful to the extended family. This isn't something that Catholic world view can accomodate.

Because of the Catholic emphasis on collectivism and denigration of individualism, the Church treats gay people more as defective mechanical components than as human beings. The highest good imagined or allowed to them is that they can be salvaged, their defect can be removed or diminished to so that they can function within tolerances.

The Church should remember that Jacob wrestled the Angel and won.
Xenu is my homeboy | 09.02.06 - 11:23 am | #

This is important. It needs to be repeated: "Many need to believe that homosexuality is always a choice to suit their agenda. It's easy to hate someone for a choice, to treat them as a little less than human." Thanks Xenu.

Marc, your comment was very good, up to this point:

"Of course, even that option what piss of gay activists, but so what? Seriously, what responsible parent wouldn't tweak his or her developing fetus a bit to spare him the difficulties inherent to the homosexual lifestyle?"

It isn't preventing same-sex sex that would "piss (us off)" It's that in messing with gene therapies to boost heterosexuality, we might be compromising on what homosexuals have disproportonately given us, like great art, for example. God made homosexuals for a reason.

This that Mark Shea wrote:

"APA president supports therapy for unwanted homosexual tendencies" should be placed next to this, that Mark Shea also wrote: "So eager not to impose Catholic values on people that it will not even impose them on itself."

It is a lie that Mark and his fellow brownshirts are simply asking that those with "unwanted homosexual tendencies" be "given the chance". What they're after is imposing "Catholic values" on everyone, even if unwanted. The Catholic values cannot impose "Catholic values" on itself without imposing them on others.
arturo fernandez | 09.02.06 - 11:50 am | #

the last sentence should read: The Catholic Church cannot impose "Catholic values" on itself without imposing them on others.

Let's be honest.
arturo fernandez | 09.02.06 - 11:56 am | #

"It isn't preventing same-sex sex that would "piss (us off)" It's that in messing with gene therapies to boost heterosexuality, we might be compromising on what homosexuals have disproportonately given us, like great art, for example. God made homosexuals for a reason."

I agree that there is a loose, but significant, correlation between artistic ability and homosexuality. But there is a similar correlation between artistic ability and mental disorders. And, let's face it, there are more gay and crazy people out there than there are artistic geniuses.

If a woman is told that, given the genetic makeup of her fetus, the child has a 50% of being gay and a 2% chance of being a significant artist, and she can use a certain therapy to cut those chances down to 10% and .4%, respectively... I think the responsible thing to do would be for people to hedge their bets and accept the therapy.

I mean really, it sounds nice to say that God created gay people for a reason (provided it isn't your kid that has to deal with the loneliness and difficulties that come with being gay). But you can say that about ANYTHING. Schizophrenia? Don't subject your fetus to gene therapy! God made crazy people for a reason! Plenty of great artists were insane! Yeah, but most schizophrenic people - and most gay people - are not great artists. And most parents aren't going to want to put their kids through that kind of a life that either predisposition may lead to in the hope that they might get a Van Gogh of Michelangelo.
Marc | 09.03.06 - 11:56 am | #

Marc:

A 50% chance of being gay means a 50% of not being gay, which means being straight. What would a heterosexual-to-be look like after doses of heterosexuality-inducing gene-altering therapy. I would hope that most people would not take to the idea of having hyper-heterosexuals in their midsts. I for one, if I had daughters, would be very afraid of the thought. I would look to the Catholic Church to defend what nature intended.
arturo fernandez | 09.03.06 - 11:10 pm | #

Also:

It isn't just "artistic geniuses" that might be compromised, but a more general appreciation of art: there are many, gay and straight, who look to Michelangelo for inspiration. And the artistic sensibility is just one example. Really, just look at the part of the world where, without genetic manipulations, homosexuals are made to become "nonexistant": the Middle East (minus Israel), a very sad sad place, where many want to take the US also.
arturo fernandez | 09.03.06 - 11:38 pm | #

correction:

"(minus Israel)" should be "(minus wonderful Israel)".
arturo fernandez | 09.03.06 - 11:43 pm | #

Dear Marc and Arturo,

It's hard to respond to your posts because I'm never clear about what you mean by "gay." Seems like it could mean maybe 4 different, sometimes overlapping but not identical things:

1) experiencing same-sex desires

2) having a personality array that includes same-sex desires, artistic talent, an affinity for the theatre, a certain sense of style, particular emotional sensitivities and aptitudes

3) engaging in copulation with a person or people of the same sex

4) one who is a member of a gay community (with its particular set of cultural characteristics)

(This might not cover it all, but I'm doing my best to understand; please work with me on this.)

As far as I know, the only part of this that the Catholic Church proscribes as sinful, is #3. And this moral judgment is not focused on gay people per se. The Church proscribes the same or similar actions for straight people too: mutual masturbation, oral or anal penetration to orgasm, and so forth. Husbands and wives are not to do that, either.

If yous say the Church as not been particularly helpful about #1, and not sufficiently appreciative about #2 and #4, I might be persuaded to agree with you.

But I'm perplexed, here, because I'm never quite sure what we're talking about. I would be less perplexed if those four categories could be treated as distinct from one another, for discussion's sake.

Is this fair? Does this make sense?
Julianne Loesch Wiley | 07.08.07 - 6:53 pm | #