When Does Homosexuality Begin?

[kafka]

[quote name='AudreyGrace' timestamp='1297137640' post='2209952']
Homosexuality in and of itself is not evil. When someone chooses to act on their homosexuality, then it becomes a sin. Similarly, an addictive personality is not a sin, but choosing to give into one's ability to be addicted to something like drugs or alcohol is a sin. As for God's Goodness, He is good because he can bring goodness out of evil. Here's an excerpt from Aquinas' [i]Summa Theologica:[/i]
[i]
[/i]


Therefore, by God creating someone who is prone to same sex attraction, he is not creating evil, but allowing the possibility for the person to choose good instead of evil (the evil being the choice to act on their homosexuality).
[/quote]
I should have clarified more.

human nature is inherently (intrinsically good). An homosexual orientation is a grave disorder of an inherently good human nature since it is directed towad intrinsically evil acts. So it is not a moral evil, it is what theologians call a physical evil which is basically a harm or disorder.

The disorder of the orientation, I think, is a result of sin, and it leads toward sin, but in and of itself it is not sin (moral evil), but physical evil. However if God created a person who is disordered in such a grave way as to be directed toward instrinsically evil acts then he would not be Good. One could be born with other defects as a consequence of Adam's sin, but these do not direct a person toward sin.

A physical birth defect is not a grave disorder directed toward instrinsically evil acts. Let's say one is even born with a certain genetic attraction to a certain type of alcohol. Alcohol is in the "the superficial zone of human experience. They have a certain value, but to a limited extent." from Dietrich van Hildebrand's book in[i] Defense of Purity, Chapter One, Sex Distinguished From Other Bodily Appetites[/i]. So drinking to excess would be a venial sin. The sin of drunkards is placing drink above God and the things of God, a type of idolatry, but this sin is a result of many sins of excess and a choice to start placing drink above love of God, neighbor, self. But generally the immoderate desire of these superficial goods with a limited value are limited or venial by nature (though a substantially evil intention or substantially evil consequences could make it a mortal sin.) So a genetic attraction if there is such a thing as some scientists have suggested is not a grave disorder.

Attraction between the two sexes is a physical good God created, which is on a far deeper level than the "superficial zone of human experience." It is a one that is grave, since the attraction is attached, incorporated and directed toward acts which involve the psychic, spiritual, moral, even supernatural (Marriage is a Sacrament with God) zones of human experience. In the sight of God the unitive, marital and procreative meanings inherent to the sexual act itself is what makes it good. There are profound consequences of this act spiritually, emotionally, morally. This all in all attached and incorporated into the physical aspect of the act and the physical attraction. So the attraction though limited in its own scope by being attached and incorporated into the psychological, spiritual, moral, supernatural zones of human experience which is created and ordered by God is a part of something weighty, grave, profound, etc. Here is Hildebrand continued:

"The positive and negative values attaching to sex belong to a level far deeper than those which attach to the other bodily appetites.... as a result, it is characteristic of sex that in virtue of its very significance and nature, it tends to become incorporated with experiences of a higher order, purely psychological and spiritual."

In addition the attraction is attached to the inmost and secret depth of the person, namely our sex.

So the conclusion is in my way of looking at it, without of course being able to explain on a high theological level, and with of course the possibility of error because I am fallible of course, is that God does not create a human person with this grave disorder directed toward instrinsically evil acts. If he did, he would be denying Himself.

The worst harm or disorder human persons are created with is the lack of sanctifying grace. It is a grave lack of good, a grave disorder, a grave harm, but even this disorder is not directed toward instrinsically evil acts.

So I really dont think it is biological. May God lead all to repentance and healing.

Edited February 8, 2011 by kafka

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='kafka' timestamp='1297134373' post='2209928']
that is my problem. I'm not careful.

I spoke in generalites. One can cover up more or less, or act, change their face for a purpose. But eventually the face will show the true colors.

[/quote]

If this were true all beautiful old people would be saints and ugly ones nasty, but in real life it doesn't work that way. The envelope is not always related to the letter inside.

[Lumiere]

[quote name='MIkolbe' timestamp='1297106185' post='2209728']
no one ever expects the spanish inquisition.
[/quote]

Hey, I wasn't the one that brought up the activities of the Church in the "New World" during that period. I was told the Church was promoting human rights during that period. I just wanted clarification on how the Inquisition fit into the Church's human rights activities at that time, other wise I wouldn't have mentioned it.

Actually, according to Wikipedia there were several other Inquisitions which I didn't raise. Do I get points for that?

"Historians distinguish four different manifestations of the Inquisition:

1. the Medieval Inquisition (1184–1230s)
2. the Spanish Inquisition (1478–1834)
3. the Portuguese Inquisition (1536–1821)
4. the Roman Inquisition (1542 – c. 1860 )"

[Lumiere]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1297107336' post='2209739']
Ooh, look! He played the "Nazi" card as well!

I guess the Nazism of the Church during WWII explains why the Chief Rabbi of Rome voluntarily converted to Catholicism after witnessing Pope Pius XII's work to save Jewish people.
And then there's the inconvenient truth of the Church condemning Nazism from the beginning in Pope Pius XI's 1937 encyclical[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/P11BRENN.HTM"][i] Mit Brennender Sorge[/i][/url].
(I could go on and on, but I'll let the boy do his own homework. Plenty to read here: [url="http://www.phatmass.com/directory/index.php/cat/344"]The Church and the Holocaust[/url].)



Looks like Lumiere's still holding onto the Crusades Card for now, and, of course, the real clincher, the Galileo Card.



(Psst. Don't tell him those cards have already been played by every two-bit atheist troll who wanders onto this site. I was starting to think this guy might be good, but he seems like an amateur. His play's awfully predictable so far.)
[/quote]

I didn't say that there weren't positive things that the Church or individual Roman Catholics did during WWII. But there are legitimate accusations against the Church. I see you find it easier to ridicule than to have a discussion. This means that you have nothing solid to say? If my arguments are so predictable, then your answers should be easy. You shouldn't have to hide in ridicule.

[Lumiere]

[quote name='ExCorde' timestamp='1297107627' post='2209741']
Lumiere, please stick to the subject and face the sources already posted. I won't be repeating myself, I'm afraid. Thanks in particular to the contributions of Socrates, kafka and others, I don't even need to.

[/quote]

Hey, I didn't bring all that up. It was cmotherofpirl:

"If given a choice between a Catholic thecracy or Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, Kin Il Sung, Stalin, Mussolini and all the great genocidists of the 20th century, I prefer the Church. If you want to look for blood, start with the State. If you want to look for champions of human rights, start with the Church. The concept of individual human rights as we know them today arose in the Spanish Church during the colonization of the "New World" in the 15th century when the Church upheld the rights of individuals over the state. "

Does she/he get a reprimand, as well?

[Lumiere]

[quote name='ExCorde' timestamp='1297110069' post='2209759']
This is a very important concern. There should be no violence. But homosexual activists are now the bullies especially in institutions, by taking away people's natural rights too (such as putting parents in prison who don't want their children to be taught that "homosexuality is natural"). I hope that reading the answers here will give you more hope as to why there's a future in this line of research and how it will help more people than not.

I've repeated and will always try to let you know that [b]one never becomes homosexual through a particular desire or choice for being one (unless it happens after adolescence, which there are cases of, but mostly of bisexuality).
[/b]
But let me explain that [b]it is not by choice that you change it[/b], however it is through fostering the person's pre-existent desire to be attracted to people of the opposite sex that will lead the way and initiate the process!

What happens [b]in reality[/b] when a same-sex attracted person takes that step is ordinary psychotherapy where one works mostly through emotions and memories. You don't face the attraction and switch it off. You focus on what's better and heal what's worse, then [b]it's as if the prevalence of same-sex attractions went away on their own.[/b] This respects the integrity of the person in pursuing what they want for themselves, but it doesn't promise them that they'll be able to do so - exactly because the choice is about what you want for your life, not so much choosing who you fall in love with. You simply prepare yourself so that you can survive through unwanted attractions and live to see healthy ones [b]naturally surface[/b].

This may be "shocking news" to the LGBT community, however, [b]to negate equality isn't an attack[/b]. That's activist rhetoric and we know it by heart. We negate equality of homosexuality to heterosexuality because God made us man and woman and both of them together are a totality of humanity that matters for the whole of society and for individual well-being. This is understandable also through reasoning of a natural moral law.

The [b]fact that people can change[/b] through empirical methods mediated by the fostering of the existent religious beliefs of therapants who [b]freely choose to undergo such treatment[/b] is just a tremendous breakthrough, and a fact now strongly demonstrated - [b]people do change in their fantasy and arousal, not just their behavior[/b] - that still suffers from many obstacles to be fully recognized politically, culturally and even scientifically, which is a source of immense misinformation.
[/quote]


You state:
"We negate equality of homosexuality to heterosexuality because God made us man and woman and both of them together are a totality of humanity that matters for the whole of society and for individual well-being. This is understandable also through reasoning of a natural moral law."

The first problem I have with this is that you are applying a Church principle to "the whole of society", a society which does not follow the Church as a whole. It sounds as if you want to impose this principle on people who don't follow the Roman Catholic Church. One could bring up birth control as another example of this kind of outlook, but I would hate to be accused of being "off topic".

In society as a whole, homosexuals must be equal for the simple reason that they are members of that society.

If the Roman Catholic Church wants to make homosexuals unequal within its parameters, that is its business, the majority of society is not under the Roman Catholic Church.

You also speak of "natural moral law". I find that very difficult to listen to a supportor of the Roman Catholic Church speaking of "natural moral law" and yes, that is because of the history of the church itself. I know I will be ridiculed for this, but where was "natural moral law" when child molestors were being moved from one parish to another? Even the most flaming atheists that I know would not have done that.

It is for that reason that I find the motivation behind the promotion of sexual reorientation to be suspect.

I am perfectly willing to acknowledge that some people, after counseling, find a more comfortable place in the world given their circumstances. That is the desired outcome of counseling. If that more comfortable place includes a sexual orientation which is more acceptable to the Church, fine, as long as the person is truly more comfortable with that. However, there is evidence, that I cited earlier, that some people feel that they have been damaged by reorientation programs.

I also have to question if the aim of these programs is to make a person more comfortable given their circumstances or to reorient the person come hell or high water. From some of the other comments in this "discussion" I think the latter is often true.

You state:
"The [b]fact that people can change[/b] through empirical methods mediated by the fostering of the existent religious beliefs of therapants who [b]freely choose to undergo such treatment[/b] is just a tremendous breakthrough, and a fact now strongly demonstrated - [b]people do change in their fantasy and arousal, not just their behavior[/b] - that still suffers from many obstacles to be fully recognized politically, culturally and even scientifically, which is a source of immense misinformation."

Again I must raise the research that I cited before (and other research not cited) which stated the some participants felt they were damaged by reorientation therapy and that there are a variety of levels of "success".

The homosexuals that I know consider that they have always been homosexual and they are quite happy as long as they don't have to deal with rampant homophobia and are treated as equals. I suppose I should point out that none of these people wish to join the Roman Catholic Church.

I consider homosexuality is a natural state which has been around since at least the beginning of recorded history and prior to that in verbal history, and I think that in society as a whole it should be treated as such. If the Church wants to restrict it within its boundaries, that is its own business, but it has no right to promote the inequality of homosexuals outside of its boundaries.

[ExCorde]

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1297123893' post='2209879']
lust is the common denominator between a person who engages in homosexual activity, the adulterer, the fornicator etc. It's just different manifestations of the same root problem ...
I just don't see the practicality of arguing about this.[/quote]

I wasn't talking here about anything else other than the subject: the origin and dynamic of same-sex attraction. As a Christian you should really discuss love in a much broader context than sexuality, let alone make homosexuality the focal point. The problem is that you are oversimplifying a reality that is quite complex, and you can't do so without the logical consequence I warned you about. I understand this is a bit personal for you as we've discussed in another thread, but distinctions need to be made and we all assist each other with that.

But I assure you that I get what you're saying and that homosexuality is a bit more mysterious than that, for some it's not about giving in to lust,i.e., faithful Catholics who lively chastely and still experience SSA for years. It's a relatively unique problem and often misunderstood. Science turns into education and there's all sorts of practical avenues to make use of it, in particular sexual orientation change efforts in psychotherapy. It is extremely important to give people some clarity and hope, as you can agree. I have no problem discussing it because I know quite a few sources.

[quote name='AudreyGrace' timestamp='1297137640' post='2209952']
Homosexuality in and of itself is not evil.[/quote]

Your interpretation of Aquinas fails the mark. I'm not adequate enough to make those distinctions but kafka raised enough good points already so I'll just quote the Church:


[list][*][b][S]ome people conclude that their tendency is so natural[/b] that it justifies in their case homosexual relations within a sincere communion of life and love analogous to marriage, in so far as such homosexuals feel incapable of enduring a solitary life. (...)[*]For according to the objective moral order, [b]homosexual relations are acts which lack an essential and indispensable finality.[/b] In Sacred Scripture they are condemned as a serious depravity and even presented as the sad consequence of rejecting God. (Rom 1:24-27; I Cor 6:10; I Tim 1:10). This judgment of Scripture [b]does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it[/b], but it does attest to the fact that [b]homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered[/b] and can in no case be approved of. [[url="http://http//www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19751229_persona-humana_en.html"]Persona humana - Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics[/url], VIII][/list]It's untenable to say that same-sex attraction is willed by God and then deny that as justification for people to live in loneliness without the possibility of expressing that which God willed for them (God made you gay just as a part of your salvation; He wants you to be lonely - since the Church denies entrance to religious life to people in that condition). It doesn't make sense, it's cruel, and politically and socially indefensible. So, God doesn't really mean for anyone to ever be attracted to the same sex, but He extends His mercy to those who go through that (most of whom grow out of it during adolescence and early adulthood, it should be noted).

[quote name='kafka' timestamp='1297140813' post='2209979']
human nature is inherently (intrinsically good). An homosexual orientation is a grave disorder of an inherently good human nature since it is directed towad intrinsically evil acts...[/quote]

This is a great explanation kafka! "In Defense of Purity" is a fine work, thanks for mentioning it!

As I said before, I don't find the physical trait theory convincing but I agree with everything else you said, although I would speak of sin in a general sense, with the observations about culpability that are recorded in my quote above (i.e., as I've said, noone chooses to be attracted to the same-sex, but our fallen nature may adapt to that even if unwilled).

[Socrates]

[quote name='Lumiere' timestamp='1297176455' post='2210105']
I didn't say that there weren't positive things that the Church or individual Roman Catholics did during WWII. But there are legitimate accusations against the Church. I see you find it easier to ridicule than to have a discussion. This means that you have nothing solid to say? If my arguments are so predictable, then your answers should be easy. You shouldn't have to hide in ridicule.
[/quote]
You haven't made an argument, merely mentioned un-named "legitimate" accusations against the Church. I provided you with a link to a whole slew of articles on this topic, which you have not addressed.

But the topic of this thread is the roots of homosexuality. You've tried to turn it into a wild goose chase through the standard laundry list of assorted anti-Catholic flamebait. It's clear you're not primarily interested in discussing the topic of the thread, but in using everything you can to bash the Church.

As the Pope and Vatican did more than anybody else to save Jewish lives during WWII, and the Pope was solemnly condemning Nazism back when the protestant English were dancing around shaking hands with Hitler and talking about "peace in our day," singling out the Catholic Church for condemnation regarding the Nazi Holocaust is indeed ridiculous.
That "Hitler's Pope" nonsense is nothing but a huge steaming pile of horse manure.

To come into a Catholic website, and repeatedly post flamebait slandering the Church, then whine about "ridicule" when you're called out on it is, well . . . ridiculous.


If you want to have a discussion on the Catholic Church in WWII, or any other topic unrelated to homosexuality, please kindly start a separate thread on the topic, or, better yet, simply run a search on the topic here and post on one of the countless old threads that have been started on those topics.
Don't use the cheap wild goose chase tactic. Other anti-Catholic trolls at least have the decency to keep their various different accusations in separate threads.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1297107336' post='2209739']
Ooh, look! He played the "Nazi" card as well!

Looks like Lumiere's still holding onto the Crusades Card for now, and, of course, the real clincher, the Galileo Card.
[/quote]

Well, looks like he went straight for the "Pedophile Priest" Card instead!
[quote name='Lumiere' timestamp='1297179449' post='2210114']
I know I will be ridiculed for this, but where was "natural moral law" when child molestors were being moved from one parish to another? Even the most flaming atheists that I know would not have done that.
[/quote]
Happened all the time in the U.S. Public School system. (yes, that's right, that place where you're not allowed to pray) [url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/21/AR2007102100144.html"][b]AP: Sexual Misconduct Plagues US Schools[/b][/url], [url="http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/4/5/01552.shtml"][b]Sex Abuse by Teachers Said Worse Than Catholic Church[/b][/url], [url="http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2010/apr/10040101"][b] Forgotten Study: Abuse in School 100 Times Worse than by Priests[/b][/url], [url="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/24/opinion/main1933687.shtml"][b]Has Media Ignored Sex Abuse In School?[/b][/url], [url="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/05/19/earlyshow/living/parenting/main5024611.shtml"][b]Abuse in Schools Widespread, Report Finds[/b][/url]
But, I'm sure none of those involved could possibly have been atheists. We all know they're of much higher moral caliber. After all, they only put people in Gulags, and instigate forced famines . . . not to go off topic or anything . . .

But, of course, if Catholic clergymen blatantly violate Catholic moral law, it proves said Catholic moral law is wrong, of course. We all know the game. . . .

Edited February 8, 2011 by Socrates

[ExCorde]

The issues of natural moral law could be discussed elsewhere, I find it quite helpful not to mix things up.

The following is a large post aimed at recentering the discussion on issues of scientific concern.

Edited February 8, 2011 by ExCorde

[ExCorde]

[quote name='Lumiere' timestamp='1297176765' post='2210107']
Hey, I didn't bring all that up. It was cmotherofpirl[/quote]

Sure, let us all stick to the subject for now, please.

[quote name='Lumiere' timestamp='1297179449' post='2210114']
The first problem I have with this is that you are applying a Church principle to "the whole of society"
[/quote]

That's a different subject. There's probably other threads already available to discuss the social equality of homosexuality including marriages and what can or should the Church do to help society forward in a sustainable direction (being the oldest institution alive, it should know a thing or two, since as you say, homosexuality has been around for quite a while). I personally have things to say about that (and I've even alluded to it), but I won't go into that here. I'll just give you a quote from Pat Condell, an atheist: [b]"Political correctness is like a drug that we just can't stop injecting, even though we know it's going to kill us."

[/b]I just want you to be clear on the distinction between the change efforts and the [b]absence of evidence for homosexuality to be normal and sustainable[/b]. It is the latter that forms the basis to affirm that [b]it is not the best for them[/b], the former is a fortunate breakthrough that further reinforces the point. In addition, most people don't believe that human beings are meant to build a home with the same sex - even people without faith. Actually, if I were to guess, most people would find that man-woman partnerships are what's "natural" even if they don't think so [i]mainly[/i] for particularly religious reasons.


[quote name='Lumiere' timestamp='1297179449' post='2210114']
However, there is evidence, that I cited earlier, that some people feel that they have been damaged by reorientation programs.
[/quote]

The main source for what you imply is the [u]APA Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation[/u], started in 2007 and published in 2009, that was pretty close to being nothing more than a LGBT interest group (all of the six members were already opposed to sexual orientation change efforts through psychotherapy and even though they had been nominated for the Task Force, no APA members who do provide psychological care to persons dissatisfied with their homosexual attractions were appointed). The conclusions were announced as:

[list][*][url="http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/sexual-orientation.aspx"][b](...) efforts to change sexual orientation are [i]unlikely[/i] to be successful and involve [i]some[/i] risk of harm (...)[/b][/url][/list]
"Unlikely" and "some" are very imprecise terms that nevertheless could qualify most psychotherapeutic outcomes. There isn't a huge amount of success from therapy just like there is never absolutely zero risk! So, most people who go through therapy for deep-seated conditions could be described that way. Shocking, I know.

On the contrary, this is a [b]mediatized version[/b] of what actually appeared in the Report. Not only is "potential harmfulness" the least of what was revealed there, the actual issue was this:

[list][*][url="http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2009/08/therapeutic.aspx"][b]Insufficient Evidence that Sexual Orientation Change Efforts Work, Says APA[/b][/url][/list]
The main professional and research association involved on the matter, the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), replied immediately with a pamphlet:

[list][*][url="http://www.narth.com/docs/apataskforcereportbroch.pdf"][b]The NARTH Response to the APA 2009 Task Force Report[/b][/url][/list]
A full response soon followed:

[list][*][url="http://www.narth.com/docs/aformalresponse.html"][b]A Formal Response to the Report of the American Psychological Association Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation[/b][/url][/list]
NARTH also had a Symposium on the issue subsequently, here's the summary (check [url="http://narth.com/docs/Symposium2010.pdf"]this PDF if you want it in full[/url]):

[list][*][url="http://narth.com/docs/symposium2010.html"][b]APA Task Force on Sexual Orientation: Science, Diversity and Ethicality[/b][/url][/list]
So,[b] [/b]insufficient evidence means [b]they should allow this reality to be studied more![/b] Like the 2010 study published in [i]The Journal of Men's Studies[/i] where it was "[b][color="#8b0000"][i]discovered that the most significant factors correlating to successful SOCE were[/i] [/color][i][color="#8b0000"]reduced conflict in expressing nonsexual affection with other men, being married, and feeling disconnected with men prior to treatment[/color][/i][/b]":

[list][*][url="http://narth.com/docs/newsumm.html"][b]NARTH Summary of a Newly Published Study on Sexual Orientation Change Efforts[/b][/url][/list]
As an observation, APA was running the same type of teams riddled with homosexual activists that in 1998 said:

[list][*]"There is considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality."[/list]
And by 2008 were saying (I've already quoted this, but here it goes again since it answers directly the question about which this thread was made):

[list][*]"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles"[/list]
So, biological evidence was there, then someone lost it? I thought it went from not being sure to having evidence, but they work the other way around? Long story short: this reflects activism getting its strong arm twisted by science. Hopefully, science rather than activism will continue to advance and we'll be all confidently see same-sex attracted people go off to find an advancing field of research and practice where risk of harmful experience is minimal (just like it is when dealing with all sort of personal issues).

Finally, a quote from the already-cited "Anti-Gay?!" disclaimer:

[list][*]It is unethical for therapists to only offer "gay affirmative" therapy to clients who are seeking not to be affirmed in a homosexual identity but to receive assistance in pursuing a different identity. Although some professional associations advocate for therapists to use only a gay-affirming approach, NARTH believes that [b]this is disrespectful, unethical, and potentially harmful to clients who want other options for their lives.[/b][/list]
[quote name='Lumiere' timestamp='1297179449' post='2210114']
I also have to question if the aim of these programs is to make a person more comfortable given their circumstances or to reorient the person come hell or high water. From some of the other comments in this "discussion" I think the latter is often true.
[/quote]

First, try not to assume you know all about what people who seek therapy to work on their sexual attractions are looking for or getting from it. By the sound of it, you really don't seem to get it. Second, what "programs"? We're talking about people who voluntarily seek therapists and go to them, on their own, every once in a while, pay from their pocket, are thankful and then what do you know, there's even positive results. I am aware that there are actual, extreme programs in some churches, some including ECT or aversive therapy, but these should be condemned on all fronts, as it isn't condoned by the scientific standards. And these days, NARTH happens to subscribe and defend to standards of scientific integrity more than the activists in charge (who will stay there as long as this is nothing more than what's politically correct).

Edited February 8, 2011 by ExCorde

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Lumiere' timestamp='1297176765' post='2210107']
Hey, I didn't bring all that up. It was cmotherofpirl:

"If given a choice between a Catholic thecracy or Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, Kin Il Sung, Stalin, Mussolini and all the great genocidists of the 20th century, I prefer the Church. If you want to look for blood, start with the State. If you want to look for champions of human rights, start with the Church. The concept of individual human rights as we know them today arose in the Spanish Church during the colonization of the "New World" in the 15th century when the Church upheld the rights of individuals over the state. "

Does she/he get a reprimand, as well?
[/quote]
Although the thread topic is homosexuality, yes I did respond about your comment and everytime you post a fallacy I will respond to that as well .

[Lumiere]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1297188089' post='2210158']
You haven't made an argument, merely mentioned un-named "legitimate" accusations against the Church. I provided you with a link to a whole slew of articles on this topic, which you have not addressed.[/quote]

I gave two links above.

[quote]But the topic of this thread is the roots of homosexuality. You've tried to turn it into a wild goose chase through the standard laundry list of assorted anti-Catholic flamebait. It's clear you're not primarily interested in discussing the topic of the thread, but in using everything you can to bash the Church.

As the Pope and Vatican did more than anybody else to save Jewish lives during WWII, and the Pope was solemnly condemning Nazism back when the protestant English were dancing around shaking hands with Hitler and talking about "peace in our day," singling out the Catholic Church for condemnation regarding the Nazi Holocaust is indeed ridiculous.
That "Hitler's Pope" nonsense is nothing but a huge steaming pile of horse manure.

To come into a Catholic website, and repeatedly post flamebait slandering the Church, then whine about "ridicule" when you're called out on it is, well . . . ridiculous.


If you want to have a discussion on the Catholic Church in WWII, or any other topic unrelated to homosexuality, please kindly start a separate thread on the topic, or, better yet, simply run a search on the topic here and post on one of the countless old threads that have been started on those topics.
Don't use the cheap wild goose chase tactic. Other anti-Catholic trolls at least have the decency to keep their various different accusations in separate threads.
[/quote]

As I pointed out above, it wasn't I who started to divert things. I was merely answering other people. If you will read some of the above entries, you will see that I have been having a serious discussion on this issue with people who are willing to actually discuss it. [b]That is, I am discussing this topic with people who are not making mindless, hostile comments which are off topic, such as yourself.[/b]

[Lumiere]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1297189395' post='2210166']
Well, looks like he went straight for the "Pedophile Priest" Card instead!

Happened all the time in the U.S. Public School system. (yes, that's right, that place where you're not allowed to pray) [url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/21/AR2007102100144.html"][b]AP: Sexual Misconduct Plagues US Schools[/b][/url], [url="http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/4/5/01552.shtml"][b]Sex Abuse by Teachers Said Worse Than Catholic Church[/b][/url], [url="http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2010/apr/10040101"][b] Forgotten Study: Abuse in School 100 Times Worse than by Priests[/b][/url], [url="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/24/opinion/main1933687.shtml"][b]Has Media Ignored Sex Abuse In School?[/b][/url], [url="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/05/19/earlyshow/living/parenting/main5024611.shtml"][b]Abuse in Schools Widespread, Report Finds[/b][/url]
But, I'm sure none of those involved could possibly have been atheists. We all know they're of much higher moral caliber. After all, they only put people in Gulags, and instigate forced famines . . . not to go off topic or anything . . .

But, of course, if Catholic clergymen blatantly violate Catholic moral law, it proves said Catholic moral law is wrong, of course. We all know the game. . . .
[/quote]

Look, if you can't stay on topic, maybe you should start another thread....

[Lumiere]

[quote name='ExCorde' timestamp='1297190428' post='2210176']

[/b]I just want you to be clear on the distinction between the change efforts and the [b]absence of evidence for homosexuality to be normal and sustainable[/b]. It is the latter that forms the basis to affirm that [b]it is not the best for them[/b], the former is a fortunate breakthrough that further reinforces the point. In addition, most people don't believe that human beings are meant to build a home with the same sex - even people without faith. Actually, if I were to guess, most people would find that man-woman partnerships are what's "natural" even if they don't think so [i]mainly[/i] for particularly religious reasons. [/quote]

Actually I prefer not to decide what is normal by a vote. One indication to me that this is a normal varient of the human condition is that homosexuality has been around for so long, even before the Church.


[quote]The main source for what you imply is the [u]APA Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation[/u], started in 2007 and published in 2009, that was pretty close to being nothing more than a LGBT interest group (all of the six members were already opposed to sexual orientation change efforts through psychotherapy and even though they had been nominated for the Task Force, no APA members who do provide psychological care to persons dissatisfied with their homosexual attractions were appointed) ... [list][*]"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles"[/list]
So, biological evidence was there, then someone lost it? I thought it went from not being sure to having evidence, but they work the other way around? Long story short: this reflects activism getting its strong arm twisted by science. Hopefully, science rather than activism will continue to advance and we'll be all confidently see same-sex attracted people go off to find an advancing field of research and practice where risk of harmful experience is minimal (just like it is when dealing with all sort of personal issues).[/quote]

I have read all of this and I will consider this, but we have the flu going through right now and four members of my immediate family, including myself, are sick and I am exhausted, so I can't coherently respond except to say that to me NARTH sounds like a special interest pressure group similarly to what you view the LGBT community to be.

[quote]Finally, a quote from the already-cited "Anti-Gay?!" disclaimer:

[list][*]It is unethical for therapists to only offer "gay affirmative" therapy to clients who are seeking not to be affirmed in a homosexual identity but to receive assistance in pursuing a different identity. Although some professional associations advocate for therapists to use only a gay-affirming approach, NARTH believes that [b]this is disrespectful, unethical, and potentially harmful to clients who want other options for their lives.[/b][/list][/quote]

I did state before:

"I am perfectly willing to acknowledge that some people, after counseling, find a more comfortable place in the world given their circumstances. That is the desired outcome of counseling. If that more comfortable place includes a sexual orientation which is more acceptable to the Church, fine, as long as the person is truly more comfortable with that. However, there is evidence, that I cited earlier, that some people feel that they have been damaged by reorientation programs."

I had hoped that you would understand by that, that one of my main objections to reorientation therapy is that the objective is to reorient someone instead of helping them work through any problems they may have. That would go the other way as well. It should be the client who decides what the objectives of therapy are (unless of course they have a mental illness that is so severe they aren't capable of forming objectives).



[quote]First, try not to assume you know all about what people who seek therapy to work on their sexual attractions are looking for or getting from it. By the sound of it, you really don't seem to get it. Second, what "programs"? We're talking about people who voluntarily seek therapists and go to them, on their own, every once in a while, pay from their pocket, are thankful and then what do you know, there's even positive results. I am aware that there are actual, extreme programs in some churches, some including ECT or aversive therapy, but these should be condemned on all fronts, as it isn't condoned by the scientific standards. And these days, NARTH happens to subscribe and defend to standards of scientific integrity more than the activists in charge (who will stay there as long as this is nothing more than what's politically correct).
[/quote]

I would never assume such a thing, but in Christian Charity, can you not see why homosexuals would be threatened by reorientation programs which essentially call homosexuality a mental illness? Remember, there has been a history of hostile treatment of homosexuals ranging from simple harassment to down right murder. Remember, homosexuals are being put to death in parts of the world even as we speak.

For my part, I would like to thank you for treating me with respect and for not ridiculing me or calling me names.

I am going to bed now.