When Does Homosexuality Begin?

[infinitelord1]

I just found out that Dr. Nicolosi from NARTH is Catholic. I thought that was cool.

Edited February 9, 2011 by infinitelord1

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='Lumiere' timestamp='1297206650' post='2210271']
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.




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.



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).





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.
[/quote]


One thing that I have learned is that there are some conservative groups out there that use people who have overcome their SSA as an example to GLBT people. I do not agree with this myself. And because of this, there have been GLBT movements, and still are, to shut SSA therapy down. If I remember correctly, SSA reparative therapy is against the Law in California (or something to that effect). One of my previous counselors received many threats because of the type of therapy he offers. He constantly has to deal with Gay Agenda groups wanting to shut him down. Honestly, it makes me angry. I have a serious issue with Gay Agenda groups. But at the same time I do not agree with conservatives doing what they do either (in this case). I think that Gay Agenda groups should leave SSA groups alone. And people who participate in SSA therapy should be protected by law as a minority. Im sick and tired of this attitude that "if your gay your gay...you can't change". And honestly, Im not seeing how the Gay Agenda groups have much reason to complain. The General attitude in society is gay affirming. Most people don't even know that SSA therapy exists. So why mess with them?

[ExCorde]

[quote name='Lumiere' timestamp='1297206650' post='2210271']
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]

Nice comment about voting, I heartily agree. Incidentally you might find surprising how that was actually the case with the removal of the classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973 - not because of research at all, but because really loud political activism pretty much demanded it to remove the social stigma and it got through by a narrow vote.

We can understand a lot of seemingly natural predicaments and psychological processes that were explained in quite imprecise ways (as we view them today), in those times long "before the Church", for example. Homosexuality is not strictly [i]normal[/i] - that word doesn't properly apply to exceptions (about 3% of the general population), which is what homosexuality is. Homosexuality is an exceptional adaptation of the human condition. It isn't what we would properly call an illness as the psychiatric classifications understand it today, and neither I nor NARTH would defend that it should return to the mental disorder manuals, no matter how treating something that [i]isn't[/i] an illness may "sound" incompatible to you. It's because you really find it hard to get into the subject and see it from a critical, research-based perspective, at least that's my conclusion from what you said.

I know I have poor words. I wish to offer you this in order to understand it better from someone who really knows what they're talking about (3 part video - all from the same account there on YouTube, easy to find). Please be patient and try to follow the rationale presented, it really makes the most sense in the end and is not uncharitable at all, it's actually finally finding the truth and freedom for many:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFAJXvxcGrk[/youtube]


[quote name='Lumiere' timestamp='1297206650' post='2210271']
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]

One could defend the idea that both the LGBT affirmation therapy and SOCE offer opposite pathways towards "acceptance", they just disagree on what is to be accepted as part of human nature. The truth, however, is that in those who have all the political pressure in their hands are only the LGBT (formerly homophile) institutions. NARTH itself strives hard to be politically independent, and they constantly try to separate themselves from those polemics. Some conservative groups do use NARTH's research to oppose the unproven claims that homosexuality is invariably fixed in all people and therefore must be accepted tout court by society. You know they are actually right in opposing LGBT propaganda if only in that sense alone, because you keep reverting back to the "argument from naturalness" to defend homosexuality. Again, homosexual marriage isn't the issue here.


[quote name='Lumiere' timestamp='1297206650' post='2210271']
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]

Some of your understandings on what sexual orientation change efforts aren't agreeable because they don't really correspond to the therapeutic and methodological perspectives actually in practice by professionals, hence I tried to clarify them so you could in turn incorporate more accurate terms - precision is of severe importance here, unless you risk getting everything the wrong way, or trying to suit a reality of sound research to your predefined judgement on the whole matter. I illustrated that this attitude is common even in professional settings but makes for poor science...!

To be sure, you still don't acknowledge that sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE) do actuall " work through any problems they may have" - it's psychotherapy, pure and simple, and everything gets handled! Openess to the client's desire is fundamental in really understanding their real problems, not those that the therapist finds legitimate. (see the bullets below carefully)

I'm glad you agree with the client's choice. That's one of NARTH's fundamental battles. Without any scientific basis for it, but pushed by LGBT advocacy groups, the therapist associations are vowing to [b]make sexual orientation change efforts anti-ethical and illegal. This means they intend to deny the right for a patient's choice.[/b] There's a vigorous debate on this in California for example.


[quote name='Lumiere' timestamp='1297206650' post='2210271']
For my part, I would like to thank you for treating me with respect and for not ridiculing me or calling me names.
[/quote]

I already spoke of some of those "reorientation programs" and how I disagree with them, so does NARTH.

I have spoken with you calmly and openly because being grounded in the facts allows for it, and this is nothing more than what I've witnessed mainly from NARTH's professionals, from whom I've learned almost everything I've been discussing with you. [b]I want you to know that if you commend me, you are really commending them.

[/b]I already posted this, but here it goes again, it actually answers all the objections you raised (again...):


[list][*][i]NARTH is often described by journalists with terms that are not used by NARTH or its members. For example, NARTH is sometimes "branded" as offering a "cure" for homosexuality, implying that NARTH views homosexuality as a disease. [b]NARTH does not view homosexuality as mental illness; rather, homosexuality is an adaptation that is distressful for some people.[/b] Another inaccurate description is "conversion" therapy, a term not used by NARTH members. This term seems to imply some type of force or the idea of a therapist pressuring a client to change. [b]NARTH therapists understand that psychotherapy should never be coercive[/b], but should be offered in accordance with professional ethics and a respect for client self-determination.[/i][*][i]Neither do NARTH members offer or provide "aversion therapy." This form of behavioral therapy was used in the 1960′s and 1970′s to treat many different types of presenting problems, one of which was unwanted homosexual thoughts and feelings. However, aversion therapy was deemed unethical and was discontinued over 25 years ago, prior to NARTH's existence. [b]NARTH encourages all of its members to abide by the highest standards of ethicality[/b], which by definition would exclude any form of aversive therapy.[/i][*][i]NARTH encourages its members to assist those who seek help for unwanted homosexual attractions, [b]attractions which seldom occur in isolation from other issues commonly treated in[/b] [b]therapy. More often than not, other issues become a part–and even the primary focus–of the care provided.[/b] Such issues might include past sexual abuse or trauma, family relationships, a weak sense of self, gender insecurity, depression, hopelessness, self-hatred, or any other issue that is problematic for the client. Many NARTH therapists report that once these other issues are addressed, issues regarding sexual attractions, identity, and orientation are easier to resolve.
[/i]
[b]from: [url="http://narth.com/2010/06/anti-gay-narth-president-addresses-misperceptions-about-narth/"][b]Anti-Gay?! NARTH President Addresses Misperceptions about NARTH[/b][/url][/b][/list]
This is the side that really stands for authentic compassion towards same-sex attracted people, Lumiere, because they actually bother with the truth and respect their condition. To me and them, they are not defined by their sexuality but as complete persons (loved and willed by God since the beginning of the universe). It is LGBT activism that reduces people with these attractions to their sexuality as the most important thing in life... They're just "big gays" for them... (that is what those real people say) Truth is what leads them away from [b]all the jokes, all the lies, all the shame, all the blame, all the fear, all the unmet needs...

[/b]I pray for your health and that of your family, hope this wasn't the last time we heard of you here.

Edited February 11, 2011 by ExCorde

[ExCorde]

[quote name='infinitelord1' timestamp='1297287858' post='2210672']
I just found out that Dr. Nicolosi from NARTH is Catholic. I thought that was cool.
[/quote]

Yeah he's nice, has his own perspective on things (he's the author of "Reparative Therapy" that is psychoanalytical/psychodynamic in approach) and his patience has its limits like everyone else's.

His clinic is actually named after St. Thomas Aquinas and he's listed on the Catholic Therapists site - there's other Catholics there who work with SSA people but they tend to protect themselves and help a lot of people almost secretly, like heroes who do what's right despite all odds (the sort often later recognized by history).

Good to find you in fine spirits infinitelord, despite all the usual trouble. Stay strong.

[ExCorde]

Huge update on this!

Stanton Jones and Mark Yarhouse finally got their study (previously published in book form, 2007) accepted in a peer-reviewed journal:

Stanton L. Jones & Mark A. Yarhouse. (2011). A longitudinal study of attempted religiously-mediated sexual orientation change. [i]Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, Volume 37[/i], pages 404-427.

They went above and beyond common standards and even made a website to explain the study and answer to critics:

[b][url="http://www.exgaystudy.org/"]The Ex-Gay Longitudinal Study[/url][/b]

Do read their concise overview for MercatorNet:

[url="http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/change_happens_new_evidence_on_sexual_orientation"][b]Change happens: new evidence on sexual orientation[/b][/url]

Please use this information broadly, wisely and charitably. God bless!

Edited October 11, 2011 by ExCorde

[Papist]

[quote name='Lumiere' timestamp='1297206650' post='2210271']
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]
So was murder and prostitution.

[iheartjp2]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1297126219' post='2209895']
Careful. People will call you sexist if you imply that there is such a thing as an objectively feminine appearance. [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/mellow.gif[/img]
[/quote]

It is sexist. Not all women are petite, pretty, and possessing west-normative feminine features. Not all men are big, burly, and possessing west-normative masculine features. It's not exactly a bad thing to step outside of your own little corner of the world for once and realize that the world is extremely diverse, though I'm sure it makes seeing the world in black and white quite easier.

[iheartjp2]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1297131072' post='2209917']
Male and female are just social constructs.



Gotta love post-modernism.
[/quote]

No, they are not, but what constitutes masculine features and feminine features is. Ever seen a burly woman? Ever seen a skinny, scrawny, petite guy?

I rest my case.

[Socrates]

[quote name='iheartjp2' timestamp='1318882212' post='2322832']

It is sexist. Not all women are petite, pretty, and possessing west-normative feminine features. Not all men are big, burly, and possessing west-normative masculine features. It's not exactly a bad thing to step outside of your own little corner of the world for once and realize that the world is extremely diverse, though I'm sure it makes seeing the world in black and white quite easier.
[/quote]
Digging up some old dirt here.

What the hell are "west-normative feminine features"? Sounds like left-academic socio-babble to me. Masculine and feminine features are essentially the same whatever race or place you're talking about.

[quote name='iheartjp2' timestamp='1318882307' post='2322833']
No, they are not, but what constitutes masculine features and feminine features is. Ever seen a burly woman? Ever seen a skinny, scrawny, petite guy?

I rest my case.
[/quote]
Volume of body mass in itself has little to do with masculine or feminine features. Obviously, both men and women can be fat or skinny, but that doesn't make them masculine or feminine. A skinny or scrawny guy does not equal a feminine guy (don't know about "petite" though . . .) Plenty of manly men have a thin, wiry build.

And yes, healthy men tend to naturally be more muscular than women, particularly in the upper body. Truly burly women that are as muscular as men are in fact a rarity, and are usually the result of extreme training and dietary/supplement programs. And they are almost always less muscular than a man who has undergone the same training and dietary regimen.
(For instance, while my bench press is above average for a man, it's hardly remarkable or exceptional, yet there are only a tiny number of women in the world who can bench more than me. That's not a "social construct," but biological reality.)

Both science and common-sense observation show your case to be nonsensical. A quick glance at people's faces can tell you whether that person is a man or a woman (even without differences in hairstyle or grooming) in the vast majority of cases. (Yes, there are exceptions - men that look like women, and vice-versa - but their rarity proves the rule, and most of the time in such cases there are either serious biological issues or the person had artificially altered his/her body surgically and/or chemically).

Biologists tell us differences in masculine and feminine facial and bodily features are the result of male and female hormones on the developing body.

If masculine and feminine feature were merely a "social construct," it would be impossible to tell the faces of men and women apart. Are you also willing to argue that more obvious secondary sexual features such as breasts and beards are also mere "social constructs"?

It's really weird how for some, political correctness seems to trump what anyone with two eyes and a brain can easily observe in the real world.

Edited October 20, 2011 by Socrates

[Era Might]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1319071335' post='2323973']What the hell are "west-normative feminine features"? Sounds like left-academic socio-babble to me. Masculine and feminine features are essentially the same whatever race or place you're talking about.
[/quote]
[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v611/eremite_85/LouisXIV.jpg[/IMG]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1F9vRVyV914&feature=related[/youtube]

[ardillacid]

[quote name='Era Might' timestamp='1319072552' post='2323994']
[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v611/eremite_85/LouisXIV.jpg[/img]
[/quote]Are you trying to claim that 'west normative features' she is referring to is dress? Pretty flooping lame.

Edited October 20, 2011 by ardillacid

[Era Might]

[quote name='ardillacid' timestamp='1319084034' post='2324069']
Are you trying to claim that 'west normative features' she is referring to is dress? Pretty flooping lame.
[/quote]
No, I just thought it was a good opportunity to post a picture of an 18th century baller.

I believe in gender as a necessary (and positive) social construct that is based on nature/biology, but I am wary about claiming too much about what is "natural" in all this. A lot of our perceptions of what people look like "naturally" is based on gender alterations (women shaving, men not shaving, hair styles, clothing styles). When you look at old paintings, for example, it's not always easy to tell who's a man and who's a woman (except for what they're wearing). Sometimes it's not easy to tell who's an adult and who's a child in the painting. Put a man and a woman "in the wild" with no gender/cultural alterations, letting their body grow and develop "naturally," and they wouldn't necessarily look as different as they do in society. It's the same with other animals...how do you tell a male and female cat apart? Sometimes you can, but usually you have to look under the hood. What is beauty? That's a question that interest me because a man might think his wife is beautiful while I wouldn't say she is beautiful. Does that mean she isn't beautiful? I don't know...but it illustrates why I don't think it's easy to make strong claims about what is "natural" and not...the world is remarkably variegated (in culture and in appearances).

Edited October 20, 2011 by Era Might

[thessalonian]

I did not vote in this poll because it reflects a common misconception that there must be A CAUSE for a discorder. In this case homosexuallity. Tell me is cancer caused by genetics or behavior (i.e. smoking cigaretes). The answer does not have to be either or. I believe there are genetic reasons for hs and there are enviromental reasons and behavioral reason. All are clearly disordered. One would not let a colon cancer patient die because there is a whole line of colon cancer in his family hisotry

[iheartjp2]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1319071335' post='2323973']
Digging up some old dirt here.

What the hell are "west-normative feminine features"? Sounds like left-academic socio-babble to me. Masculine and feminine features are essentially the same whatever race or place you're talking about.


Volume of body mass in itself has little to do with masculine or feminine features. Obviously, both men and women can be fat or skinny, but that doesn't make them masculine or feminine. A skinny or scrawny guy does not equal a feminine guy (don't know about "petite" though . . .) Plenty of manly men have a thin, wiry build.

And yes, healthy men tend to naturally be more muscular than women, particularly in the upper body. Truly burly women that are as muscular as men are in fact a rarity, and are usually the result of extreme training and dietary/supplement programs. And they are almost always less muscular than a man who has undergone the same training and dietary regimen.
(For instance, while my bench press is above average for a man, it's hardly remarkable or exceptional, yet there are only a tiny number of women in the world who can bench more than me. That's not a "social construct," but biological reality.)

Both science and common-sense observation show your case to be nonsensical. A quick glance at people's faces can tell you whether that person is a man or a woman (even without differences in hairstyle or grooming) in the vast majority of cases. (Yes, there are exceptions - men that look like women, and vice-versa - but their rarity proves the rule, and most of the time in such cases there are either serious biological issues or the person had artificially altered his/her body surgically and/or chemically).

Biologists tell us differences in masculine and feminine facial and bodily features are the result of male and female hormones on the developing body.

If masculine and feminine feature were merely a "social construct," it would be impossible to tell the faces of men and women apart. Are you also willing to argue that more obvious secondary sexual features such as breasts and beards are also mere "social constructs"?

It's really weird how for some, political correctness seems to trump what anyone with two eyes and a brain can easily observe in the real world.
[/quote]

Gee, I could respond with "everything you just said sounds like country-bumpkin, redneck generalization-babble", but then I would be called things like intolerant and ignorant. >_>

Oh, and by the way, I'm not a liberal, nor is there anything "left" about me. I just pay attention to the details of the world, something you should probably do more of. It takes a bit more effort than just making a bunch of blanket statements, but the world's much more clearer when you're looking at it in color instead of black-and-white.