Replies

An awful lot happens between birth and age 3. The NARTH researchers say that they do not know what causes same-sex attraction but that they do not see evidence that it’s inborn but do see patterns arising from flawed psychosocial development. I think it arises from a whole complex of distortions that have entered our whole sexuality and seriously disordered our heterosexual sexuality since the 1960s. Most homosexuals are messed up with regard to sexuality. It would be VERY surprising if that did not have an affect on their children’s sexual development. But there could a lot of other factors starting very early in life. Fundamentally, we just don’t know. But the orientation does not appear to be chosen, in most cases, and it does not appear to be inborn. Granted. But let us admit that, say, in the famous Loud family of California, where there was a masculine and strong father, a nurturing mother, and 2 boys who grew up as all-American as apple pie, that Lance, the third boy, who was even effeminate in his build, and from a young age wanted to dress like a girl, and had crushes on boys, probably really did have a hormonal or some sort of inborn defect. This would probably make up only a tiny percentage of the "gay" population. The larger share can be dealt with by NARTH and by countering the gay cultural agenda. Houghton, something tells me you think if you admit I am right, this will unravel NARTH. I say no. No, it won't.

“Something tells me you think if you admit I am right, this will unravel NARTH. I say no. No, it won’t.”

You know, guessing at my intentions and assumptions over the internet ain’t smart.

As I had written upthread, NARTH is open to conclusive evidence for your category A. If and when conclusive evidence arrives, I’ll accept it.

Much depends on how small your small percentage is. There’s always the possiblity of an infinitesimally small percentage of any sample contradicting the rest. But whether the small percentage is large enough to stake out a position on a kind of same-sex attraction that is natural (your category A) is the issue.

You go from the existence of A as a small group to conclude that, therefore, that in some instances, same-sex attraction is “natural.”

If conclusive evidence of a very small Group A arose, I would not thereby conclude that there’s “Sexual Nature A” (Hetero) and “sexual nature B” (homo), at least for a “very small percentage” and that God blesses those in that very small percentage.

To the degree that a few individuals fall into your category A I would say that, for some mysterious reason, this disorder (and it would still be a disorder, be unnatural, be a grave affliction) has afflicted some child at birth. I would favor therapy for your category A.

What I won’t do is simply throw up my hands and say, well, if it’s inborn in a small percentage it creates a second natural category.

I won’t go there because I believe God made us naturally heterosexual and I will not give that up come hell or high water. I will call homosexual orientation a grave, sad, unchosen disorder and I will do what I can to help those afflicted with it overcome it.

And I will be damned for that and go to prison. But I won’t give up natural law.

And I will also declare that almost all heterosexuals today have imbibed various kinds of disordered sexuality. Separating sex from procreation (denying natural law) has caused us immense, terrible, evil affliction, across the board. When you abaondon Nature you set off on a straight line for Hell.