Pope Francis: Church Could Support Civil Unions

[CatholicsAreKewl]

No, enlighten me.

 

It has something to do with Hitler or something right?

 

[mortify ii]

Peace Hasan,

 

Virtually every culture?  I'd love to see that claim quantified and demonstrated.  

 

Great question, I have yet to find such an exhaustive study though. Here is some food for thought:

 

1) World Sikh group against gay marriage bill

http://web.archive.org/web/20080622042914/http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/03/28/sikhguy-050328.html

 

2) Homosexuality in Hinduism. Some interesting quotes:

http://www.hinduismtoday.com/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=5170

 

3)Dalai Lama on Homosexuality. Some more interesting quotes from the famous Buddhist leader:

http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/ID/10443/Dalai-Lama-ldquoThey-want-me-to-condone-homosexualityhellipa-relationship-between-two-men-is-wrongrdquo.aspx

 

 

http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/06/04/the-global-divide-on-homosexuality/

 

Notice how conservative Africa is above...

 

 

 

 

Did not know it was criminalized in India!

 

 

It is true that you don't have to explain to me why you've decided that a consensus amongst the same faith traditions which believed the Sun revolved around the Earth somehow counts as definitive proof that homosexuality is wrong and ought to be stomped out.  You're free to believe any crackpot thing you want. 

 

 

The consensus among cultures confirms that it is against natural law. Call it crackpot if you like, but I find your support of homosexuality and gay marriage totally irrational and indefensible. You've not provided one definitive argument to support it, instead you ask the question of what's wrong with it. If your moral compass is skewed it's not our fault my friend. 

[mortify ii]

 

I think you are trying to explain a complicated biological system by a very crude method of observation. You cant make any conclusions based on this observation because sexual orientation is more than an outward expression.  In a very basic biological sense, phenotype does not equal genotype.

 

I'm not making any universal conclusions based on my friend's testimony, I'm simply saying in my own life there are reasons to doubt the contemporary dogma. I have other reasons as well, but I have chosen to share this one only. 

 

 

I would encourage you to do some personal research on the theories behind homosexuality before coming to a conclusion based on one personal observation with a friend. Try the NCBI search engine, there are a ton of scholarly research papers available to the public.

 

 

 

Any article you would recommend?

[mortify ii]

Why not?

 

Tolerance is the world of the decade. Michelle Bachman recently spoke publicly about how homosexuals are not tolerant of her views or other views as Christians.

 

Do you tolerate polygamy and pederasty? Does it bother you that there is a catamite out there that lives an unfulfilled and meaningless life because he is unable to obtain the love he so deeply desires? And if not, why not? Age of consent? Who gets to decide that? You see, if you want to use the tolerance card, be prepared to tolerate everything. 

[mortify ii]

Court in India criminalizes homosexuality

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/court-in-india-criminalizes-homosexuality/2013/12/11/ea7274a6-6227-11e3-a7b4-4a75ebc432ab_story.html

 

"NEW DELHI — India’s Supreme Court overturned a historic lower-court decision on homosexuality Wednesday, making gay sex a crime in the world’s most populous democracy, with violators facing up to 10 years in prison.

...

 

"Prakash Sharma, a senior leader and spokesman for the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, a conservative Hindu group, lauded the court’s decision. “A few thousand people who claim to be homosexuals cannot dictate rules for the majority; they cannot decide what is right and what is wrong,” Sharma said.

...

 

"But even the most hopeful of advocates think that’s unlikely to happen in the short term, with the country heading toward national elections in the spring. The opposition Bharatiya Janata Party, which made a strong showing recently in four state elections, says the gay rights movement is “un-

Indian” and anti-family.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

Peace Hasan,

 

 

Great question, I have yet to find such an exhaustive study though. Here is some food for thought:

 

1) World Sikh group against gay marriage bill

http://web.archive.org/web/20080622042914/http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/03/28/sikhguy-050328.html

 

2) Homosexuality in Hinduism. Some interesting quotes:

http://www.hinduismtoday.com/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=5170

 

3)Dalai Lama on Homosexuality. Some more interesting quotes from the famous Buddhist leader:

http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/ID/10443/Dalai-Lama-ldquoThey-want-me-to-condone-homosexualityhellipa-relationship-between-two-men-is-wrongrdquo.aspx

 

 

http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/06/04/the-global-divide-on-homosexuality/

 

Notice how conservative Africa is above...

 

 

 

 

Did not know it was criminalized in India!

 

 

 

The consensus among cultures confirms that it is against natural law. Call it crackpot if you like, but I find your support of homosexuality and gay marriage totally irrational and indefensible. You've not provided one definitive argument to support it, instead you ask the question of what's wrong with it. If your moral compass is skewed it's not our fault my friend. 

 

It's hardly support for natural law when most of the countries listed are almost 50/50 on the this issue. If we brought up murder, it would be virtually 100% opposition for every country. The majority of countries overwhelmingly against homosexuality are within the Middle East and Africa. It'd be interesting to compare misogyny in these regions with those who are in favor of society accepting homosexuality.

 

The information you've provided is interesting but I don't know if we'll gain much from arguing this point. If we asked the world about society accepting the pirating of movies and music, I'm sure we'd have much higher numbers. That doesn't make it right. Neither would it be right to have gay sex merely because every tom, dick, and harry in the world agreed it was kosher.

Edited March 13, 2014 by CatholicsAreKewl

[CrossCuT]

I'm not making any universal conclusions based on my friend's testimony, I'm simply saying in my own life there are reasons to doubt the contemporary dogma. I have other reasons as well, but I have chosen to share this one only. 

 

 

 

Any article you would recommend?

Im not sure what this contemporary dogma is that you are talking about. 

 

 

Also, there IS an article that I loved but I cant find it on PubMed anymore. Im sad! But Ill keep looking. I found a few others but I think they are too technical for PMers.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

Response to CatholicsAreKewl:

 

My initial argument is one based on an understanding of government in relation to natural law. All governments are, in some ways, flawed, but this doesn't exclude them from having to protect the common good for society. Though we can debate whether certain things are actually harmful to society (e.g. tobacco, alcohol, McDonald's, etc...), we generally do accept certain laws as almost universal, such as laws prohibiting murder, pedophilia, incest, etc... We see such actions as harmful to society as a whole and it necessary, for the good of society, to actively prohibit these actions. And, to an extent, we also allow for legislation that limits other goods to prevent, or at least attempt to prevent, using them in an unhealthy excess (e.g. tobacco, alcohol, etc...). It's not that the government must explicitly 'ban' anything it deems harmful, but that it must act in a reasonable and thought-out manner when putting forward legislation. A question to ask, then, is if this is being done in relation to homosexual civil unions.

 

 

I would disagree. Alcohol, Mcdonald's, and tobacco can kill you. Recognition of love between two men does not kill anyone. I disagree with your position but we would have to acknowledge that preventing death should be on the top of the state's agenda if we were to look at it from this perspective. Also, we will have to go into what harm gay marriage will do to society compared to gay relations outside of marriage. Unless we ban homosexual acts altogether, couldn't we argue that the government is approving fornication by prohibiting gay marriage? If marriage altogether was banned, wouldn't we argue that the government was encouraging licentiousness? Why is it only okay for the government to be doing this for gay people? Wouldn't this have a worse impact on society?
 

 

 

This next bit is a bit of a misnomer when considering homosexual civil unions. Even if we disagree on whether or not such actions have a negative effect on society, I would hope that we can agree marriage, recognized by the government, is a privilege that offer certain benefits.

 

Hasan or Crosscut might offer better arguments against this point. I disagree with the government incentivizing marriage. If I was a Catholic, I would also be disgusted that my marriage required a seal of approval from a government run by amoral sociopaths. I wouldn't understand why I needed more than my pastor to officiate it. Maybe that's a negative way of looking at things.

 

 

 

The arguments that we are seemingly being given is that we must allow these unions for the sake of equality, so that all individuals* are equally entitled to this privilege and these benefits. This returns to another question, however, or "Why does the secular government offer these privileges? Or, more specifically: Why does the secular government regulate marriage?" Must this privilege be offered to all who seek it or can it, as a privilege, be regulated?

 

Social engineering. I'm against the government managing every aspect of our lives. I'm also fighting a crusade against daylight savings time.

 

 

 

 

That being said, I would contend that gay marriage would still have serious negative effects on society, which you can surmise from my secular, religious, and personal viewpoints expressed earlier. More so then not allowing it. That being said, I would wonder if you could elaborate as to what negative impact will arise if we do not allow for homosexual civil unions?

 

We'd be encouraging a sector of society to have non-marital relations, which I think would be more harmful to marriage altogether. What this really does is delay the societal acceptance of gay people and push more of them in the closet.  You can preach to them as much as you want but at least allow them the right to sin.

 

 

 

To clarify terminology, I specifically chose the term "disordered" because of the term's use in the CCC, paragraph 2357.** This is also why I've only used the term when discussing homosexuality from a religious and/or personal viewpoint, not a secular viewpoint. As a side note, I would suggest a look into the research regarding homosexuality, especially the history regarding the APA and homosexuality. It's an interesting topic to review (at least, in my mind).

 

This section of your argument is of particular interest to me. I feel that our views on government clash too much for a meaningful discussion to occur between us but I think it'd make for a good debate if we could focus more on this point.

 

 

 

 

*Assuming the individuals are consenting adults who are not related in certain fashions. This sets up some dangerous side-topics for those who support homosexual civil unions regarding marriage laws which offer restrictions due to either the age of consent or family relations. Why is alright for the government to allow homosexual civil unions, but prevent two blood relatives from entering a civil union? Why can two 18-year-olds marry when an 18-year-old and 17-year-old cannot marry without parental or judicial consent? Etc...

 

I'm not interested in the government passing legislation to prevent any of this. If twin brothers wanted to marry, I wouldn't mind. I also wouldn't mind if they smoked 10 packs of Newports a day. If I pretended I wanted more government involvement, I might say that incest can create children with deformities  and those under a certain age don't really know what they want yet. Homosexual relations do not produce the same ill effects. 

 

 

**CCC 2357: "Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex... Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that 'homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.' They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved."

Just as an interesting aside involving CCC 2357, the CCC also makes use of the term "disordered" for several other areas within the same section. "Disordered" is used to describe both lust (CCC 2351) and masturbation (CCC 2352), while divorce is referenced as a source of disorder within society and the family (CCC 2385).

 

I understand. I was going to point out that I know there is a Christian usage of the word but, since people do actually believe this, it makes it easier to get confused when this word is employed in a debate. Of course, this is a Catholic forum so I can't really ask you to refrain from using Catholic terms.

Edited March 13, 2014 by CatholicsAreKewl

[Ice_nine]

 

 

Social engineering. I'm against the government managing every aspect of our lives. I'm also fighting a crusade against daylight savings time.

 

 

Fight the good fight brother.

[mortify ii]

Peace be with you,

 

It's hardly support for natural law when most of the countries listed are almost 50/50 on the this issue. If we brought up murder, it would be virtually 100% opposition for every country. The majority of countries overwhelmingly against homosexuality are within the Middle East and Africa. It'd be interesting to compare misogyny in these regions with those who are in favor of society accepting homosexuality.

 

I should have explained that some of the information I had posted was more out of mere interest than trying to demonstrate a reflection of natural law. The opinions of most people in the world on whether homosexuality is acceptable can't be taken too far to support natural since many of those regions no longer pay respect to it. The obvious examples are Western Europe, American, and countries within the American sphere of influence. Places like China, South Korea, India, the Middle East, and Africa however are still traditional societies that hold negative views towards it. It's undoubtable however that the West used to hold on to traditional values and also held negative views towards homosexuality, so at one point at least, this opinion was universal.

 

To get an idea just how much views have changed consider this CBS news report by Mike Wallace back in 1967:

 

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AXAOT_swIE[/youtube]

 

 

 

[mortify ii]

How America Went Gay

Charles W. Socarides, M.D. 

 

"For more than 20 years, I and a few of my colleagues in the field of psychoanalysis have felt like an embattled minority, because we have continued to insist, against today's conventional wisdom, that gays aren't born that way. We know that obligatory homosexuals are caught up in unconscious adaptations to early childhood abuse and neglect and that, with insight into their earliest beginnings, they can change. This "adaptation" I speak of is a polite term for men going through the motions of mating not with the opposite sex but with one another.  

 

"For most of this century, most of us in the helping professions considered this behavior aberrant. Not only was it "off the track"; the people caught up in it were suffering, which is why we called it a pathology. We had patients, early in their therapy, who would seek out one sex partner after another-total strangers-on a single night, then come limping into our offices the next day to tell us how they were hurting themselves. Since we were in the business of helping people learn how not to keep hurting themselves, many of us thought we were quietly doing God's work.

 

"Now, in the opinion of those who make up the so-called cultural elite, our view is "out of date." The elite say we hurt people more than we help them, and that we belong in one of the century's dustbins. They have managed to sell this idea to a great many Americans, thereby making homosexuality fashionable and raising formerly aberrant behavior to the status of an "alternate lifestyle."...

 

-----------------

 

READ ON: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1859401/posts

[mortify ii]

An interesting quote above from Dr Charles Socarides indicating a third of his patients were cured of homosexuality: 

 

"In point of fact, many of my patients had character; they had an education; they were respected ad men and actuaries and actors. But they were still in pain-for one reason and one reason alone. They were caught up in this mysterious compulsion to have sex with other men. They were not free. They were not happy. And they wanted to see if they could change.

 

"Over the years, I found that those of my patients who really wanted to change could do so, by attaining the insight that comes with a good psychoanalysis. Others found other therapies that helped them get to the bottom of their compulsions, all of which involved high motivation and hard work. Difficult as their therapeutic trips were, hundreds and thousands of homosexuals changed their ways. Many of my own formerly homosexual patients-about a third of them-are married today and happily so, with children. One-third may not sound like a very good average. But it is just about the same success rate you will find at the best treatment centers for alcoholics, like Hazelden in Minnesota and the Betty Ford Clinic in California...

 

 

I took a quick glance at his professional career, quite an accomplished man, and what's further interesting is that he did not have a moral view about homosexuality, meaning he did not see it necessarily sinful but rather as a pathology. Obviously what he and his colleagues engaged in would be uber anti-political correctness and I'm sure this position has been thoroughly attacked by the cultural elite, yet the stark reality is that he admits to helping cure about a third of his patients. 

 

Some more reading:

 

1) National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Association_for_Research_%26_Therapy_of_Homosexuality

 

2) Charles W. Socarides

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Socarides

[ithinkjesusiscool]

Look ok, has the Pope been thinking about this:
Some Catholics say that a man and woman should not live together even if they don't sleep in the same bed. Why would that be ok just because they are two men?

[CatholicsAreKewl]

 

An interesting quote above from Dr Charles Socarides indicating a third of his patients were cured of homosexuality: 

 

"In point of fact, many of my patients had character; they had an education; they were respected ad men and actuaries and actors. But they were still in pain-for one reason and one reason alone. They were caught up in this mysterious compulsion to have sex with other men. They were not free. They were not happy. And they wanted to see if they could change.

 

"Over the years, I found that those of my patients who really wanted to change could do so, by attaining the insight that comes with a good psychoanalysis. Others found other therapies that helped them get to the bottom of their compulsions, all of which involved high motivation and hard work. Difficult as their therapeutic trips were, hundreds and thousands of homosexuals changed their ways. Many of my own formerly homosexual patients-about a third of them-are married today and happily so, with children. One-third may not sound like a very good average. But it is just about the same success rate you will find at the best treatment centers for alcoholics, like Hazelden in Minnesota and the Betty Ford Clinic in California...

 

 

I took a quick glance at his professional career, quite an accomplished man, and what's further interesting is that he did not have a moral view about homosexuality, meaning he did not see it necessarily sinful but rather as a pathology. Obviously what he and his colleagues engaged in would be uber anti-political correctness and I'm sure this position has been thoroughly attacked by the cultural elite, yet the stark reality is that he admits to helping cure about a third of his patients. 

 

Some more reading:

 

1) National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Association_for_Research_%26_Therapy_of_Homosexuality

 

2) Charles W. Socarides

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Socarides

 

 

Thanks for the reading material! I hope I don't oversimplify or butcher it

 

http://prospect.org/article/my-so-called-ex-gay-life

 

^ Above is an interesting article from one of Nicolosi's patients (with a bit of interview from Nicolosi). Research does not support the efficacy of conversion therapy. However, regardless of whether we can alter sexual orientation, it seems that there is too large of a risk associated with this treatment. Even if there is a 30% success rate, imagine the amount of distress for the other 70%. Failed conversion treatments have resulted in suicides from those who would have been better off not undergoing the therapy to begin with.

 

Charles Socarides was unquestionably a great psychoanalyst. The ideas of Freud are a bit outdated, though, and much of psychoanalysis runs off of theories that have little empirical backing (I'd be happy to have someone correct me on this). Nicolosi and Socarides both shared, in my opinion, an overly simplistic understanding of the causes of homosexuality. I'd be willing to accept that gay attraction is entirely based on environmental factors, but I don't buy that parental upbringing and abuse can explain homosexual attraction for the majority.

 

Btw, I found it interesting that Socarides' son is openly gay.

Edited March 14, 2014 by CatholicsAreKewl

[CatholicsAreKewl]

I believe it was brought up that the research on this topic may be influenced by personal biases. I think it would be a good idea if we both looked at the research on conversion therapy to see exactly what it says and whether there is anything questionable about the methods/results.

 

Since you got me very interested in this topic, I thought I'd share a clip we can discuss:

1. Interview with Stephen Fry and Dr. Nicolosi: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnBBqYFGKB8

 

In this video, Dr. Nicolosi claims that 1/3 of his patients are cured, 1/3 see significant improvement, and 1/3 no improvement. I'm concerned that I cannot find evidence for his claim. Fry noted in the video that he could not get in contact with any of Nicolosi's "fixed" patients. Further, when Dr. Spitzer conducted his  2001 study on gay conversion therapy, he had trouble finding patients who had positive results with this treatment.  From the article I linked in my previous post:

 

“In all the years of doing ex-gay therapy, you’d think Nicolosi would have been able to provide more success stories. He only sent me nine patients.”

 

Now, I'm sure this isn't completely satisfying for you. It isn't for me either. It's completely possible that Nicolosi is being honest and his patients are concerned about their privacy. That leads to another problem. Even if gay conversion has a 1/3 success rate, what does Nicolosi mean by success? Is the attraction of a "cured" gay man to women the same as a straight man's attractions to women?

 

If gay conversion therapy actually works, I find no problem with the this treatment. However, I'm concerned about the intentions behind the desire to become straight. Sure, these therapists might not believe homosexuality is sinful, but is this the case for the patients? Religious and societal pressures can make this therapy option very unhealthy and potentially dangerous, even if it does end up having a decent success rate. We can greatly reduce the psychological harm if we as a society stop pushing the idea that homosexuality is harmful and that homosexual relations are inferior to heterosexual relations. Once we get to that point, much of the ill psychological effects of being gay will disappear.  Then if someone really wants to become straight they can attempt to do so without getting completely depressed and suicidal when it doesn't work out.

 

Just for fun, I added another clip...

Dr. Nicolosi on the Dr. Drew show: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nPw9B3O0Ek

 

 

Edited March 14, 2014 by CatholicsAreKewl