Does Anyone Have A Relative Or Close Friend Who Is Gay Or Lesbian?

[blovedwolfofgod]

well, you can believe what you would like on this matter, i guess. the writing of the DSM doesnt really fall into the teaching authority of the Church.

[cathoholic_anonymous]

[quote name='blovedwolfofgod' post='1448892' date='Jan 21 2008, 03:01 PM']You make a decent source attack, but you miss you point, I think. Just because a site is rampantly anti-catholic, does not mean its information in other sources is incorrect, it just means they hate Catholics.[/quote]

I am more interested in [i]how[/i] these people come to the conclusions that they reach. If you read some of the articles about Catholicism, you will see that they are littered with unsubstantiated claims and massive leaps in logic. (A photo of the pope crowning a statue of Our Lady of Fatima equals belief in the divinity of the statue, according to them.) Their article on homosexuality is just as poor as their articles on the Catholic faith. Don't make the mistake of assuming that their information must be good because it fits with what you believe personally.

[Slappo]

Hey guys, I didn't have time to read everything, but I thought I would point out a few things that by page 3 had not been clarified.

No God does not create anyone homosexual. The Church does teach that homosexuality is the result of a disordered nature and the cause of original sin. God ALLOWS people to be homosexual, and if you want to talk about people "born gay", then that can simply be refuted (on the grounds that God made them that way) by saying that God allowed the influence of Satan to give them a life of suffering at a very young age. Homosexuality being intrinsically disordered (not intrinsically sinful, but disordered... not ordered towards good) cannot be from God. It by very nature would disqualify God as all good if God were to create someone homosexual.

Acting upon homosexual tendencies should be looked at no worse OR BETTER than acting upon heterosexual tendencies towards one whom you are not espoused to. This means homosexual intercourse should be viewed as adultery, but homosexual attraction as nothing more than human desire (as long as the attraction does not lead into lust).

By the way, My mother is homosexually active and divorced my dad 3 years ago because of it, and my cousin is openly homosexual and I believe active, or looking to be.

I haven't talked to my cousin because I am not in a position to have any influence, but I have talked to my mother and let her know both Church teaching (she is a Catholic), and my feelings towards her choosing to act on disordered desires (which is of course a negative feeling). All in all while continuing to let her know I love her very much, and continuing to spend time with her, talk with her on the phone (I refuse to enter her house as long as she is living with another woman however), and go out to lunch with her when possible. I think these are all appropriate. I pray for her all the time, as well as her mate, I condemn neither of them, but I openly disagree with how they choose to live.

God bless,
Marcus

[Jaime]

[quote name='blovedwolfofgod' post='1448929' date='Jan 21 2008, 11:42 AM']well, you can believe what you would like on this matter, i guess. the writing of the DSM doesnt really fall into the teaching authority of the Church.[/quote]

I would prefer to believe what I've studied and I have my masters in psychology. Psychology assesses how people interact, survive or thrive within a society. If a particular behavior lessens a person's ability to be a part of society, it is a disorder. Homosexuality was taken out of the DSM because the APA found that it wasn't hurting a person's ability to interact in society. They were finding homosexuals who were living quite happy and productive lives.

Were there protesters prior to it being removed? Yes there were. But saying it was a political move "bowing to the pressure of the gay lobby" is ridiculous. Its like saying "Do you realize that the only reason a black person can sit at the same restaurant as you is because so many people protested and the government bowed to the pressure?" It doesn't change the fact that it was the right decision.

The DSM has never been a book on morality. It is based on what works within our society. This is the reason why homosexuality now joins the ranks of menstrual cramps (also used to be considered a psychological disorder until a bunch of PMSing protesters showed up)

[blovedwolfofgod]

having a masters doesnt necessarily mean you're correct, but i will bow out of this one as your body of knowledge is more extensive than mine and i just dont care enough about this issue to do some real solid research. i study communication, which is psych lite, so, its not my field.

Edited January 21, 2008 by blovedwolfofgod

[Socrates]

[quote name='Kitty' post='1447319' date='Jan 18 2008, 12:13 AM']I'm not even going to reply. I see that you are completey closed minded to anything anyone else has to say over this subject and you have not even provided proof that backs up some of your claims even though I asked. I'd just be repeating myself if I replied and I really don't have time for nonsense like that. Oh well.[/quote]
Way to concede the debate to me by resorting to personal attacks, rather than sound arguments.

I've referred to the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Cardinal Ratzinger (prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and now Pope Benedict XVI). Honestly, what do you want, a handwritten, signed letter from God Himself??

I'll repeat: God does not create homosexuality or any other disordered inclination toward a moral evil (as homosexuality has been defined by the Church).
God, by His nature, is the Author of right order, not disorder.

Disordered passions are the result ultimately of original sin, not God. If you want to learn about this, I'd suggest reading the section of the Catechism dealing with Original Sin (Part One, III):[quote]405 Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted:[b] it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". [/b]Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, [b]but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle[/b].[/quote]

[Socrates]

[quote name='Farsight one' post='1448804' date='Jan 21 2008, 12:53 AM']I had a gay roommate for a semester. At least he said he was.

Also, studies are suggesting that homosexuality is not a choice. Here's one sample of many: [url="http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro98/202s98-paper2/Bodian2.html"]http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neur...r2/Bodian2.html[/url]

It says that information suggests that homosexuality is not passed on through the genes, nor is it a choice. It is a genetic mutation caused by the introduction of certain chemicals in utero. This would technically make it a birth defect, but it is most certainly not a choice.[/quote]
This has not been solidly proven, but remains as much hypothesis as the "gay gene."

Homosexuals do not necessarily have less testosterone than "straight" men, and raising or lowering testerone levels does not change one's "orientation.'

And this would still fail to take into account how twins can come to have different "orientations," as both twins would have shared the same prenatal environment.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Cathoholic Anonymous' post='1448887' date='Jan 21 2008, 09:26 AM']I wouldn't treat NARTH as a source of reputable information for anything, given the extremely dubious quality of their work. (All the studies that I've seen from them are riddled with serious methodological errors that invalidate the findings.) And as the homepage of 'Jesus is Savior' dismisses all Bible translations other than the KJV as Satanic counterfeits and currently has the sensationalist headline "Satanism in the Vatican!", I'm not really inclined to take it very seriously. Here is a sample of the quality of its contents:
Do you really want to listen to the claims of the people who made this website? Especially as one of the reasons why they dismiss all Bible versions except the KJV is because other translations apparently promote 'oral sex and lesbianism'? I don't know how they draw their conclusions, but their methods don't look reasonable to me.[/quote]
Ok, I don't know nor care about the "Jesus is Savior" video, but you are making a poisoning the wells fallacious argument.
However, evidence linking homosexual to problems with properly developing masculine or feminine identity (as opposed to being a fixed biological trait), and programs to help overcome homosexual tendencies, are not just the recent invention of crazy anti-Catholic fundies. I have seen advertized books by reputable orthodox [i]Catholic [/i]psychologists making such claims (sorry, I don't have the source available now). And in fact, such theories were the standard [i]secular[/i] orthodoxy prior to the "gay rights" movement of the 70s (and the ensuing political correctness).

[cathoholic_anonymous]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1449881' date='Jan 24 2008, 04:58 AM']Ok, I don't know nor care about the "Jesus is Savior" video, but you are making a poisoning the wells fallacious argument.[/quote]

It's not a video. It's a website. If you read my second post on the topic, in response to Beloved Wolf's query, you will see why I consider its treatment of Catholicism of direct relevance.

[quote]However, evidence linking homosexual to problems with properly developing masculine or feminine identity (as opposed to being a fixed biological trait), and programs to help overcome homosexual tendencies, are not just the recent invention of crazy anti-Catholic fundies. I have seen advertized books by reputable orthodox [i]Catholic [/i]psychologists making such claims (sorry, I don't have the source available now). And in fact, such theories were the standard [i]secular[/i] orthodoxy prior to the "gay rights" movement of the 70s (and the ensuing political correctness).[/quote]

There are orthodox Catholic psychologists (such as hot stuff) who contest those claims. The Church teaches on morality, not science, and so rather than getting sucked into a debate on the question of cure, I prefer to stick with what the Catholic Church teaches: gay people are called to lead celibate lives. That's all I can be 100% certain about, and it's impossible to go wrong following that teaching.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Cathoholic Anonymous' post='1449997' date='Jan 24 2008, 11:34 AM']It's not a video. It's a website. If you read my second post on the topic, in response to Beloved Wolf's query, you will see why I consider its treatment of Catholicism of direct relevance.[/quote]
Again I haven't seen the site nor video, nor am I particularly interested in doing so. Maybe it was a poor choice for BW to link to, but my point is that such sources are not the only ones positing that homosexuality is not biologically determined and unchangable.
What a particular protestant website says about Catholics is completely irrelevent as to the causes of homosexuality. Apparently the site also makes the claim that Jesus is Savior. Are we Catholics to reject that claim as false on the basis that it appears on a site with some nutty anti-Catholic stuff on it?

You might as well argue "Some virulent anti-Catholic atheists claim the earth is round. Those people hate Christ's Church. Therefore, the earth is flat." Same logic (or, rather, lack thereof).

[quote]There are orthodox Catholic psychologists (such as hot stuff) who contest those claims. The Church teaches on morality, not science, and so rather than getting sucked into a debate on the question of cure, I prefer to stick with what the Catholic Church teaches: gay people are called to lead celibate lives. That's all I can be 100% certain about, and it's impossible to go wrong following that teaching.[/quote]
I, as well as (resigned "Church Scholar") Apotheoun, have some serious disagreements with many of hot stuff's claims, which I'm not going to rehash here. Let's just say I don't blindly accept the secularist liberal, politically-correct APA as the final authority on human sexuality.

There remains no overwhelming scientific evidence that homosexuality is biologically-fixed. That simply happens to be the politically-correct position at the moment.
If you don't want to "get sucked into a debate" on this fine, however it seems you [i]are[/i] choosing to debate those who make un-pc claims on this matter.

[Jaime]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1450340' date='Jan 24 2008, 09:27 PM']Again I haven't seen the site nor video, nor am I particularly interested in doing so. Maybe it was a poor choice

You might as well argue "Some virulent anti-Catholic atheists claim the earth is round. Those people hate Christ's Church. Therefore, the earth is flat." Same logic (or, rather, lack thereof).
I, as well as (resigned "Church Scholar") Apotheoun, have some serious disagreements with many of hot stuff's claims, which I'm not going to rehash here. Let's just say I don't blindly accept the secularist liberal, politically-correct APA as the final authority on human sexuality.[/quote]

Let's just say

I actually studied the subject

[Alycin]

It's dangerous to go around labeling everything and everyone that has an opposing viewpoint as secular, liberal, leftist, etc.

It's often inaccurate.

And when you go about calling psychiatrists, psychologists, doctors, scientists, professors, genetic engineers, etc, (you get the point ) liberals and leftists, you give the opposing side WAY too much credit

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Alycin' post='1450397' date='Jan 25 2008, 12:57 AM']It's dangerous to go around labeling everything and everyone that has an opposing viewpoint as secular, liberal, leftist, etc.

It's often inaccurate.

And when you go about calling psychiatrists, psychologists, doctors, scientists, professors, genetic engineers, etc, (you get the point ) liberals and leftists, you give the opposing side WAY too much credit

[/quote]
not really...

[Alycin]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1450627' date='Jan 25 2008, 01:38 PM']not really...[/quote]

Maybe it didn't come out the way I meant it?

I didn't mean calling someone a leftist or a liberal was a good thing... lol.

(However, I seldom use political terminologies as insults. I try not to insult at all.)

[cathoholic_anonymous]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1450340' date='Jan 25 2008, 03:27 AM']Again I haven't seen the site nor video, nor am I particularly interested in doing so. Maybe it was a poor choice for BW to link to, but my point is that such sources are not the only ones positing that homosexuality is not biologically determined and unchangable.
What a particular protestant website says about Catholics is completely irrelevent as to the causes of homosexuality. Apparently the site also makes the claim that Jesus is Savior. Are we Catholics to reject that claim as false on the basis that it appears on a site with some nutty anti-Catholic stuff on it?[/quote]

When they say, 'Jesus is Saviour' they mean something completely different from what we mean, as their concept of salvation is extremely different from ours. So in the sense that they use it, the claim [i]is[/i] at odds with Catholic teaching - we do not believe that Jesus predestines people to Hell as part of His salvation plan, or that salvation is achieved by reciting a sinners' prayer, or any of the other things that they advocate. Our Saviour didn't specify any of that.

[quote]You might as well argue "Some virulent anti-Catholic atheists claim the earth is round. Those people hate Christ's Church. Therefore, the earth is flat." Same logic (or, rather, lack thereof).[/quote]

Here is what I said before, with emphasis added:

[b]I am more interested in [i]how[/i] these people come to the conclusions that they reach.[/b] If you read some of the articles about Catholicism, you will see that they are littered with unsubstantiated claims and massive leaps in logic. (A photo of the pope crowning a statue of Our Lady of Fatima equals belief in the divinity of the statue, according to them.) Their article on homosexuality is just as poor as their articles on the Catholic faith. Don't make the mistake of assuming that their information must be good because it fits with what you believe personally.

Now, if these people claimed that the earth is round because when they hit themselves on the head with drainpipes they see spinning circles, which they interpret as visions of our round and spinning planet, I wouldn't immediately state, "The earth is flat." I [i]would[/i] refuse to accept the logic that they use to 'prove' the shape of the earth.

In the same way, I accept that homosexual behaviour is wrong. However, I do not accept that it's a choice or caused by environmental factors based on highly implausible claims that have as their central thread a dislike for people they label as 'liberals'. The line of reasoning goes like this: "Anybody who disagrees with me must be a liberal because they disagree with me and disagreeing with me makes them a liberal."

[quote]There remains no overwhelming scientific evidence that homosexuality is biologically-fixed. That simply happens to be the politically-correct position at the moment.
If you don't want to "get sucked into a debate" on this fine, however it seems you [i]are[/i] choosing to debate those who make un-pc claims on this matter.[/quote]

There is a lot more evidence to support a biological basis for homosexuality than there is to counter it. The response to this, of course, is that the evidence has been contaminated by 'liberals'. This seems to be a de facto assumption.

The only evidence I've seen presented to the contrary consists of a NARTH 'study' that is based on two questions that have huge flaws in them, and the belief that going against whatever Those Liberals Over There are saying must make you right.

As for debating, I am simply pointing out that Catholicism has already given us a position on this issue. I don't need to go to a fundy website to get another one.