So there is Nature vs Nuture and Normal vs Not and Moral vs Not.. In nature, there is no homosexuality. It does not lead to offspring. I keep seeing folks say there is, but dominance is different. There is no benifit to homosexuality amoung a species in the wild. When Jane Goodall was interviewed on the matter, the interviewer hoping for the gay is ok response, she said she had only seen gay primates in the zoo..a confined space with limited mating options withing the tight social order. -The Normal or Not...mathematical its certainal not normal. 2 percent. or so. Moral is based on your religious dogma so that's a cheap shoot. - Being homosexual in no way makes u a bad person. It has no bearing on others unless u force it on someone. My wife and I struggle with shows that open on half the cast being gay or sexually confused when reality is so far from it. Gay superheroes is rediculous. Superman can save people without having sex with them...he does that already. it has no bearing on the story

I lost count of how many times Science was suppose to upend or shake my faith, and it never pans out. And luckily I'm not Catholic.
Either way, Homosexuals are still people. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, so I for one won't condemn them. It would be wrong to do so.
Homosexual acts, however, are wrong.

Addressing homosexuality from a moral perspective is a big debate - indeed any moral issues are. But here's my take on it from a different starting point:

It has been shown, not only through the experience of mankind but also through social studies and statistical data, that children raised by heterosexual married couples have, by far, the best life chances for success and happiness in all areas. They tend to be happier, healthier, less prone to addiction and suicide, forge happier relationships, are more successful in education and employment and ultimately add a great deal of value to society. In other words, traditional family structure is the optimum model.

Now, before anyone reacts by citing examples of successful homosexual families or unsuccessful traditional families, I shall say that, of course there are plenty of exceptions. It would fit along the classic bell curve distribution. That still doesn't alter the fact that traditional family structure is not the best option. All cultures, around the world, throughout history have come to the same conclusion to one degree or another.

Therefore, I would not condemn nor make homosexuality illegal any more than adultery is illegal (that's the libertarian side of me) but I think traditional family structure should be favoured and promoted by society, including the church, as the best and therefore most desirable option. However, I am not in favour of allowing same sex couples to have children - that's a whole new can of worms and, I suspect, storing up problems for the future. I do not think that homosexual relationships should be held up as equal in value in the most basic of human functions - that is the stable, basic functional units of society and that of raising the next generation successfully. Unfortunately, we seem to currently be in a culture that is in favour of the opposite i.e. promoting homosexuality as just an equally viable alternative which is normal and healthy. You can ride a bicycle sitting on the handlebars but that's not how it was designed to be used and most normal people don't ride it that way! People in the media are celebrated when they announce their homosexuality and always seem very keen to tell everybody about it. I don't know about anybody else, but I've never felt the need to announce to anyone about my personal sexual proclivities.

Perhaps I'm out of touch with modern sensibilities but I'll stick to my guns! After all, I'm just "male, pale and stale"!

It has been demonstrated that some people may feel suicidal due to "brain structure". The Church has determined that causes a reduced moral culpability for suicide for those individuals. However, the Church will never encourage someone to identify socially as "suicidal", and the Church will never uphold suicide as a morally correct choice.

In my prediction, the Catholic Church will continue to teach unequivocally that homosexual actions are immoral (and also chemical contraception, and adultery, and fornication, and pornography, and masturbation, and bigamy, etc.). The Church will always be open to change some of its pastoral practices (i.e. the response to people) but will not approve of "gay marriage", or any of the other things I listed above.

I'm curious: would you approve of a "cure" for suicidal tendencies, if the person consented to have it? Do you believe such a cure is possible? Do antidepressants work, and can they morally be prescribed?

Interesting theory. Assuming it’s all fact, how would you expect the church to change? What if other “sinful’ behavior is also impacted by brain structure. They would likely say we are all born with weaknesses, predispositions for various addictions, diseases and attitudes and how we handle them is the true measure of the person.

It's not popular to say, but if they're honest, most homosexuals suffered some form of sexual abuse when they were young. I was personally abused as a child and spent some very confused years growing up as a result of it. I don't personally believe that there is a "gay" gene.

Honest Question is this was the case then why are so many pushing this agenda on children at the age of 4 now?
It is not brain structure it is learn behavior, just like any other if you grow up with morals you have them if not you don't but you can learn them.

I haven't read his book so this is a honest question: if homosexuality is a question of brain structure, assuming that structure is a result of genetic development, how does the situation arrive when one of a pair of identical twins identifies as homosexual and the other doesn't?