How to know if I were gay


Can’t believe I’m saying this but; abuse doesn’t make people gay.

I know more gay folks on my block than you’ve known in your lifetime and none of them were abused. The four people I know who were abused as children are straight.


So if I am tempted to commit adultery, am I an adulterer? Putting labels on people just because of their fight against evil shouldnt label them a sinner. Instead they should be called Gods children. IN my opinion its the people that give in to sin that could be called homosexual or gay.


Sorry, but homosexual is defined as “sexually attracted to people of one’s own sex”. They don’t need to act on it.

Unless you also believe that as you are not currently having sex right this instant you are asexual?

EDIT: Also, from looking at the catechises being homosexual isn’t a sin. Acting on it is.


This study disagrees with you.


Correlation does not equal causation, friend.


Nor does it explicitly rule it out


Now we both know that’s terrible logic.


Did you read the abstract of that paper?


Yes, it explained that the abuse may happen because the child was exhibiting homosexual inclination among other things. Seemed pretty clear that correlation did not equal causation.


Society. Just because there has been wider acceptance of LGBT issues does not mean there is not substantial push back, you’ll see it right here. Like anything that makes people vulnerable; too fat, wrong religion, large breasts, socially inept, too whatever is often the cause. Of course not everyone’s reaction is to consider suicide, but some things are more damaging and people process the vulnerability differently. No this doesn’t mean everything a person wants or feels is good for society, but we make many laws simply because we disapprove of certain activities or thoughts not the impact to society.


The abstract, in more robust terminology, said essentially what you did: “correlation does not equal causation”

It then lists the common objections to the causality that @JanSobieskiIII is arguing for, essentially setting the scope for their etiological study, and then it concludes the abstract with a summation of the results:

Without reading the entire paper (it was only posted 17 min. ago and is 22 pages long) it’s at least evident from the abstract and intro that the authors are laboring to demonstrate actual causality, not just mere correlation. Your cliched quip appeared to me to be more reactionary than an informed critique of the paper, which is understandable since as the authors admit: “Interpretation of the association between exposure to maltreatment and sexual orientation is politically sensitive.”


Friendo, it’s 2am and I read the abstract; they can try to disentangle that but even in the abstract they admit such may be impossible. And it looks quite impossible


Nor does it say that abuse isn’t damaging or that homosexuality in itself is damaging.


I’m inclined to agree. Homosexuality is heavily promoted by the media, films, music, etc. nowadays.

When I was a young man, there were a few times when homosexuals tried to recruit me into the orientation.

Of course, they didn’t have the backing of the mainstream culture or the entertainment field back then. I of course didn’t go that way, but who knows if I were a young man in 2018? People listen to music and watch TV, it makes them think its great.

Its pretty obvious why homosexuality is on the rise- advertising works.


Does this disturb you?


I just wish people would search previous threads before posting


… oh my goodness. Have people been trying to recruit me into heterosexuality all this time? What a far reaching agenda. And here I thought these people were simply flirting with me! I had no idea they were recruiting. How malevolent sounding.

But in seriousness; do you honestly, honestly think you’d have changed your sexuality to be “cool”?


Not quite. They mention the shortcomings of prior research before mentioning how the scope of their own work differs and addresses those shortcomings:

Perhaps there are methodological issues with this study which would justify skepticism, but dismissing it out of hand because “correlation doesn’t equal causation” isn’t very convincing.


Perhaps not to you, and that’s fine. I’m not trying to convince you. But of the four possible explanations they gave for the correlation it does not seem that their precautions could possibly have removed those other avenues. Parental alcohol abuse makes the child more likely to be abused, but not due to their sexuality or gender expression? I think not. The trope of the parent getting drunk and shouting at their (expletive for a homosexual) son is a trope for a reason.


I’ll add that even giving that one study the benefit of the doubt doesn’t mean that all gay people are gay due to abuse. I can’t imagine something as complex as sexual orientation being due to a single cause anyway, which is why it’s a bit frustrating when these conversations become a matter of defending one paradigm at all cost (not accusing you specifically of that, just making a general observation about these kinds of discussions).

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit