2 out of several homosexual myths tossed around the fourm

[exnihilo]

1. psychology is political like anything. The numbers of suicide and higher mortality rate are good indicators of deep problems. Homosexuals are not discriminated against in modern culture and yet these numbers are not improving. If anything social conservatives are discriminated against and I don’t think our suicide rates are skyrocketing.
2. a homosexual is a man who has sex with another man. You can’t fix up the data by saying the homosexuals having sex with young men don’t use that label to describe themselves. Your claim is like saying rapists aren’t rapists because they don’t identify what they do as being rape.

 

[signit]

To be considered a disorder in the eyes of psycholgy, somthing must cause mild to severe disturbances in thought and/or behavior, resulting in an inability to cope with life’s ordinary demands and routines. Would you mind telling me how exactly homosexuality fits this definition? How are they unable to function with life on a daily basis?

This was addressed in another thread a few days ago:

“Disordered” means one thing in Catholic beliefs and I accept that.

It means something else in the social sciences.

According to the famous piece from the APA from 1973, it doesn’t meet the requirements for a “disorder” (i.e., it “must either regularly cause subjective distress, or regularly be associated with some generalized impairment in social effectiveness or functioning”).

torahdec.org/Downloads/DSM-II_Homosexuality_Revision.pdf

So, when Catholics say gays or “disordered” or that SSA is “disordered” it might sound to someone else that they’re saying that they’re “mentally ill,” possibly in need of “treatment,” which is not the case according to the objective standard above.

I understand that in the past it was commonly believed that SSA was a mental disorder, and that some people still believe it is.

But, according to the objective standard above, it seems to me it’s not.

 

[Jake21]

1. psychology is political like anything. The numbers of suicide and higher mortality rate are good indicators of deep problems. Homosexuals are not discriminated against in modern culture and yet these numbers are not improving. If anything social conservatives are discriminated against and I don’t think our suicide rates are skyrocketing.
2. a homosexual is a man who has sex with another man. You can’t fix up the data by saying the homosexuals having sex with young men don’t use that label to describe themselves. Your claim is like saying rapists aren’t rapists because they don’t identify what they do as being rape.

1. Even if it was hypothetically true that social rejection did not have much to do with suicide and mortality rates, HOMOSEXUALITY ITSELF can not rationally be consided a psychological disorder. This is because not every homosexual that’s well into their adulthood on this planet exhibits psychologically dysfunctional behavior of any kind.
2. You have to rule out this possibility before you can make such a claim about homosexual priests. The possibility is that these priest were actually hedrosexaul but just raped famine looking male teenagers as a substitute for females because they couldn’t get their hands on females. The opposing side of this claim about these homosexual priests strongly suspect that parents are much more comfortable sending their teenage sons on camping trips and other kind of trips with priests then their teenage daughters for quite obvious reasons.

 

[Vico]

Myth #1 - Homosexuality is not only a disorder in the eyes of catholic theology, but also in the eyes of modern psychology. …

1. The APA states, regarding sexual orientation, that (APA Q&A -2008).
   
   “There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation.”
   “most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.”
   “lesbian, gay, and bisexual orientations are not disorders. Research has found no inherent association between any of these sexual orientations and psychopathology.”

The Catechism states the “homosexual tendencies” are objectively disordered and are a trial. (The tendency to homosexual acts is objectively disordered because those acts are contrary to the natural law.)

Catechism on homosexual orientation:

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

1. The practive of Psychology not determine what is evil, but does define mental disorders, whereas the Catholic Church teaches specifically on what is evil.

a) Psychiatrist Robert Simon states that:
Forensic psychiatrists are ethically required to adhere to the principles of honesty and striving for objectivity in providing opinions and testimony. Evil, however, is a concept too knotted in ambiguity for the application of these principles. The proper métier of the forensic psychiatrist is psychological and clinical. Psychiatrists are medically trained in the scientific method, not in the diagnosis and treatment of evil. They observe cause and effect in human behavior. When a concept is beyond scientific investigation, it is the province of the philosopher and theologian. Introducing the concept of evil into forensic psychiatry hopelessly complicates an already difficult task. The determination that a particular behavior is or is not evil is a judgment that is heavily influenced by context and subjectivity.”
(Robert I. Simon, Jr., Should Forensic Psychiatrists Testify About Evil?, 31 J. AM. ACAD. PSYCHIATRY &L. 413, 414 (2003))

b) The APA commenting on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Version 5, states that “With this revision, DSM-5 clearly distinguishes between atypical sexual interests and mental disorders involving these desires or behaviors.” – Here they are referring to various paraphilias, which was considered to be an orientation, a designation that was later revised from orientation to interest. However, sexual orientation is not a mental disorder per the APA classification.

c) The Catechism states the teaching that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” because they are contrary to the natural law.

Catechism on homosexual acts:
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,140 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."141 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.

 

[JimG]

The John Jay Report in its entirety can be read here.

The graphs and charts are particularly interesting as to the distribution of offenders by year of birth and by seminary ordination year, and by year in which the abuse occurred. It was not a constant, but reached a rapid peak, then rapidly declined. See the graphs.

And the fact is that the vast majority of cases involved what amounts to homosexual predation upon post-pubescent boys. It doesn’t matter how they may self identify. The actions amounted to predation by older men of the same sex as the victims.

It is simply not true that priests have more access to young boys than to young girls. There was a recent case in the KC-St. Joseph diocese. for example, in which 100% of the victims were girls
.
The link which I provided in post #2 gave an analysis of the John Jay data by Bill Donohue. He notes for factors that likely accounted for that particular abuses crisis:

“— There was an exodus of heterosexual priests after Vatican II, a large percentage of whom got married.
— The effect of this exodus was to leave behind a greater proportion of homosexual priests.
— A tolerance for sexual expression in the seminaries was evident at this time, leading many previously celibate homosexual priests to act out.
— And there was a surge of homosexuals into the seminaries.

It was the interaction of these four factors, I would argue, that accounts for the increase in male victims at the height of the sexual abuse crisis.”

 

[Corki]

Myth #1 - Homosexuality is not only a disorder in the eyes of catholic theology, but also in the eyes of modern psychology.

Claiming that the American Psychological Association was just pressured by homosexuals in the 1970s to remove homosexuality from the DSM and that they are still pressured to this day is nowhere near strong enough to conclude that homosexuality is a psychological disorder. This is because there are multiple adult homosexuals on this planet that have never exhibited any behavior that would justify a psychologist to question his or her psychological state. I think we all intuitively know It’s not by any means ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE to find multiple homosexuals well into their adulthood that have never been arrested, never been voluntarily or involuntarily committed to a mental institution, and have no family members or friends whatsoever say they have seen him or her act in a dysfunctional manner. Now you could claim after giving a background check that the homosexual is just lying about their friends and family members, but are we really going to claim that EVERY SINGLE homosexual is dishonest? I do admit that homosexuals do have higher rates of disorders, but remember that does not mean that homosexuality IS ITSELF a disorder. Many argue that those disorders are triggered by the high rates of jaw dropping social rejection, violence, and bullying experienced by homosexuals.

Myth #2 - The catholic sex abuse scandal was predominantly perpetrated by homosexual priests.

I have even heard one of the CAF apologists moronically call this a “homosexual scandal”. Where is the evidence that the priests who raped 15 through 17 year olds actually identified themselves as exclusively homosexual? Would if a significant amount of these priests actually identified as bisexuals? How do we know that most of these priests are actually heterosexual? Would if they find it extremely difficult to rape females because most parents our more comfortable sending male teenagers alone on trips then they are with teenage females? It’s possible that they mostly raped males that were visually on the feminine side so the priest could simulate having sex with a female as much as possible. This is similar to what many prisoners who have not felt the touch of a women in decades do. You cannot rationally make this claim without ruling these possibilities out. Doing this would require some deeper research on the matter. There also appears to be a modern psychological consensus that homosexuals are not more likely to rape adult males or adult looking minor males then heterosexuals are to rape adult or adult looking females.

lanternproject.org.uk/library/general/articles-and-information-about-sexual-abuse-and-its-impact/facts-about-homosexuality-and-child-molestation/

Myth #1 - is an interesting chicken and egg proposition. It is true that most phycholgical professionals do not currently view homosexuality as a disorder. But it is also true that, prior to the DSM changing, most did. So did professionals change their way of speaking about and treating homosexuality based on the change in the DSM or was the DSM change based on an incredible reading of the future?

Myth #2 - it all depend on how you define a “homosexual”. If a homosexual is a person who mostly has sex with members of his own sex, then yes, most of the instances in the priestly sex scandals were perpetrated by homosexuals. But if you define homosexual as a person who may or may not have sex with a person of the same sex and exclude clergy, then no, they were not mostly homosexuals.

Your comparison to prisoners is also not accurate. In prison, men (or women) have virtually no access to sexual partners of the opposite sex. In the vast majority of cases of predator priests, the priest had access to both young men and young women but chose the men.

 

[Deltadeliquent]

This book:
Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth
Is the best explanation of homosexuality I have ever read.
There’s also a section which I believe is the best explanation of God and His interest in us.
It addresses both of the so called myths you mention and gives compelling argument and evidence why they are not myths.

I highly recommend the book, and it’s available on kindle.

Written by a highly respected psychiatrist with expertese in the areas he talks about

 

[Jake21]

The John Jay Report in its entirety can be read here.

The graphs and charts are particularly interesting as to the distribution of offenders by year of birth and by seminary ordination year, and by year in which the abuse occurred. It was not a constant, but reached a rapid peak, then rapidly declined. See the graphs.

And the fact is that the vast majority of cases involved what amounts to homosexual predation upon post-pubescent boys. It doesn’t matter how they may self identify. The actions amounted to predation by older men of the same sex as the victims.

It is simply not true that priests have more access to young boys than to young girls. There was a recent case in the KC-St. Joseph diocese. for example, in which 100% of the victims were girls
.
The link which I provided in post #2 gave an analysis of the John Jay data by Bill Donohue. He notes for factors that likely accounted for that particular abuses crisis:

“— There was an exodus of heterosexual priests after Vatican II, a large percentage of whom got married.
— The effect of this exodus was to leave behind a greater proportion of homosexual priests.
— A tolerance for sexual expression in the seminaries was evident at this time, leading many previously celibate homosexual priests to act out.
— And there was a surge of homosexuals into the seminaries.

It was the interaction of these four factors, I would argue, that accounts for the increase in male victims at the height of the sexual abuse crisis.”

When you are talking about the KC-St. Joseph Diocese, what ages are we talking about when you say “young children”? I ask this because I’m talking about male and female teenagers that look visually similar to adults.

 

[JimG]

When you are talking about the KC-St. Joseph Diocese, what ages are we talking about when you say “young children”? I ask this because I’m talking about male and female teenagers that look visually similar to adults.

I didn’t follow the case that closely, but as I recall it involved mostly elementary and middle school aged children, I’m guessing around the ages of 9 to 12, all girls. That case, I think was closer to pedophilia than to ephebophilia, but I don’t have enough data to offer an opinion. And if is separate from the cases covered in the John Jay Report by a significant amount of time, so it is not part of the pattern shown in that report. What it does show is that parish priests have access to both sexes.

 

[edwest2]

Homosexual activists made threats against the APA and individual psychiatrists. Until 1973, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual II listed homosexuality under “Sexual Deviations.” What was the public supposed to believe? In 1973, a vote was held to remove Homosexuality as a disorder from the DSM.

amazon.com/Homosexuality-American-Psychiatry-Politics-Diagnosis/dp/0691028370

I worked with LGBT persons at a major hospital in the 1970s and early 1980s. We all got along. Privacy mattered. When those in the LGBT community wanted and did abandon their privacy, what was the public supposed to think? Why was “same-sex marriage” a question at the ballot box? What was the public supposed to think about that?

Ed

 

[Jake21]

These assumptions you’re making are filled with inaccuracies.

“On church or school property” is precisely where priests had access to their victims. Moreover, these weren’t “hit and run” assaults; these men groomed their victims, carefully selecting them and then (often) making more than one assault of the same victim. Clearly, they played on the shame and on the trust people had of clergy – their victims didn’t run to police or to trusted adults.

Your assumptions just don’t hold up to the facts of the situation.

This is not the case; these assaults didn’t happen on “trips”, they happened in the course of priests’ normal interactions with their victims.

A priest? On a multiple-day camping trip, in the woods, with their victims? No; that’s not what happened here. Look up the cases themselves; you’ll see that you’re building up an example that isn’t close to what really happened… :nope:

Again, even with your inaccurate ‘camping trip’ example, the issue here is that priests had plenty of access to both girls and boys, not just boys alone.

This is an example of how a priest took males on a private trip to his rectory after encouraging their parents that they should spend the night there. This example happens to involve children in the 10-11 age range, but that does not mean that something like this would be impossible with adult looking male teenagers.

minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/catholic-church/betrayed-by-silence/ch1/

I believe that there is a possibility that the priest could often not assault females or males on school or church property due to the presence of security cameras or the possibility of witnesses hearing or seeing the assault. I feel that it’s likely the priest wanted some where with a better chance of gaining privacy and not somewhere where he is not at risk of being caught in the act. If the priests finds it extremely difficult to assault people on school or church property, then he will have to turn to getting the children somewhere more private where you have less of a chance of being caught. So the problem with this possible heterosexual priest is that he can’t get the parents to agree to send their daughters alone with him to his rectory. He therefore has to resort to assaulting feminine looking males as a substitute for females. This would again, be similar to how male heterosexual prisoners who have not felt the touch of a women in decades assault famine looking men. Where is your statistical evidence that an instance like the one I point out are rare occurrences? You cannot make these kinds of claims that are solely based of the available stories that are shared on the Internet and not use any statistical evidence whatsoever.

 

[JimG]

The statistics with regard to priestly abuse within the Catholic priesthood over a particular period of time are contained in the John Jay report. Speculation of a general nature not related to the stats is useless. I think that the statistics shown in the John Jay report do support a conclusion of homosexual predation, exacerbated by the fact that during a particular era of time some seminaries were tolerant of homosexual behavior and many heterosexual men had left the priesthood and the seminaries. There were particular seminaries, and particular ordination classes that produced more abusers than others. There was a book written about the situation (“Goodbye, Good Men”) in 2002.

The situation involved unique circumstances especially regarding seminaries, whose policies have now been corrected. The current policy with respect to seminarian candidates is that men with serious homosexual tendencies may not be admitted to the seminary.

 

[Landon_Caeli]

Myth #1 - Homosexuality is not only a disorder in the eyes of catholic theology, but also in the eyes of modern psychology.

Claiming that the American Psychological Association was just pressured by homosexuals in the 1970s to remove homosexuality from the DSM and that they are still pressured to this day is nowhere near strong enough to conclude that homosexuality is a psychological disorder. This is because there are multiple adult homosexuals on this planet that have never exhibited any behavior that would justify a psychologist to question his or her psychological state. I think we all intuitively know It’s not by any means ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE to find multiple homosexuals well into their adulthood that have never been arrested, never been voluntarily or involuntarily committed to a mental institution, and have no family members or friends whatsoever say they have seen him or her act in a dysfunctional manner. Now you could claim after giving a background check that the homosexual is just lying about their friends and family members, but are we really going to claim that EVERY SINGLE homosexual is dishonest? I do admit that homosexuals do have higher rates of disorders, but remember that does not mean that homosexuality IS ITSELF a disorder. Many argue that those disorders are triggered by the high rates of jaw dropping social rejection, violence, and bullying experienced by homosexuals.

Myth #2 - The catholic sex abuse scandal was predominantly perpetrated by homosexual priests.

I have even heard one of the CAF apologists moronically call this a “homosexual scandal”. Where is the evidence that the priests who raped 15 through 17 year olds actually identified themselves as exclusively homosexual? Would if a significant amount of these priests actually identified as bisexuals? How do we know that most of these priests are actually heterosexual? Would if they find it extremely difficult to rape females because most parents our more comfortable sending male teenagers alone on trips then they are with teenage females? It’s possible that they mostly raped males that were visually on the feminine side so the priest could simulate having sex with a female as much as possible. This is similar to what many prisoners who have not felt the touch of a women in decades do. You cannot rationally make this claim without ruling these possibilities out. Doing this would require some deeper research on the matter. There also appears to be a modern psychological consensus that homosexuals are not more likely to rape adult males or adult looking minor males then heterosexuals are to rape adult or adult looking females.

lanternproject.org.uk/library/general/articles-and-information-about-sexual-abuse-and-its-impact/facts-about-homosexuality-and-child-molestation/

Myth # 3 - That homosexuals always wear a single earring in their right ear. It’s just not always true.

…But usually it does symbolize gay, right?

 

[Landon_Caeli]

I worked with LGBT persons at a major hospital in the 1970s and early 1980s. We all got along. Privacy mattered. When those in the LGBT community wanted and did abandon their privacy, what was the public supposed to think?

Ed

I bet some of them wore earrings in their right ear…

 

[exnihilo]

1. Even if it was hypothetically true that social rejection did not have much to do with suicide and mortality rates, HOMOSEXUALITY ITSELF can not rationally be consided a psychological disorder. This is because not every homosexual that’s well into their adulthood on this planet exhibits psychologically dysfunctional behavior of any kind.
2. You have to rule out this possibility before you can make such a claim about homosexual priests. The possibility is that these priest were actually hedrosexaul but just raped famine looking male teenagers as a substitute for females because they couldn’t get their hands on females. The opposing side of this claim about these homosexual priests strongly suspect that parents are much more comfortable sending their teenage sons on camping trips and other kind of trips with priests then their teenage daughters for quite obvious reasons.

1. Every active homosexual I am aware of has physiological disorders. Of course this hinges on what a disorder is. In a world that thinks each man has a gender and he can decide what that gender is and change it over time I don’t have much faith in rightly identifying disorder. And homosexual inclinations could itself be a disorder just as much as any disordered attraction.
2. This is a really bizarre argument. Men who have sex with men were the problem. If heterosexual men can have sex with men then they aren’t heterosexual. The whole homosexual/heterosexual distinctive was invented by homosexuals or the behaviors advocates. It is funny to see it abandoned when advantageous. But if you want to abandon it fine. We can replace homosexual with men who have sex with men. And doing so doesn’t change the fact that the myths you claim are not in fact myths.

 

[edwest2]

I bet some of them wore earrings in their right ear…

Actually, no.

Ed

 

[Jake21]

1. Every active homosexual I am aware of has physiological disorders. Of course this hinges on what a disorder is. In a world that thinks each man has a gender and he can decide what that gender is and change it over time I don’t have much faith in rightly identifying disorder. And homosexual inclinations could itself be a disorder just as much as any disordered attraction.
2. This is a really bizarre argument. Men who have sex with men were the problem. If heterosexual men can have sex with men then they aren’t heterosexual. The whole homosexual/heterosexual distinctive was invented by homosexuals or the behaviors advocates. It is funny to see it abandoned when advantageous. But if you want to abandon it fine. We can replace homosexual with men who have sex with men. And doing so doesn’t change the fact that the myths you claim are not in fact myths.

1. Are you only talking about homosexuals in your personal life?
2. it’s similar to what male heterosexual inmates do. These inmates would only rape or have sex with women if they could, but they can’t. The only people around them are males. Since they can’t get their hands on females they rape feminine looking males as a substitute for women. It’s possibly the same situation with these priests.

 

[Corki]

1. it’s similar to what male heterosexual inmates do. These inmates would only rape or have sex with women if they could, but they can’t. The only people around them are males. Since they can’t get their hands on females they rape feminine looking males as a substitute for women. It’s possibly the same situation with these priests.

Except priests have access to females as much as males. Not to mention that there has been NO, ZERO evidence presented that the teens or young men who were the victims of priestly sexual abuse were “feminine looking”.

 

[Jake21]

Except priests have access to females as much as males. Not to mention that there has been NO, ZERO evidence presented that the teens or young men who were the victims of priestly sexual abuse were “feminine looking”.

Keep in mind that what I’m saying are just POSSIBILITIES. If your unable throw these possibilities out the window, then you can’t validly go around and make these claims. I believe that it’s POSSIBLE the priests had no where close to equal acsess of both genders. I base these possibilities off my suspicion that priests would often find it extremely risky to rape their victims on school or church properly due to the possibility of people hearing or seeing the rape on the property. Perhaps several of the priests wanted to go somewhere much more private to rape their victim. If they were forced to try and rape somewhere more private then there’s no way in hell that that the priest would be able to get a females parents to agree to her staying at a priest at his private place, or to go on a one on one camping trip, etc for obvious reasons. The priests would therefore have no other option besides young men since the parents would be much more likely to allow their sons rather then their daughters to spend the night or go on a camping trip with their trusted religious figure. So it’s POSSIBLE that a lot of these priest were heterosexual who couldn’t get their hands on a female to save there lives and therefore raped young men that look as close to a females as possible. This is again similar to what male prisoners do.

 

[Corki]

Keep in mind that what I’m saying are just POSSIBILITIES. If your unable throw these possibilities out the window, then you can’t validly go around and make these claims. I believe that it’s POSSIBLE the priests had no where close to equal acsess of both genders. I base these possibilities off my suspicion that priests would often find it extremely risky to rape their victims on school or church properly due to the possibility of people hearing or seeing the rape on the property. Perhaps several of the priests wanted to go somewhere much more private to rape their victim. If they were forced to try and rape somewhere more private then there’s no way in hell that that the priest would be able to get a females parents to agree to her staying at a priest at his private place, or to go on a one on one camping trip, etc for obvious reasons. The priests would therefore have no other option besides young men since the parents would be much more likely to allow their sons rather then their daughters to spend the night or go on a camping trip with their trusted religious figure. So it’s POSSIBLE that a lot of these priest were heterosexual who couldn’t get their hands on a female to save there lives and therefore raped young men that look as close to a females as possible. This is again similar to what male prisoners do.

Sure, possible. But not proven and certainly not the majority. You can’t use hypothetical “possibility” as proof that the proposition that most of the perpetrators of sexual abuse were homosexual is a myth. The** fact** of the matter is that most of the victims were postpubescent males victimized by adult males. The acts were homosexual in nature. Whether any given perpetrator would take upon himself the classification of being a homosexual person is something that I don’t believe has been evaluated.