Socrates Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 [quote name='ParadiseFound' timestamp='1311254485' post='2272599'] It's a word which is often used simply to stifle debate. If you have a disapproving view of homosexuality you must be a "homophobe". If you don't agree with the core principles of Islam you must be an "Islamophobe". If you think immigration into your country should be more limited you must be a "racist". [/quote] I'm in 100% agreement with the atheist Dutchman on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 (edited) [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] [quote name='Lilllabettt' timestamp='1311354407' post='2273879'] 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. [/quote] Good points, Lillabett. Plenty of people are disgusted by the equation of a married relationship between man and woman with homosexuality. Un-pc as it is to this, the fact is that sexual activity with anyone or anything other than an adult person of the opposite sex is intrinsically disordered and contrary to the natural order and purpose of human sexuality. Yes, as the examples given show, there are indeed worse sexual disorders/perversions than homosexuality out there, yet homosexuality remains itself disordered, as the Church consistently acknowledges. When people are disgusted by and have a "yuck!" reaction to homosexual relationships, it is fashionable now to label them "homophobic" or bigots. However, it is still considered acceptable to have a similar "yuck!" response to sexual relationships with children, animals, or inanimate objects. And, yes, there are people who have strong sexual attractions to such things which they did not willingly choose. Such perversions are not exactly the same as homosexuality, but they are all seriously objectively disordered. Indeed, there are people suffering from such perversions who claim their "relationships" with children or animals are mutually-loving and consensual and natural for them, and decry opposition to their "lifestyle" as bigotry. Whether people personally find things disgusting or "yucky" or not is subjective, and beside the point of whether such actions are properly ordered and moral. When we deny any objective purpose or meaning to human sexuality beyond pleasure, then it becomes increasingly hard to make consistent arguments about the intrinsic morality or order/disorder of any sexual act. It all becomes subjective. Edited July 22, 2011 by Socrates Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kujo Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 [quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1311357863' post='2273902'] Good points, Lillabett. Plenty of people are disgusted by the equation of a married relationship between man and woman with homosexuality. Un-pc as it is to this, the fact is that sexual activity with anyone or anything other than an adult person of the opposite sex is intrinsically disordered and contrary to the natural order and purpose of human sexuality. Yes, as the examples given show, there are indeed worse sexual disorders/perversions than homosexuality out there, yet homosexuality remains itself disordered, as the Church consistently acknowledges. When people are disgusted by and have a "yuck!" reaction to homosexual relationships, it is fashionable now to label them "homophobic" or bigots. However, it is still considered acceptable to have a similar "yuck!" response to sexual relationships with children, animals, or inanimate objects. And, yes, there are people who have strong sexual attractions to such things which they did not willingly choose. Such perversions are not exactly the same as homosexuality, but they are all seriously objectively disordered. Indeed, there are people suffering from such perversions who claim their "relationships" with children or animals are mutually-loving and consensual and natural for them, and decry opposition to their "lifestyle" as bigotry. Whether people personally find things disgusting or "yucky" or not is subjective, and beside the point of whether such actions are properly ordered and moral. When we deny any objective purpose or meaning to human sexuality beyond pleasure, then it becomes increasingly hard to make consistent arguments about the intrinsic morality or order/disorder of any sexual act. It all becomes subjective. [/quote] I tend to have a "yuck" response to most of your posts, come to think of it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 Just while it's on my mind, Apotheoun posted something elsewhere yesterday which is pertinent to the subject at hand. Apparently the CDF sent a formal profession of faith to two people, Sr. Gramick and Fr. Nugent (I don't know anything about them), with regards to their beliefs regarding homosexuality. The two refused to sign, apparently. Too bad. Here's the text, as posted by Apo. "With firm faith I believe that God, in creating human beings as male and female, has created them equal as persons and complementary as male and female. In marriage, they are united by God and become "one flesh" (Genesis 2:24), in a union that is by its very nature ordered to the procreation and education of offspring (cf. Genesis 1:28) and to the good of the spouses (cf. Gaudium et spes 12, 48-51; Familiaris consortio 11-15; Mulieris dignitatem 6-7; Codex Iuris Canonici canon 1055; Catechism of the Catholic Church 371-372). I firmly accept and hold that every baptized person, "clothed with Christ" (Galatians 3:27), is called to live the virtue of chastity according to his particular state of life; married persons are called to live conjugal chastity; all others must practice chastity in the form of continence. Sexual intercourse may take place only within marriage (cf. Persona humana 7, 11-12; Familiaris consortio 11; Catechism of the Catholic Church 2348-2350). I also firmly accept and hold that homosexual acts are always objectively evil. On the solid foundation of a constant biblical testimony, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity (cf. Genesis 19:1-29; Leviticus 18:22, 10:13; Romans 1:24-27; 1 Corinthians 6:10; 1 Timothy 1:10), Tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered (cf. Persona humana 8; Homosexualitatis problema 3-8; Catechism of the Catholic Church 2357, 2396). I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teaching that the homosexual inclination, though not in itself a sin, constitutes a tendency towards behavior that is intrinsically evil, and therefore must be considered objectively disordered (Homosexualitatis problema 3; Catechism of the Catholic Church 2358). I also adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teaching that, while homosexual persons must be received with respect and protected from all unjust forms of discrimination, no one can claim any right to engage in homosexual behavior (cf. Persona humana 8; Homosexualitatis problema 9-10; Catechism of the Catholic Church 2358). Moreover, I also adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teaching that homosexual persons, by the virtues of self-mastery which lead to inner freedom, by prayer and sacramental grace and other forms of assistance, can advance toward Christian perfection (Homosexualitatis problema 12; Catechism of the Catholic Church 2359)." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 [quote name='kujo' timestamp='1311373842' post='2274014'] I tend to have a "yuck" response to most of your posts, come to think of it... [/quote] I have a "yuck" response to your face . . .[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1311380403' post='2274056'] Just while it's on my mind, Apotheoun posted something elsewhere yesterday which is pertinent to the subject at hand. Apparently the CDF sent a formal profession of faith to two people, Sr. Gramick and Fr. Nugent (I don't know anything about them), with regards to their beliefs regarding homosexuality. The two refused to sign, apparently. Too bad. Here's the text, as posted by Apo. "With firm faith I believe that God, in creating human beings as male and female, has created them equal as persons and complementary as male and female. In marriage, they are united by God and become "one flesh" (Genesis 2:24), in a union that is by its very nature ordered to the procreation and education of offspring (cf. Genesis 1:28) and to the good of the spouses (cf. Gaudium et spes 12, 48-51; Familiaris consortio 11-15; Mulieris dignitatem 6-7; Codex Iuris Canonici canon 1055; Catechism of the Catholic Church 371-372). I firmly accept and hold that every baptized person, "clothed with Christ" (Galatians 3:27), is called to live the virtue of chastity according to his particular state of life; married persons are called to live conjugal chastity; all others must practice chastity in the form of continence. Sexual intercourse may take place only within marriage (cf. Persona humana 7, 11-12; Familiaris consortio 11; Catechism of the Catholic Church 2348-2350). I also firmly accept and hold that homosexual acts are always objectively evil. On the solid foundation of a constant biblical testimony, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity (cf. Genesis 19:1-29; Leviticus 18:22, 10:13; Romans 1:24-27; 1 Corinthians 6:10; 1 Timothy 1:10), Tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered (cf. Persona humana 8; Homosexualitatis problema 3-8; Catechism of the Catholic Church 2357, 2396). I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teaching that the homosexual inclination, though not in itself a sin, constitutes a tendency towards behavior that is intrinsically evil, and therefore must be considered objectively disordered (Homosexualitatis problema 3; Catechism of the Catholic Church 2358). I also adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teaching that, while homosexual persons must be received with respect and protected from all unjust forms of discrimination, no one can claim any right to engage in homosexual behavior (cf. Persona humana 8; Homosexualitatis problema 9-10; Catechism of the Catholic Church 2358). Moreover, I also adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teaching that homosexual persons, by the virtues of self-mastery which lead to inner freedom, by prayer and sacramental grace and other forms of assistance, can advance toward Christian perfection (Homosexualitatis problema 12; Catechism of the Catholic Church 2359)." [/quote] I miss Apotheoun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaime Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1311307879' post='2273539'] [mod]personal attack[/mod] [/quote] You are out of line Edited July 23, 2011 by Lil Red Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 [quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1311381777' post='2274075'] You are out of line [/quote] I don't think so. Kujo's denial of the sinfulness of homosexual activity contradicts Scripture, which I think is a clear enough example of heresy. I suppose I should have been more specific and said "I still believe that you hold heretical opinions", but I was being less formal at the time so I figured it would be understood. In any case, I will amend my statement to that if you think it better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaime Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 [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] no I'm sorry but that is completely false. There are things that were once disorders that are no longer considered disorders. And while there may have been politics around the issue of homosexuality being in the DSM, they had nothing to do with its removal. The issue with psychology is that people would like it to be a moral and objective science. It is not. It is a soft science that is based on culture. Something is a disorder if one cannot function properly in their society. If it were a hard science, disorders would be the same today as they were 100 years ago. It's just not the case folks. The reason that homosexuality was removed was because there was overwhelming evidence that homosexuals who were open about the preference, were able to function in our society. It wasn't a problem for them. It didn't cause them to be unhappy. So psychologists took it out of the DSM. They weren't pressured. They simply had to acknowledge that this behavior was not impeding their ability to work and function in today's society. And there are some disorders (personality disorders) that are next to impossible to change. They can be controlled to a degree but anyone who has a personality disorder (pedophilia for example) will likely never be free of it. It's a hardwire issue vs a mood disorder which can usually be resolved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lilllabettt Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 (edited) [quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff) (the artist formerly known as hot stuff) (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1311383345' post='2274104'] no I'm sorry but that is completely false. There are things that were once disorders that are no longer considered disorders. And while there may have been politics around the issue of homosexuality being in the DSM, they had nothing to do with its removal. The issue with psychology is that people would like it to be a moral and objective science. It is not. It is a soft science that is based on culture. Something is a disorder if one cannot function properly in their society. If it were a hard science, disorders would be the same today as they were 100 years ago. It's just not the case folks. The reason that homosexuality was removed was because there was overwhelming evidence that homosexuals who were open about the preference, were able to function in our society. It wasn't a problem for them. It didn't cause them to be unhappy. So psychologists took it out of the DSM. They weren't pressured. They simply had to acknowledge that this behavior was not impeding their ability to work and function in today's society. And there are some disorders (personality disorders) that are next to impossible to change. They can be controlled to a degree but anyone who has a personality disorder (pedophilia for example) will likely never be free of it. It's a hardwire issue vs a mood disorder which can usually be resolved. [/quote] I had a psych professor who was serving in the APA at the time. (an openly gay man btw) There was no outside pressure brought to bear on the APA. The political beliefs of the professionals involved meant that they were no longer willing to treat people suffering homosexual attractions. Their decision was not based on their evaluation of objective data resulting from scientific inquiry. It was politics. Maladaption is not determined by the person's "happiness." People suffering from psycopathy may be "happy." Nevertheless, you suggestion that people open about their orientation found the condition "was not a problem for them" is truly curious. The humiliation and abuse of people even suspected of having homosexual inclinations is widely reported in the media. Are you saying these reports are overblown? I don't agree. Remember Matthew Shepherd? I think the DSM was first changed in the 70s? Tolerance was at an even lower level then. Pedophilia is not a personality disorder. I am thinking you do not know what a personality disorder is. Pedophiles may have a personality disorder in addition to their maladaptive sexual response. But they are not the same thing. You are right though that personality disorders are also very difficult to treat. And yet, the intractability of the condition has not yet led to doctors abandoning their patients. Not so for people who suffer SSA. People who have developed a "gay" sexual response after abuse, who do not welcome this sexual response and seek to be relieved of it, cannot receive help from the medical establishment ... so they must seek treatment from quacks who want to "pray the gay away." Edited July 23, 2011 by Lilllabettt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaime Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 [quote name='Lilllabettt' timestamp='1311385546' post='2274126'] I had a psych professor who was serving in the APA at the time. (an openly gay man btw) There was no outside pressure brought to bear on the APA. The political beliefs of the professionals involved meant that they were no longer willing to treat people suffering homosexual attractions. Their decision was not based on their evaluation of objective data resulting from scientific inquiry. It was politics. [/quote] You're entitled to your opinion Lillabett but its incorrect. People believe the conspiracy theory about "politics" but it wasn't true. I had several professors when I was getting my master's who were active in the contraversy as well. Homosexuals can function in our society and not be adversely affected. [quote] Maladaption is not determined by the person's "happiness." People suffering from psycopathy may be "happy." Nevertheless, you suggestion that people open about their orientation found the condition "was not a problem for them" is truly curious. The humiliation and abuse of people even suspected of having homosexual inclinations is widely reported in the media. Are you saying these reports are overblown? I don't agree. Remember Matthew Shepherd? I think the DSM was first changed in the 70s? Tolerance was at an even lower level then. [/quote] I said it was based on their ability to function in society. yes psychopaths can be happy but they aren't functioning in society. But if a behavior can fit within the bell curve of a society, it is no longer considered a disorder. Women were diagnosed with hysteria on a regular basis simply because they had a hard time submitting to the will of their husbands. Hysteria was a female disorder. An offensive one but it still was a "legitimate" diagnosis. [quote] Pedophilia is not a personality disorder. I am thinking you do not know what a personality disorder is. Pedophiles may have a personality disorder in addition to their maladaptive sexual response. But they are not the same thing. You are right though that personality disorders are also very difficult to treat. And yet, the intractability of the condition has not yet led to doctors abandoning their patients. Not so for people who suffer SSA. People who have developed a "gay" sexual response after abuse, who do not welcome this sexual response and seek to be relieved of it, cannot receive help from the medical establishment ... so they must seek treatment from quacks who want to "pray the gay away." [/quote] Well its been a long time since I've gotten my masters and I don't have my DSM in front of me. You may be right that its not a personality disorder, but I do know that its permanence is on the same level. That's what got us in the mess with scandal. Psychologists were the ones who told bishops that therapy and moving the priest would resolve the problem. They were wrong. I will go back and look at my notes when I get home Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kujo Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 [quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1311381752' post='2274073'] I have a "yuck" response to your face . . . [/quote] See, when I look at you, I see the Body of Christ. [size="1"]Of course, the Body of Christ has all different parts. And when I see your face, I can't help but think of the keester of Our Lord. Still a venerable part of the Corpus Cristi, but still...the butt....[/size] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 [quote name='Papist' timestamp='1311258773' post='2272643'] I am only afraid of homosexuals that hit on me. [/quote] Why? If they hit on you then they find you attractive. That's a compliment. It doesn't mean you have to go have sex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kujo Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 [quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1311433618' post='2274301'] Why? If they hit on you then they find you attractive. That's a compliment. It doesn't mean you have to go have sex. [/quote] :sigh: I tried to explain that but it was met with the typical Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papist Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 [quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1311433618' post='2274301'] Why? If they hit on you then they find you attractive. That's a compliment. It doesn't mean you have to go have sex. [/quote] I dated a girl that had a gay man roommate. He would have parties that I attended from time to time. The fact that I had a girlfriend and showed NO sign of being gay that did not stop them[many] from trying to have unmentionable with me. They would say it is such a shame I am not gay b/c I am so good looking and that they felt the same way I did[about not being gay] 6 months ago or so, and they describe how better they could do certain things than women can, and so on, and so on. So yes, that creeped me out. When I broke it off with this girl she thought I did b/c I was gay. Funny thing is, is that even though they were gay, they were still dudes trying everything they could to get me in bed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kujo Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 [quote name='Papist' timestamp='1311434905' post='2274312'] I dated a girl that had a gay man roommate. He would have parties that I attended from time to time. The fact that I had a girlfriend and showed NO sign of being gay that did not stop them[many] from trying to have unmentionable with me. They would say it is such a shame I am not gay b/c I am so good looking and that they felt the same way I did[about not being gay] 6 months ago or so, and they describe how better they could do certain things than women can, and so on, and so on. So yes, that creeped me out. When I broke it off with this girl she thought I did b/c I was gay. Funny thing is, is that even though they were gay, they were still dudes trying everything they could to get me in bed. [/quote] You were being hit on. And they were being friendly. I wouldn't take it personally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now