Hypo: You Are Gay

[franciscanheart]

While I doubt the OP had any purpose other than to stir up the usual "gay drama" (and it appears he was quite successful), I'll bite and add my typically un-pc $.02 worth.

If we take this imaginary scenario at face value (the drug is safe with no side effects), then there would be absolutely no moral problem whatsoever with a homosexual person taking the drug.

Any actual moral issues would result from serious dangers and side effects from the drug (which in this scenario do not exist,as GtF explained).

There's nothing wrong with trying to correct a disorder (and, yes, politically incorrect as it may be, homosexual tendencies are disordered). For this reason, it's not inherently immoral for a person to choose to undergo "gay to straight" therapy. (I'll leave it to others to debate the effectiveness of said therapy.)

I wouldn't go so far as to say that persons with SSA would be morally required to take the drug, but they shouldn't be prohibited either.

Legitimate drugs/medications exist to treat or control all sorts of psychiatric/chemical/physical disorders, and the Church does not condemn all such drugs categorically. We're not the Christian Scientists. If it were possible to use a drug to fix disordered sexuality, it would not be any different.

And the objections about this hypothetical drug (which in the scenario, only changes one from "gay" to "straight") taking away free will are nonsensical. It's not as though straight people are free from sin or immune from temptation.


All that said, I believe the scenario in the OP is extremely unlikely, and probably always remain purely hypothetical (i don't think homosexuality has a single physical cause which can be cured simply by taking a drug). It's about as realistic as an X-Men adventure.

You know as well as I do that "disordered" in Church speak is different than "disorder" in psychology speak. :rolleyes:

[Socrates]

If being gay is going to be compared to some other socially unacceptable thing, I'm glad it's alcoholism and not child molestation and/or animal sex. Cheers! :cheers:

 

If there was a pill that could change the sexual "orientation" of people with pedophilic or zoophilic inclinations, would it be wrong for those folks to take it?

[Socrates]

:huh: Homophobia is a real word. We all know it's not a real phobia. We all know homophobia = prejudice.

 

You're right.  It's not (in most cases) a real phobia.  We all know it's just a word used to insult and discredit anyone and everyone who has views or beliefs on this topic outside of politically-correct opinion, and silence dissent from the GBLT(whatever-the-hell-the-current-pc-alphabet-soup-is-at-this-moment) party line.

[franciscanheart]

You're right. It's not (in most cases) a real phobia. We all know it's just a word used to insult and discredit anyone and everyone who has views or beliefs on this topic outside of politically-correct opinion, and silence dissent from the GBLT(whatever-the-hell-the-current-pc-alphabet-soup-is-at-this-moment) party line.

Y'ALL: HE'S ON TO US.

:rolleyes: Okay, Socrates.

[franciscanheart]

If there was a pill that could change the sexual "orientation" of people with pedophilic or zoophilic inclinations, would it be wrong for those folks to take it?

Every single post you make is one more reason not to engage you. I'm sorry I started, but so long as I've begun...

Zoophilic inclinations do not an orientation make. :like: But then, you knew this, too...

[Socrates]

You know as well as I do that "disordered" in Church speak is different than "disorder" in psychology speak. :rolleyes:

 

"Church speak"  ~ 

Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.

 

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html

 

 

If, as in the scenario, the homosexual orientation could be fixed with a drug, that would imply it was simply a biological/chemical issue.  There's nothing inherently wrong with treating a biological or chemical disorder through medication.

[Socrates]

Every single post you make is one more reason not to engage you. I'm sorry I started, but so long as I've begun...

Zoophilic inclinations do not an orientation make. :like: But then, you knew this, too...

 

I didn't say it was just the same as being "gay."    But there are people who are sexually attracted to animals or young children, rather than to adult human beings.  (And it was you who brought up this topic) For such people, would taking such a pill be wrong?  Why or why not?

Edited September 9, 2014 by Socrates

[veritasluxmea]

Zoophilic inclinations do not an orientation make. 

Sorry to interrupt the, uh, discussion, but what does make an orientation, at least in your opinion? 

[franciscanheart]

It takes me less and less time each go-round to realize that this will likely never be a productive conversation. Obviously straight, borderline homophobic Catholics know better about being gay than gay people. I'm bowing out. Y'all have fun.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

I do mean to imply with my :twitch: smiley though that your attempt to compare homosexuality to my neighbor's missing leg illustrates a profound misunderstanding of homosexuality.

 

Lol! I wonder if this'll score you some sweet parking spots. 

[Aloysius]

It is certainly difficult to explain, I suppose... but I would advise that almost everyone I've ever known who attempted to follow the line that defined "SSA" as some surface level "temptation" has eventually apostacized.  The reason is simple: that understanding is flawed... it strongly conflicts with what their very nature tells them, and as much as they try to assent to it intellectually their embodied experience continually rejects it... because it simply doesn't fit the facts of their whole person.  I've seen it more times than I can count, on phatmass and in real life, but that model of explaining homosexuality still remains as strong as ever among straight Catholics.  every once in a while some homosexual steps up as the poster-boy for that model, and invariably they end up rejecting it, but the beat goes on duh duh duh duh duh.  for the straight catholics.  for whom that model makes perfect sense, because they've never lived the life of those on a different end of the spectrum of sexuality than they are.

 

while the attraction to same sex sexuality is a wrongly directed attraction, the fact is that there is a quality that is beyond that but which encompasses that attraction that is deeply intertwined with the human person.  to deny that is to give what in my opinion is horrible advice for any Catholic homosexual who wishes to live by the Church's teaching.  there is something much deeper, and the idea of flicking a switch to reverse the attractions (which of course is not plausible, but the hypothetical assumes it is) is completely ludicrous.  somehow arguing that one could do that and get married on the basis of that strange bit of genetic engineering is a totally misguided and faulty idea, that's why I'd be opposed to the drug even if it could exist as in the hypothetical.  I never said it'd be immoral for someone to take the drug, but I do think it'd be wrong to offer it.

 

And pick any one of the millions of reasons we all know pedophilia and zoophilia to be completely different than homosexuality and answer your own question about a drug that controls those sexual compulsions... compulsions that are not merely wrongly ordered passions intertwined with a person's being, but which are totally predatory and violent passions that twist sexual energies towards an act of violence on unwilling (unable to consent=unwilling) participants.

[Aloysius]

I'd like to note that there are many paths one can find meaningful in living a life of Catholic morality for those who are homosexual, so I would not denigrate anyone or presume that just because the people I have known have fallen away through this or that way that it might not be meaningful for someone out there.  Far be it from me to presume everyone's experience with sexuality is the same, there is a broad spectrum and many different ways to deal with homosexuality in ways that affirm chastity... I personally think that the general narrative that attempts to divide up the "SSA" as a surface level attraction, on par with something like alcoholism, for example, at least as far as it's a one-size-fit-all piece of advice and explanation, is wrongheaded.  but if someone out there is finding that path meaningful, don't let me discourage you from it, just try to be honest with yourself and don't be discouraged if you find that model turns out not to fit you.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

Okay Al. It's a little off topic and didn't mean to make us wander so far. Just know that the tide is turning on the use of that term, the progressive phrasing is "hetero-normative" or simply "anti-gay." It's not just the Associated Press moving away from it, it's other thought leaders too. Plenty of my coworkers use the word retarded as a perjorative because they haven't been educated about the English language and what's appropriate. When I explain to them it's wrong they get defensive in the same way and claim I'm being too PC for words.

It will probably take them awhile to realize it's just not ok anymore, in spite of the fact they grew up calling people that and nobody thought twice. Especially since people with brain diseases of all kinds are pretty much despised in this country.

On topic... I guess one reason I'm on a different page is that I don't view sexuality as so deeply tied to identity or the human person (alert more bad Catholic stuff ahead). I don't want to downplay the spiritual element of sex or how deep seated it is, but I feel like with all our Theology of the Body stuff etc we make it something it's not.

What I mean is, it's ultimately a biological process like digestion or respiration. Animals have sex but since they don't have souls we don't try to assign a sexuality category to them and make it part of their identity and "selves." We don't make it more than it is. My understanding is human sexuality is actually pretty fluid and attraction in general is largely socially controlled where most people are successfully trained to view certain body types as attractive. There are different times in peoples lives where the intensity of their attraction to one sex or another is higher or lower. Whether they are conscious of it or not. I don't mean bisexual either I just mean people are at different places in the scale at different times.

Perhaps it's easy for me to say that I don't think sexuality is an enmeshed part of identity since my attractions are pretty normative for my religion/family/community. And I don't mean to say it's not deep seated, I would say it's deep seated like breathing. Something fundamental to the human experience, to life itself but not something that attaches itself to a person as a Person. Therefore I wouldn't view it as an affront to human dignity. But again this is a perspective of bad Catholic thoughts.

I really get the feeling John Ryan is coming at this from a free will perspective where the drug robs people of their agency. I can see that too. I mean the whole concept is pretty frightening I just don't see where it would be immoral to take it per se.

 

Well, true. But I think it's different when it puts you in a minority group. You can think the same way about vegetarians and wonder why someone would define themselves based on what they eat. No one goes around saying they're an omnivore, but that's because it's the norm. It's easier for an omnivore because the majority of places cater to them.

Let's take a slightly more relevant example like atheism. It seems bizarre that people would call themselves "atheists", when atheism refers to non-belief. The only reason why this term is so popular is because the majority of people are theists, and nonbelievers historically have been the (often persecuted) minority. This has led atheists to view this lack of belief as part of their identity. 

 

I'm going to guess this might be similar for gay people (Fran, feel free to correct me on any of this). Sexuality could be something gay people identify with simply because the majority is straight. However, it's not that simple. The majority for the longest time hasn't even attempted to understand gay people. Even in modern times, it's common for a gay person to grow up being bullied and made fun of. As a Catholic, you have to understand how your beliefs make it hard for a homosexual Catholic not to identify with their sexual orientation. 

Edited September 9, 2014 by CatholicsAreKewl

[Lilllabettt]

Tips for Friends of Those Living with Homophobia

• Realize that the fears of the homophobic are “real.” Take care not to belittle their experience.  He or she is genuinely terrified by homosexuals. 
• Make an effort to learn more about homophobia by reading books, articles, or speaking with experts on the subject if you are close to the homophobe. This will help BOTH of you.
• Avoid any temptation to say unhelpful things such as, “There’s really nothing to be afraid of,” or, “I'm a little bit scared of gays too, but it doesn't rule my life.” 
• Realize that every tiny accomplishment in the recovery process is really a big deal. Let the homophobic know that you realize how much effort went into each accomplishment. You can’t congratulate a homophobe too much!
• If you happen to be a recovered or recovering homophobe yourself, or perhaps have had other phobias, don’t assume that what is right for you is right for everyone. 
• Remember that homophobes are every bit as deserving of assistance as someone suffering from any illness.
• Accommodate the homophobic’s concerns, within reason. For example, if the homophobe says he/she simply cannot deal with the flamers at Fashion Week, make other arrangements until the time when he/she is ready to tackle that limitation.

[Aloysius]

lol, I think we can all take something from that satire, but I think we might be taking it in opposite directions.