I have stated numerous times for the record that homosexual temptations are not sins. However, the Catechism also claims that homosexual **inclination **is a disorder and as such are not natural nor good. No different in fact that pedophile or other disordered inclinations in fact.
You can state factually that it is possible to think that homosexual relationships as immoral, but it is scientifically incorrect to say they are unnatural. That is simply untrue and against even a very basic understanding of zoology and psychiatry.
Again you may state you think it is immoral, but psychologists are more or less in union in stating that homosexuality is an orientation, whereas pedophillia is a condition which develops far later in life as a result of external trauma.
Well…You’re free to think that and I’ve nothing to add on the matter other than pointing out you are in an ever shrinking minority on that one.
This is a common misunderstanding of the term “disordered.” Psychology is mute on whether the inclination is morally ordered or disordered. It has only decided that it is not a **mental ** disorder.
And we need to keep in mind that homosexuality was removed from the list of disorders by a vote at a convention .
You used the term “not natural”, which is descriptive of more base mundane causes and not morality. I understand that Catholic conception of “disordered” fairly well (I’ve had this back and forth with my Catholic partner many times).
And yet I have yet to see a “lets sack the masturbators” march, or a push for masturbation to be made illegal as several traditional Catholics, some of them on these very forums like Estebob do on sodomy.
I used the term "not natural’? If I did, then I apologize. I don’t remember posting that. Natural is truly mundane. Dogs sometimes eat their own feces. This occurs in nature and is therefore “natural,” but it is a disordered act.
I addressed infertility in my post. You may have missed it…it was the part that was in parenthesis starting with an i.e. There is no “logical hole.” The act is ordered (“per se”, as the Church words it) toward procreation - fertility/infertility is irrelevant. Every sexual act is supposed to be open to procreation, but the possibility of procreation (presence of an ovum and sperm) are not required. What is not allowed is to do a sexual act where procreation is blocked (artificial birth control) or impossible (disordered sexual acts). Masturbation and sodomy are disordered because even in a fertile couple, procreation is not possible.
Everything that’s in the DSM also got put in there because a bunch of psychiatrists voted on it. Whether some mental characteristic or condition reaches a threshold or has all the boxes ticked off so that it is considered a mental disorder is often completely arbitrary. Many different things have been added and sometimes removed from the DSM ever since it came into existence.
Exactly. They could eventually remove pedophilia for all we know.
Right. Which is why it has nothing to do with morality.
Exactly which is why we shouldn’t trust their opinions on what is ordered and what is not ordered. I prefer to stick with the one true Church who as been consistent in their teachings for 2000 years and does not change them to accommodate the current culture . The idea that one day the APA considers homosexuality to be disordered and the next day decides it’s not does not give one much confidence in their opinions
They are, in that like homosexuality and heterosexuality, they are sexual orientations. It defines the characteristics of the object of sexual attraction in the subject person.
You: “This person is … trying to pull the wool over the eyes of faithful Christians who take what he says to heart. He’s intentionally feeding people false information to further his own … agenda.” Et, tu, Brute?I was being Socratic.
Apparently, it IS impossible to please everybody.
Crossbones took me to task for making claims rather than asking questions, now you are calling me a coward for asking questions rather than making claims. Sheesh.
By the way, I wasn’t making an accusation, just asking you to consider a possibility. See the difference?
Let me make one thing clear. My original quote (“The Church acknowledges etc.”) was about the homosexual orientation, what the Church calls an “inclination”. I do not use the word “inclination” in this same fashion. I have mentioned this in other posts.
Nope, the words were your own, amended to exclude those that pertained to Whitehead as Whitehead. The question was seriously intended to ask whether you apply the same assessment criteria to yourself that you do to Whitehead.
If you want to be taken seriously, you can’t go on making these outrageous claims.
No, I don’t. Why don’t you elaborate? :yup:
If Whitehead had written about the genetics of alcoholism, he still wouldn’t have had the necessary credentials to be a “scholar”. To be an expert in your field, you must publish in peer-reviewed scholarly journals. This is not a criterion set up by me or by your so-called “pro-homosexual critics” whoever they may be. It was set up by the science world from day one. The aim of science is first and foremost to educate. That is why one must publish—so that the widest number and kind of people may see your evidence and theories. Your work must be open to criticism. If you are not, you are not a true scientist. A real scientist would welcome critics to his or her work if the work is in error. That’s the way it is and always has been. There is nothing in the process which has changed since the dawn of behavioral genetics. Nothing has been “trumped up”. There are no “tactics”.
Jameson, could you file this under “Ask me if I care”?
You are correct; Brassankles did indeed hit a nerve. I despise pseudoscience and pseudoscientists. And I pity their supporters.
Could you address my post #296, which specifically asks you to explain that difference.Let me make one thing clear. My original quote (“The Church acknowledges etc.”) was about the homosexual orientation, what the Church calls an “inclination”. I do not use the word “inclination” in this same fashion. I have mentioned this in other posts.
“Inclination” as used by you (“Eve’s inclination to disobey God”) I took not to refer to homosexuality (the erotic act), but to the sin of eating the forbidden fruit. My response to you on this latter sin (“Well, yes etc.”) set forth the possibility of an innate tendency in Eve to eat the fruit, which Genesis does not specifically say that Satan created. Free will is always present in man, so Eve had the choice to sin or not to sin. The passage of Genesis does, however, verify Satan’s active process to convince her to commit this sin.
Eve’s possible innate tendency to sin by eating the fruit is not comparable to the homosexual orientation. Sexual orientation is something that you have, which defines who you are. An innate tendency to sin is something that you may or may not act upon. There’s a difference. Just to clarify.
Brassankles, I couldn’t help but notice that you did not address ONE of my rebuttals to Whitehead’s credentials and “work”. I openly invited everyone to give us more information about Whitehead’s “professional capabilities”–that is not on his advertisement–and to give us links to just ONE article that he has authored published in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal. If my evaluation is incorrect, I welcome fact-based rebuttals.
You would prefer perhaps a worldwide oligarchy? Don’t fool yourself, it may just come about.
Keep your pants on dude.Could you address my post #296, which specifically asks you to explain that difference.
Thank you.
