Homophobic

[franciscanheart]

[quote name='fides' Jack' timestamp='1311289102' post='2273254']
Read the Catechism.

Another definition needs to be made. People here are interchanging homosexuality and homosexual. They're not the same thing.

Anyone who doesn't believe that homosexuality is objectively disordered doesn't agree with the teaching of the Church on a matter of morality (which is infallible), and is therefore a heretic.
[/quote]
People?


[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1311307769' post='2273535']
Some people assume that since I reflect Catholic teaching on the issues, that I have not thought them through and am simply parroting the party line. I think I can demonstrate well enough, with this issue as an example, that this is not the case.
[/quote]

[Paddington]

I'm afraid of everybody except for a few chicks and a few foreigners.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='fides' Jack' timestamp='1311289102' post='2273254']Read the Catechism.[/quote]This may surprise you, but the Catechism doesn't call it "objectively" disordered, rather "morally" disordered.[quote name='fides' Jack' timestamp='1311289102' post='2273254']Another definition needs to be made. People here are interchanging homosexuality and homosexual. They're not the same thing.[/quote]You seem to be splitting hairs. What relevance does it have that you are focusing on the behavior and attitudes of homosexuals, rather than the homosexual themselves, maybe so it doesn't seem like you are discriminating against them?[quote name='fides' Jack' timestamp='1311289102' post='2273254']who doesn't believe that homosexuality is objectively disordered doesn't agree with the teaching of the Church on a matter of morality (which is infallible), and is therefore a heretic.[/quote]You are merely repeating doctrine, without even evidence that this is doctrine or dogma. This isn't evidence. Almost the whole of the scientific and medical communities refuses to call homosexuality a disorder or illness of any kind. So if the only people claiming it is disordered are religious because of doctrine, then it is a subjective accusation.[quote name='Luigi' timestamp='1311296969' post='2273366']This is another term that needs defining. It doesn't mean "the opposite of subjective" in this case - detached, scientific, any of that. It's a philosophical term that originate around the time of Aquinas (I dont' know who acutally coined it, though).[/quote] Relevance? [quote name='Luigi' timestamp='1311296969' post='2273366']Every human capacity has its proper [b]object[/b] to which that capacity should be directed - the object of the faculty of sight is light; the object of the faculty of taste is flavors; the object of the capacity of hearing is sound. In the case of the senses, we can't hear light, see flavors, or smell sounds. [/quote]This is a doctrinal assessment, concerning norms, not how objectively that homosexuality is disordered.[quote name='Luigi' timestamp='1311296969' post='2273366']When a human faculty is directed toward an inapporpriate [b]object[/b], it is said to be [b]object[/b]ively disordered.[/quote]You haven't shown how it is inappropriate.[quote name='Luigi' timestamp='1311296969' post='2273366']In terms of the human faculty of sexuality, the Church teaches that its proper object is persons of the opposite sex. If the object of one's sexuality is persons of the same sex, then it's directed at an inappropriate object.[/quote]Again, this is not evidence, it is doctrine, a subjective determination. One that flies in the face of the modern scientific and medical consensus on the matter.

So it seems the ONLY evidence for homosexuality being objectively disordered is a non-existent reference in the Catechism. Which is not objective and is not evidence. As someone accurately put it, its pulling the party line.

[Papist]

[size="3"][font="Arial"]
For decades the American Psychiatric Association considered homosexuality a disorder, until it was taken over by pro-homosexual ideologues who are now letting sexual politics trump science and logic. Just like a female mind in a male body is a sure sign that something went wrong somewhere[in either nature and/or nurture], so a homosexual mind in a heterosexual body is likewise a disorder. Elementary logic leads us to the conclusion that in both cases, the mind is in conflict or disharmony with the body.

How illogical the APA's reversal of its position on homosexuality was and is, all you have to do is consider how the APA violated or ignored one of its own criteria when it did so. One of its criteria for determining whether a condition is a psychological disorder is whether the condition results in a significant impairment of social functioning. The fact that homosexuals do not have the desire to engage in perfectly natural phallic/vaginal, procreative sex---the fact that homosexuals are essentially impotent with the opposite gender---is clearly a significant impairment of social functioning and persuasive evidence of a disorder[which disorder may have a genetic component]. The APA has little credibility nowadays. It's been compromised.

Homosexual activity is so physiologically unnatural and disordered that homosexuals actually have to rely on heterosexuals to create more homosexuals, since true homosexuals by definition do not engage in reproductive sex.

In his book Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnosis, Dr. Ronald Bayer, a pro-homosexual psychiatrist, explains how the decision to remove homosexuality from the officially approved list of psychological disorders was based on power politics and intimidation by homosexual groups NOT science.

And the APA’s The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders was once a thin guidebook is now about 1,000 pages that has significantly expanded the definition of mental illness. Traits once associated with shyness, for example, became symptoms of 'social anxiety disorder.' And drug companies went on to spend millions promoting medicines for those problems. It became more problematic when in 2006 when a study showed that more than half of the researchers who worked on the manual had at least one financial tie to the drug industry. We shouldn't rely on this seriously compromised group to tell us what is and is not a disorder. [/font][/size]

Edited July 22, 2011 by Papist

[Mr.Cat]

But homosexuality does not cause "[i]significant impairment of social functioning[/i]". Therefore under Papist's criteria it does not constitute a psychiatric disorder or illness.

Masturbation was once considered a psychiatric disorder. If you were discovered you would be committed and subjected to some bizzare and sometimes dangerous treatments. Should this still be treated as a disorder, according to you Papist?

Also I think its important to point out that its not only the the American Psychiatric Association, but also American Psychological Association and the National Association of Social Workers. Almost every community of science and medicine rejects the notion that homosexuality is a disorder or illness.

Edited July 22, 2011 by Mr.CatholicCat

[kujo]

The APA's reversal of their long-held belief about homosexuality was due to it being overrun by "homosexual ideologues," not the realization that they had no tangible, scientific evidence of homosexuality being a psychological disorder? Is that kinda like how people used to think women were witches when they didn't have a fondness for housework, child labor and subservience?

[Luigi]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1311316200' post='2273650']
This may surprise you, but the Catechism doesn't call it "objectively" disordered, rather "morally" disordered.You seem to be splitting hairs. What relevance does it have that you are focusing on the behavior and attitudes of homosexuals, rather than the homosexual themselves, maybe so it doesn't seem like you are discriminating against them?You are merely repeating doctrine, without even evidence that this is doctrine or dogma. This isn't evidence. Almost the whole of the scientific and medical communities refuses to call homosexuality a disorder or illness of any kind. So if the only people claiming it is disordered are religious because of doctrine, then it is a subjective accusation. Relevance? This is a doctrinal assessment, concerning norms, not how objectively that homosexuality is disordered.You haven't shown how it is inappropriate.Again, this is not evidence, it is doctrine, a subjective determination. One that flies in the face of the modern scientific and medical consensus on the matter.

So it seems the ONLY evidence for homosexuality being objectively disordered is a non-existent reference in the Catechism. Which is not objective and is not evidence. As someone accurately put it, its pulling the party line.
[/quote]

You're free to disagree with me, and to do so on any grounds you like. I'm simply explaining Church teaching. From what I've observed, the term 'objectively disordered' is frequently misunderstood in these kinds of disucssions because most listeners interpret "objectively" according to its more common denotation - detached, unprejudiced, scientific - rather than according to its less common, more technical, philosophical definition.

Personally, I think the Church has not done a very good job of explaining "objectively disordered;" I've heard priests, bishops, etc., use the term in their explanations, but (perhaps since they already know what it means when they say it) they tend not to explain what they mean by the term. They wind up being misinterpreted. I find it frustrating to watch.

[franciscanheart]

[quote name='Luigi' timestamp='1311344539' post='2273771']
You're free to disagree with me, and to do so on any grounds you like. I'm simply explaining Church teaching. From what I've observed, the term 'objectively disordered' is frequently misunderstood in these kinds of disucssions because most listeners interpret "objectively" according to its more common denotation - detached, unprejudiced, scientific - rather than according to its less common, more technical, philosophical definition.

Personally, I think the Church has not done a very good job of explaining "objectively disordered;" I've heard priests, bishops, etc., use the term in their explanations, but (perhaps since they already know what it means when they say it) they tend not to explain what they mean by the term. They wind up being misinterpreted. I find it frustrating to watch.
[/quote]
I truly appreciate you explaining this as I've often misunderstood the words and taken the meaning in a direction unintended.

[Lilllabettt]

The APA decision was 100% about politics. 100%. Whether it was the "right" decision or not - changing treatment protocols because of politics is a sincerely stupid way for a scientific community to do business.

The whole idea that particular sexual attractions are inborn is RIDICULOUS. "Gay" people are not born anymore than heterosexuals, or any other sexual group are "born." Pedophiles are not "born that way." Their experiences (usually of their own abuse) have produced a maladaptive sexual response.

There is no "GAY" or "Straight". Identifying yourself by your sexuality is an act of self-loathing. The suggestion of a binary sexuality is a homophobic lie that proponents of the "gay" lifestyle have embraced to their doom. Sexuality is a continuum. A person may be on different points of that continuum throughout their lives, depending on the cumulative impact of their experiences.

Some people think maladaptive sexual attractions, like homosexuality, pedophilia, necrophilia, etc. cannot be treated. I think the evidence suggests that it is difficult, but certainly not impossible for everyone. There are people who have been conditioned by pornography to respond only to abusive, degrading sex. There are adolescents who have been conditioned by predatory priests to respond only to male affection. I know of a man who was so sexually over-stimulated that eventually holding his child on his lap was a "problem." He was horrified by his involuntary reaction. This man was not born a pedophile. His experiences made his sexual response go haywire.

Regardless of whether the sexual response itself can be treated ... heterosexuals, homosexuals, pedophiles, etc... they are all dignified human beings capable of choosing if/when/and with whom they have sex. Earlier somewhere in this thread, Debra Little or someone posted about how people with SSA like herself should not be expected to be chaste. Underlying the whole argument of "accept this behavior" is the belief that "gay" people are INCAPABLE of controlling themselves sexually.

No, my friends. The homosexually-inclined are not dogs in heat.

[Deus te Amat]

[quote name='Lilllabettt' timestamp='1311352193' post='2273858']
The APA decision was 100% about politics. 100%. Whether it was the "right" decision or not - changing treatment protocols because of politics is a sincerely stupid way for a scientific community to do business.

The whole idea that particular sexual attractions are inborn is RIDICULOUS. "Gay" people are not born anymore than heterosexuals, or any other sexual group are "born." Pedophiles are not "born that way." Their experiences (usually of their own abuse) have produced a maladaptive sexual response.

There is no "GAY" or "Straight". Identifying yourself by your sexuality is an act of self-loathing. The suggestion of a binary sexuality is a homophobic lie that proponents of the "gay" lifestyle have embraced to their doom. Sexuality is a continuum. A person may be on different points of that continuum throughout their lives, depending on the cumulative impact of their experiences.

Some people think maladaptive sexual attractions, like homosexuality, pedophilia, necrophilia, etc. cannot be treated. I think the evidence suggests that it is difficult, but certainly not impossible for everyone. There are people who have been conditioned by pornography to respond only to abusive, degrading sex. There are adolescents who have been conditioned by predatory priests to respond only to male affection. I know of a man who was so sexually over-stimulated that eventually holding his child on his lap was a "problem." He was horrified by his involuntary reaction. This man was not born a pedophile. His experiences made his sexual response go haywire.

Regardless of whether the sexual response itself can be treated ... heterosexuals, homosexuals, pedophiles, etc... they are all dignified human beings capable of choosing if/when/and with whom they have sex. Earlier somewhere in this thread, Debra Little or someone posted about how people with SSA like herself should not be expected to be chaste. Underlying the whole argument of "accept this behavior" is the belief that "gay" people are INCAPABLE of controlling themselves sexually.

No, my friends. The homosexually-inclined are not dogs in heat.
[/quote]

[franciscanheart]

[quote name='Lilllabettt' timestamp='1311352193' post='2273858']
The APA decision was 100% about politics. 100%. Whether it was the "right" decision or not - changing treatment protocols because of politics is a sincerely stupid way for a scientific community to do business.

The whole idea that particular sexual attractions are inborn is RIDICULOUS. "Gay" people are not born anymore than heterosexuals, or any other sexual group are "born." Pedophiles are not "born that way." Their experiences (usually of their own abuse) have produced a maladaptive sexual response.

There is no "GAY" or "Straight". Identifying yourself by your sexuality is an act of self-loathing. The suggestion of a binary sexuality is a homophobic lie that proponents of the "gay" lifestyle have embraced to their doom. Sexuality is a continuum. A person may be on different points of that continuum throughout their lives, depending on the cumulative impact of their experiences.

Some people think maladaptive sexual attractions, like homosexuality, pedophilia, necrophilia, etc. cannot be treated. I think the evidence suggests that it is difficult, but certainly not impossible for everyone. There are people who have been conditioned by pornography to respond only to abusive, degrading sex. There are adolescents who have been conditioned by predatory priests to respond only to male affection. I know of a man who was so sexually over-stimulated that eventually holding his child on his lap was a "problem." He was horrified by his involuntary reaction. This man was not born a pedophile. His experiences made his sexual response go haywire.

Regardless of whether the sexual response itself can be treated ... heterosexuals, homosexuals, pedophiles, etc... they are all dignified human beings capable of choosing if/when/and with whom they have sex. Earlier somewhere in this thread, Debra Little or someone posted about how people with SSA like herself should not be expected to be chaste. Underlying the whole argument of "accept this behavior" is the belief that "gay" people are INCAPABLE of controlling themselves sexually.

No, my friends. The homosexually-inclined are not dogs in heat.
[/quote]
You are making two separate arguments.

To the first, I respectfully disagree with most of what you said. You may be right, but currently I disagree.

To the second, I am continually disgusted by people who equate homosexuality and things like pedophilia and necrophilia.

Thankfully we do agree on at least one thing: We agree that ALL people are generally capable of remaining chaste, regardless of their sexual attractions - and I would venture to say we both promote chastity in ALL relationships and states in life.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Luigi' timestamp='1311344539' post='2273771']You're free to disagree with me, and to do so on any grounds you like. I'm simply explaining Church teaching. From what I've observed, the term 'objectively disordered' is frequently misunderstood in these kinds of disucssions because most listeners interpret "objectively" according to its more common denotation - detached, unprejudiced, scientific - rather than according to its less common, more technical, philosophical definition.

Personally, I think the Church has not done a very good job of explaining "objectively disordered;" I've heard priests, bishops, etc., use the term in their explanations, but (perhaps since they already know what it means when they say it) they tend not to explain what they mean by the term. They wind up being misinterpreted. I find it frustrating to watch.[/quote]It's not that I disagree with you, I simply don't agree with you. No evidence that homosexuality is objectively disordered has been presented. However, if you were to argue that it was "morally" disordered, I think see a better case for that...

At least from a Catholic perspective.

Edited July 22, 2011 by Mr.CatholicCat

[TeresaBenedicta]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1311352960' post='2273871']
It's not that I disagree with you, I simply don't agree with you. No evidence that homosexuality is objectively disordered has been presented. However, if you were to argue that it was "morally" disordered, I think see a better case for that...

At least from a Catholic perspective.
[/quote]

Here's the difficulty... you're using a different vocabulary than the Church. The Church's language is extremely specific. So when she says that something is "objectively disordered", she is using theological language. Luigi already explained what the Church means theologically when she says "objectively disordered". She literally means that the desires are not ordered toward the proper object.

The Church is not using "objectively" in the sense of 'scientifically proven'.

If you're going to disagree with the Church's teaching, you need to actually disagree with what she says and not something she didn't say (but you read her to say).

[Lilllabettt]

[quote name='franciscanheart' timestamp='1311352633' post='2273865']

To the second, I am continually disgusted by people who equate homosexuality and things like pedophilia and necrophilia.

[/quote]


Here it is again. Whether you realize it or not, this attitude of yours forms the basis of homophobia.

You are trying to separate homosexuality from other forms of sexual attraction. This may make you feel good, because it allows you to group homosexual attraction with heterosexual attraction, and deem those "okay" or at least not "evil" and "disgusting" like pedophilia and necrophilia. The reality is that homophobes do this every day of the year, only their chosen "grouping" happens to differ from yours.

Homosexuality is not some mysterious "other." It is a sexual response. Sexuality is a continuum. Any one person may find themselves at any point on that continuum over the course of their lives.

You MAY experience pedophilia, necrophilia etc. at some point in your life, regardless of whether you have decided to find those particular sexual responses "disgusting." If that happens your choices will be: 1. seek treatment for the maladaptive sexual response 2. Control the impact your maladaptive sexual response has on your behavior choices ... either of which may be the right thing to do.

Once people learn that sexuality is not an identity, and stop propagating a "separation" of sexual responses ... there will be a lot less hatred passed around.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='TeresaBenedicta' timestamp='1311353886' post='2273877']Here's the difficulty... you're using a different vocabulary than the Church. The Church's language is extremely specific. So when she says that something is "objectively disordered", she is using theological language. Luigi already explained what the Church means theologically when she says "objectively disordered". She literally means that the desires are not ordered toward the proper object.

The Church is not using "objectively" in the sense of 'scientifically proven'.

If you're going to disagree with the Church's teaching, you need to actually disagree with what she says and not something she didn't say (but you read her to say).[/quote]Is not agreeing the same as disagreeing to you? But there is nothing in the English use of the word "[i]objective[/i]" that lends itself to the meaning ascribed to it previously and the catechism calls it "[i]morally disordered[/i]", not "[i]objectively disordered[/i]".

Fortunately because I studied under the tootagle of doctors of theology when for a brief time I was being encouraged to enter the FSSP, I appreciate that many Catholics are left ignorant of their own religion's doctrines and theology. But since I am a post-theistic agnostic, effectively an agnostic atheist, I am indifferent to the Church. So it's not a matter of disagreement. But if you want me to agree, the case is going to have to be made.

There is no cause to discriminate against homosexuals.

Edited July 22, 2011 by Mr.CatholicCat