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

[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.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Cathoholic Anonymous' post='1451244' date='Jan 26 2008, 07:40 PM']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.
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.[/quote]
Again, this "Jesus is Savior" website and its claims are completely irrelevent to anything as far as the homosexuality debate goes. I have not visited this website, and it has no influence on my views on this matter one way or the other. I have read plenty in Catholic and even secular sources to convince me that homosexuality is not biologically determined and unchangable. Some of this was from solidly orthodox Catholic psychologists with decades of experience in counseling people of homosexual persuasion - a bit more credentials than I've seen from anyone on this debate table. (I'd provide sources if I could, but this was from a print source I read a few years ago, and do not currently have available.)
Continuing to harp on that particular dubious website is nothing but an example of the "poisoning-the-well" fallacy.


[quote]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."
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.[/quote]
So far, you have provided not a shred of empirical evidence that homosexuality is in fact biologically determined - only unproven hypotheses. No "gay gene" nor "gay gene sequence" has been found. Neither has it been empirically proven that hormones in the womb "make one gay." Until one of these hypotheses has been actually proven true, it is absurd to treat them as proven fact.
(And neither of these hypothesis can account for the proven fact of identical twins growing up to have differing "orientations." - a fact you've chosen simply to ignore.)

[quote]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.[/quote]
Ironically, all you've done is try to attack the credibility of anybody who claims homosexuality is not biologically determined and unchangable.

You might be interested in checking out a [url="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14567650"]report[/url] by Columbia University psychiatrist [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Spitzer_(psychiatrist)"]Dr. Robert Spitzer[/url], published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, which found that many homosexuals were in fact able to succesfully change their "orientation."

[url="http://www.narth.com/docs/spitzer2.html"]Prominent Psychiatrist Announces New Study Results: "Some Gays Can Change"[/url]
[url="http://www.narth.com/docs/evidencefound.html"]Spitzer Study Published: Evidence Found for Effectiveness of Reorientation Therapy[/url]

Now before you go off dismissing Dr. Spitzer as a right-wing Christian-Fundy nutjob with an agenda, it should be noted that Dr. Spitzer is a self-described secular humanist, and his original claim to fame was being one of those most prominent in getting the APA to remove homosexuality from their list of psychiatric disorders in 1973.

[quote]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.[/quote]
The Catholic Church teaches 1) Homosexual activity is intrinsically immoral, and 2) Homosexual inclinations are objectively disordered.

Whether they are primarily psychologically or biologically caused or can be cured is still open to legitimate debate. Of course, you act as though only one side of the debate is worthy of being heard.

Too bad we're not "Cafeteria Catholics" or Muslims or some other group deemed worthy of your "tolerance."

[cathoholic_anonymous]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1451567' date='Jan 27 2008, 09:53 PM'](And neither of these hypothesis can account for the proven fact of identical twins growing up to have differing "orientations." - a fact you've chosen simply to ignore.)
Ironically, all you've done is try to attack the credibility of anybody who claims homosexuality is not biologically determined and unchangable.[/quote]

Actually, a twin study was carried out in the UK that provided evidence for a strong biological component. The prevalence for homosexuality in the general population appears to be one in every twenty people, but where monozygotic twins are concerned the prevalence is much greater. In diozygotic twins the prevalence is slightly higher, but higher nonetheless.

I didn't attack the credibility of a person. I attacked the credibility of [i]a particular method of reasoning[/i] (or rather, not reasoning). As you haven't looked at the website in question, you don't know what I'm talking about. But that is hardly my fault.

[quote]Now before you go off dismissing Dr. Spitzer as a right-wing Christian-Fundy nutjob with an agenda, it should be noted that Dr. Spitzer is a self-described secular humanist, and his original claim to fame was being one of those most prominent in getting the APA to remove homosexuality from their list of psychiatric disorders in 1973.[/quote]

No. What I am going to note is that NARTH had a vested interest in those studies, which despite not being run by the evil liberal hordes is clearly an organisation with an agenda. All the studies that I have seen emerging from that association are based on flawed axioms and contain numerous methodological flaws, as I have already written.

[quote]Whether they are primarily psychologically or biologically caused or can be cured is still open to legitimate debate. Of course, you act as though only one side of the debate is worthy of being heard.[/quote]

No. I just don't believe that the debate itself contributes anything really worthwhile to the pastoral care of gay Catholics. I wonder how easy it is to pray in a church if you know that half its congregation is in the habit of theorising about you and claiming to know the whys and hows behind your private issues much better than you know them...

[quote]Too bad we're not "Cafeteria Catholics" or Muslims or some other group deemed worthy of your "tolerance."[/quote]

No. Too bad you can't understand what I'm saying.

If you've read my contributions to the PM threads on the issue of homosexuality, you would know that I struggle to accept cafeteria Catholics and, for reasons of charity, won't engage them in dialogue until I have sorted out this particular difficulty. I went into that in quite some detail when showing how a seemingly orthodox and genuine interest in correcting and aiding a particular group can be less than pure.

Of course, pigeonhole me as a liberal-Catholic-who-loves-gays-and-Mozlems-and-Ayrabs-and-who-is-always-hatin'-on-proper-orthodox-Catholics if it makes you feel more comfortable.

And that is really what this whole debate is about: the comfort of a particular group of people. Their need to see themselves as either liberal radicals or lone voices for orthodoxy in a secular desert - in short, to see themselves as occupying a special and privileged position.

Finally, I would like to point out that I have not once used the word 'tolerance' in this thread or in any other like it. My concern is with poor methodology and that the damage that other people's personal agendas can do to gay Catholics who are trying to live out their faith. It is you who have put that word into my mouth, with all its implications.

Edited January 28, 2008 by Cathoholic Anonymous

[chocolate thunder]

[quote name='Cathoholic Anonymous' post='1451694' date='Jan 27 2008, 07:47 PM']Actually, a twin study was carried out in the UK that provided evidence for a strong biological component. The prevalence for homosexuality in the general population appears to be one in every twenty people, but where monozygotic twins are concerned the prevalence is much greater. In diozygotic twins the prevalence is slightly higher, but higher nonetheless.

I didn't attack the credibility of a person. I attacked the credibility of [i]a particular method of reasoning[/i] (or rather, not reasoning). As you haven't looked at the website in question, you don't know what I'm talking about. But that is hardly my fault.
No. What I am going to note is that NARTH had a vested interest in those studies, which despite not being run by the evil liberal hordes is clearly an organisation with an agenda. All the studies that I have seen emerging from that association are based on flawed axioms and contain numerous methodological flaws, as I have already written.
No. I just don't believe that the debate itself contributes anything really worthwhile to the pastoral care of gay Catholics. I wonder how easy it is to pray in a church if you know that half its congregation is in the habit of theorising about you and claiming to know the whys and hows behind your private issues much better than you know them...
No. Too bad you can't understand what I'm saying.

If you've read my contributions to the PM threads on the issue of homosexuality, you would know that I struggle to accept cafeteria Catholics and, for reasons of charity, won't engage them in dialogue until I have sorted out this particular difficulty. I went into that in quite some detail when showing how a seemingly orthodox and genuine interest in correcting and aiding a particular group can be less than pure.

Of course, pigeonhole me as a liberal-Catholic-who-loves-gays-and-Mozlems-and-Ayrabs-and-who-is-always-hatin'-on-proper-orthodox-Catholics if it makes you feel more comfortable.

And that is really what this whole debate is about: the comfort of a particular group of people. Their need to see themselves as either liberal radicals or lone voices for orthodoxy in a secular desert - in short, to see themselves as occupying a special and privileged position.

Finally, I would like to point out that I have not once used the word 'tolerance' in this thread or in any other like it. My concern is with poor methodology and that the damage that other people's personal agendas can do to gay Catholics who are trying to live out their faith. It is you who have put that word into my mouth, with all its implications.[/quote]

[Socrates]

[quote name='Cathoholic Anonymous' post='1451694' date='Jan 27 2008, 08:47 PM']Actually, a twin study was carried out in the UK that provided evidence for a strong biological component. The prevalence for homosexuality in the general population appears to be one in every twenty people, but where monozygotic twins are concerned the prevalence is much greater. In diozygotic twins the prevalence is slightly higher, but higher nonetheless.[/quote]
You'd need to provide a source. Again, the fact that [i]any[/i] set of identical twins can grow to have different "orientations" refutes the idea that homosexuality is biologically set in stone. (And again, unless the twins are separated at birth, they are also likely to share the same early-childhood "nurture.")

[quote]I didn't attack the credibility of a person. I attacked the credibility of [i]a particular method of reasoning[/i] (or rather, not reasoning). As you haven't looked at the website in question, you don't know what I'm talking about. But that is hardly my fault.[/quote]
For the last time, that site has no influence on my reasoning one way or the other regarding this matter. It is completely irrellevent to my views.

[quote]No. What I am going to note is that NARTH had a vested interest in those studies, which despite not being run by the evil liberal hordes is clearly an organisation with an agenda. All the studies that I have seen emerging from that association are based on flawed axioms and contain numerous methodological flaws, as I have already written.[/quote]
Oh please. Just because NARTH reports the results of the studies, means the studies are to be off-hand rejected?
Dr. Spitzer, a secular liberal psychiatrist from Columbia University (hardly known as a bastion of right-wing thought), who has long been friendly to the "gay rights" movement, subjects the claims of such groups to skeptical scientific inquiry. And he comes to the conclusion that many of these claims are indeed genuine.
Does the fact that NARTH likes the conclusions invalidate it?? Give me a break!
And Dr. Spitzer originally published his findings in a scholarly journal, the [i]Archives of Sexual Behavior[/i], hardly a right-wing Christian rag.
(And my first link - in the word "report" - is to a medical website having no connection with NARTH.)

Trying to invalidate a study just because it's reported (not conducted) by a group you don't like is poor methodology indeed! It's nothing but a loose "guilt by association" argument.

[quote]No. I just don't believe that the debate itself contributes anything really worthwhile to the pastoral care of gay Catholics.[/quote]
Some people actually experienced in the counsel of "gay" Catholics would beg to differ. . . .

[quote]I wonder how easy it is to pray in a church if you know that half its congregation is in the habit of theorising about you and claiming to know the whys and hows behind your private issues much better than you know them...
No. Too bad you can't understand what I'm saying.

If you've read my contributions to the PM threads on the issue of homosexuality, you would know that I struggle to accept cafeteria Catholics and, for reasons of charity, won't engage them in dialogue until I have sorted out this particular difficulty. I went into that in quite some detail when showing how a seemingly orthodox and genuine interest in correcting and aiding a particular group can be less than pure.

Of course, pigeonhole me as a liberal-Catholic-who-loves-gays-and-Mozlems-and-Ayrabs-and-who-is-always-hatin'-on-proper-orthodox-Catholics if it makes you feel more comfortable.

And that is really what this whole debate is about: the comfort of a particular group of people. Their need to see themselves as either liberal radicals or lone voices for orthodoxy in a secular desert - in short, to see themselves as occupying a special and privileged position.[/quote]
It's you who want to frame the argument this way. I thought it was about whether homosexuality can be changed.
And you seem blind to your own prejudices - seems to you anyone who suggests homsexuality is not biologically fixed and unchangable must be immediately dismissed as some right-wing-fundy-neanderthal-who-hates-gays-and-Mozlems-and-Ayrabs-and-who-is-always-hatin'-on-proper-repectible-Catholics.
But this debate seems to be going in circles, so I think I'm done here.

[carrdero]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1453109' date='Jan 30 2008, 10:10 PM']But this debate seems to be going in circles, so I think I'm done here.[/quote]
Without providing evidence that homosexuality is a sin against GOD?

Edited January 31, 2008 by carrdero

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1453272' date='Jan 31 2008, 04:49 AM']Without providing evidence that homosexuality is a sin against GOD?[/quote]
Homosexuality is an objective disorder, and homosexual acts are grave sins, as Soc already pointed out. The evidence is in the Bible and thousands of years of religious teachings. But you already knew that.

[carrdero]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1453365' date='Jan 31 2008, 11:52 AM']Homosexuality is an objective disorder, and homosexual acts are grave sins, as Soc already pointed out. The evidence is in the Bible and thousands of years of religious teachings. But you already knew that.[/quote]
I know that there is no provable evidence, no measurable penalty or punishment presently administered that verifies, distinguishes or suggests that homosexuality is immoral or sinful or that GOD is even offended by it.

I believe that it is Socrates who personally believes and is appalled by homosexuality (which is fine) and that he may just be projecting this faith towards others.

Edited January 31, 2008 by carrdero

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1453394' date='Jan 31 2008, 12:32 PM']I know that there is no provable evidence, no measurable penalty or punishment presently administered that verifies, distinguishes or suggests that homosexuality is immoral or sinful or that GOD is even offended by it.

I believe that it is Socrates who personally believes and is appalled by homosexuality (which is fine) and that he may just be projecting this faith towards others.[/quote]
Other than thousands of years of teaching and the Bible which you don't accept, you are right.
You have no provable evidence that God is not offended by immoral or sinful activity.

Soc is just reinterating Catholic teaching held by over 1 billion people. He isn't appalled by it, he just understands its basic nature and how its viewed by the Church. Catholics really should not concerned with political correctness.

["Kyrie eleison"]

Carderro,

Regardless if you believe in the bible and it's teachings, there is a cause and effect to "each" and "everything" that we do( sexual and non-sexual) regardless if you are gay, lesbian or heterosexual.

[cathoholic_anonymous]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1453109' date='Jan 31 2008, 03:10 AM']You'd need to provide a source. Again, the fact that [i]any[/i] set of identical twins can grow to have different "orientations" refutes the idea that homosexuality is biologically set in stone. (And again, unless the twins are separated at birth, they are also likely to share the same early-childhood "nurture.")[/quote]

The nature/nurture debate why I mentioned the difference between monozygotic and diozygotic twins. The study was conducted by Bailey and Pillard in 1991. Here are the exact figures: 52% of monozygotic twins and 22% of the diozygotic twins were concordant for homosexuality. The study involved nearly 5,000 twins. If homosexuality were entirely the result of nurture, the stats for monozygotic and diozygotic twins would be nearly identical.

[quote]Oh please. Just because NARTH reports the results of the studies, means the studies are to be off-hand rejected?
Dr. Spitzer, a secular liberal psychiatrist from Columbia University (hardly known as a bastion of right-wing thought), who has long been friendly to the "gay rights" movement, subjects the claims of such groups to skeptical scientific inquiry. And he comes to the conclusion that many of these claims are indeed genuine.
Does the fact that NARTH likes the conclusions invalidate it?? Give me a break![/quote]

Dr Spitzer's claims [i]aren't[/i] identical to NARTH's. I thought that much was obvious just from reading what you posted. He isn't claiming that there is a cure, just that sexuality can be nebulous. Which it can. We know this just from looking at bisexual people, who almost always have a very strong preference for one gender over the other. Many of them appear to move fluidly from homosexuality to heterosexuality.

Regarding NARTH, what I wrote was that the organisation has a vested interest in the information, which is a perfectly legitimate claim to make. Its own study (which it claims is enough to demolish all support for a genetic basis for sexuality) consisted of two questions. The first question was based on the assumption that all gay people are promiscuous. The second question was based on the assumption that all gay people would sleep with anybody who asked them. So long as they work from this basis, I am going to treat them with scepticism.

[quote]It's you who want to frame the argument this way. I thought it was about whether homosexuality can be changed.[/quote]

I thought it was about helping Kyrie's friend. Perhaps you thought an argument was a good contribution. I disagreed and wrote that good pastoral care of gay Catholics does not consist of debating over why they are the way that they are.

[quote]And you seem blind to your own prejudices - seems to you anyone who suggests homsexuality is not biologically fixed and unchangable must be immediately dismissed as some right-wing-fundy-neanderthal-who-hates-gays-and-Mozlems-and-Ayrabs-and-who-is-always-hatin'-on-proper-repectible-Catholics.[/quote]

Not once in this thread have I made that association, even implicitly. Because the research methods of NARTH are flawed and the logic of the people who run Jesus is Savior is non-existent, you assume that the sole reason I oppose their views is because I see them as fundy Neanderthals, even though I have explained my real reasons again and again. Your extrapolation is patently false.

This is my last contribution to this thread also. Kyrie, your friend has my prayers.

[SanctitasDeo]

[quote name='Jozzyjo' post='1446814' date='Jan 16 2008, 09:42 PM']There is nothing "wrong" being autistic. I work with autistic men and women. They are people like you and me that see things diffrently. Autism is something you are born with. It is not a sin at all. They can't help it if they were born diffrently then the "avrege" child (actually I wonder what the "avrege" is no one is the same...everyone is diffrent).
I do admit some people "use" there handi-caps to get away with bad things. and that is wrong. I do not agree with some of the things I have seen them do, then they say they "didn't know they did it". And that is usaully a lie. BUT, a true autistic person is actually an amazing person. I have spent days studying (reading books) and spending time with autistic men and women. I have learned so much from them. Then I go to youth group and here the "normal" kids making fun of the other kids. It is not right.
In some countries they will kill an autistic child. That is sad. I have learned more from them than anyone else.
They are no diffrent than us, just see things diffrently. So, please don't say it is a sin to be autistic (I bet you that there are atleast 10 people on this bored who are autistic).

God Bless,
Jozzy[/quote]

You know, I'm really sorry that I didn't see this reply a while back. Did you really think that I meant that being autistic is a sin? There is nothing wrong with being autistic. It was the linguistic difference between the usage of the word 'gay' and the word 'autistic' that I was interested in.

[track2004]

Whistles....

The West Wing
[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1-ip47WYWc"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1-ip47WYWc[/url]

[KnightofChrist]

Ah yes that false god The Chattering Cyclopes

Edited February 29, 2008 by KnightofChrist