L
- Status
L
larkin31
Guest
look up the twin studies and the sibling order studies. I bet that wikipedia has them listed in a resource list.
I don’t have them bookmarked, and you can find them as easily as I at this point
I
InSearchofGrace
Guest
For cyberspace
*In late 2004 the American Psychological Association – the world’s largest psychologists’ organization with a reported 150,000 members – announced its controversial endorsement of same-sex “marriage”.
What the APA didn’t announce, however, was that the seven-member panel that spearheaded the evaluation and endorsement effort reportedly consisted entirely of “gay activists.” …*
[It’s in the middle part of the linked article here, paragraph under Homosexual “Expertise”.]
Homosexual adoption report written by ‘pro-gay advocate’
,
*In late 2004 the American Psychological Association – the world’s largest psychologists’ organization with a reported 150,000 members – announced its controversial endorsement of same-sex “marriage”.
What the APA didn’t announce, however, was that the seven-member panel that spearheaded the evaluation and endorsement effort reportedly consisted entirely of “gay activists.” …*
[It’s in the middle part of the linked article here, paragraph under Homosexual “Expertise”.]
Homosexual adoption report written by ‘pro-gay advocate’
,
M
mark_a
Guest
I never considered that. Do you have a link?
I
InSearchofGrace
Guest
I did not bother to point out the mistake of the other poster that I was not talking about the American psychiatrist organization.
Not important because, American Psychological Association embraces same-sex marriage, mirroring the stance of the American Psychiatric Association. Both organizations are in lockstep with the gay agenda.
It is well known that in 1973, the American Psychiatric Association, under heavy pressure from homosexual activists, removed homosexuality from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Of course, gay advocates disagree and advance a different spin on this.
.
M
Michael_Francis
Guest
Closed pending mod review
L
larkin31
Guest
It’s just my opinion. I have no idea if anyone else has ever said this.
The greatest social change in America through the 20th century is the rise of an affluent (in relative world terms) middle class.
Second greatest change: improvements in medicine and average life span.
Third: Globalization of commerce and communication.
Fourth: Speed of communication and computation.
Fifth: Increased access to effective birth control.
My list, which I just put together for the first time.
T
Tonitz
Guest
Maybe this was covered before; I haven’t read all the posts.
It is quite certain, given that there are a continuum of about 12 gender orientations within the two obvious sexes, not counting the hermaphrodites (GO Sandra Bulllock!) which occur about as frequently as conjoined twins, we can more likely say that they are but a less frequent occurrence of obvious orientations and are noticeable primarily because of a more to less clear polarity vis a vi the majority, which we like to call the “norm” because most of us are part of that. We might as well call being a mulatto or having an attached ear lobe a disorder, if we really are being objective.
So as far as bearing a heavy cross, it is one which WE put there in order to protect our own fragile egos and, as Catholics, notoriously reputed strange regards for sexuality in general. If there is a perversion anywhere,kl it is in the callousness many of us exhibit toward a group who have otherwise a normal cross section and have indeed given us everything from, say, the Sistine Chapel, to military victories, extraordinary feats of music and engineering, and even most likely some Popes and most certainly a lot of clergy. Ask me. I went to a Catholic school through 12th grade.
So stop blaming God and get real. As in many other things this alleged “problem” is one of our own framing.
Have you ever wondered why you call it a “disorder?” Even the Church, as quoted from one of its documents on another thread, * said words to the effect that “[homosexuality’s] psychological genesis remains largely unexplained…” Given that, is it not a bit premature to call it a disorder, even though it is claimed to be “objectively” so? If it is unexplained, it is not known in fact if it is a disorder except relative to the beliefs of those who hold it to be that. And holding it to be that is not a cross cultural trait by any means, and is in fact very dubiously so on “Christian” grounds. I say that because there is a rather broad spectrum of interpretation on the matter not only in the some 38000** Christian denominations of from great to negligible significance, but even within the Church itself.
It is quite certain, given that there are a continuum of about 12 gender orientations within the two obvious sexes, not counting the hermaphrodites (GO Sandra Bulllock!) which occur about as frequently as conjoined twins, we can more likely say that they are but a less frequent occurrence of obvious orientations and are noticeable primarily because of a more to less clear polarity vis a vi the majority, which we like to call the “norm” because most of us are part of that. We might as well call being a mulatto or having an attached ear lobe a disorder, if we really are being objective.
So as far as bearing a heavy cross, it is one which WE put there in order to protect our own fragile egos and, as Catholics, notoriously reputed strange regards for sexuality in general. If there is a perversion anywhere,kl it is in the callousness many of us exhibit toward a group who have otherwise a normal cross section and have indeed given us everything from, say, the Sistine Chapel, to military victories, extraordinary feats of music and engineering, and even most likely some Popes and most certainly a lot of clergy. Ask me. I went to a Catholic school through 12th grade.
So stop blaming God and get real. As in many other things this alleged “problem” is one of our own framing.
Code:
*
[quote="challam2010, post:1, topic:218501"]
"However, the Church also acknowledges that "[homosexuality’s] psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. . . . 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 that they may encounter from their condition."
[/quote]
** [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations)
G
genevievelives
Guest
D
Defender1
Guest
There is no gay gene .There is no homosexual disorder .It is a choice they make to be this way . God put man and woman on this earth .He wants us to pro create .Homosexuals cannot pro create . We are all able to chat at this forum because a man and woman united with help of God . Man and man cannot create children just as woman and woman cannot create children .
M
mark_a
Guest
Would you consider that #5 from your list above, contributed at least for a few generations, to the affluence you speak of?It’s just my opinion. I have no idea if anyone else has ever said this.
The greatest social change in America through the 20th century is the rise of an affluent (in relative world terms) middle class.
Second greatest change: improvements in medicine and average life span.
Third: Globalization of commerce and communication.
Fourth: Speed of communication and computation.
Fifth: Increased access to effective birth control.
My list, which I just put together for the first time.
T
Tonitz
Guest
Thanks Genevieve, I truly appreciate the way and meaning of the declaration of your religion. Would that that was more universally comprehended.
J
Jaymax
Guest
I commend you for looking deeper into sources, however I am not sure why you think that quote is written by Dr Starr or why you think he is bisexual.
The person who wrote that appears to be a student from University of Minnesota called babelsburgfx writing on a course blog for a subject “The politics of Sex”. This student was citing Dr Starr’s article from 2004.
It’s the STUDENT who said they were bisexual NOT Dr Starr. Look closer. It’s rather obvious. Perhaps you are unfamiliar how internet articles are cited?
blog.lib.umn.edu/basho002/bashopos2/2009/03/
So no, you are incorrect. Dr Starr is NOT bisexual. Not that it would matter if he was, because what he states is stated by most other geneticists anyway. I chose his piece because he explains genetics well for the layman.
So yes, I think he is impartial and very well qualified.
L
larkin31
Guest
somewhat
the interactions of other items on the list are more significant
My point is that to attribute to the greater freedoms of sexuality mostly from the 60’s onward the ills of modern excess is to ignore the much larger social phenomena of the growing affluence of the middle class that starts long before this.
All societies seek it (greater nutrition, greater physical comfort, greater longevity) for the bulk of its people–and particularly for the poor (those that already lack these benefits). So, as more and more of the working poor become middle class, and as more and more of those people enjoy a longer life of less suffering, they also seek greater intellectual and social freedom–the freedom to make choices, to explore options, to live as fully as they can and to determine for themselves what that fullness is. And that quest for freedom meshes very well with the long-established ethos of the American, and we have watched this quest for freedom of choice expand exponentially in this country in the last 100 years. It is our heritage and our legacy. It is America.
I
InSearchofGrace
Guest
E
edwest2
Guest
On the contrary, it is not America. The hard work and self-discipline and sacrifice of those who built this country are being replaced with illusory freedoms based on transitory pleasures. Throughout history, people have made choices - good choices. But to move will-nilly through life is simply anarchy.
George Washington had this to say during his Farewell Address:
“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”
As recently as the 1960s, the federal government of the United States told its citizens that we were in a battle with Godless Communism, and reminded us of our Judeo-Christian Heritage. No amount of revisionism or wishful thinking will cover these words. It’s written on the coins in our pocket: In God We Trust.
Finally, the fact is no one needs anybody’s permission to do what they want. I’ve yet to receive a call from a total stranger asking if it’s OK for them to do something I consider totally immoral.
Peace,
Ed
E
edwest2
Guest
Not so. Humanae Vitae in 1968 was the starting point for the anti-Humanae Vitae assault. Big drug companies could not afford to lose sales over Catholic men and women listening to the Pope. The Sexual Revolution, Hippies who lived together without marriage, and other “alternative lifestyles” sprung up. A well financed graphic porn industry began in the 1970s. So-called adult theaters, adult bookstores, strip clubs and topless bars opened in our neighborhoods, providing easy access to the filth that was hidden in previous decades.
The Playboy Philosophy meant little in the 1970s. Why buy a magazine filled with articles, artwork and commentary when you could just buy magazines filled with page after page of nothing but graphic prostitution? Again, the religioius protesters had to be held at bay. This required expensive lawyers and cries of First Amendment!
To the Catholic, “affluence” meant good stewardship. In working class neighborhoods, parents were concerned about their children’s higher education or helping them as they could. The false ideal of Double Income No Kids was still some years of, but it was not the norm. Thanks to No-Fault Divorce, porn on cable and then the internet, we now have a new TV show called Shameless.
No sin, no shame, no guilt. God forbid.
God bless,
Ed
T
Tonitz
Guest
@EdWest: and this last post of yours has precisely what to so with homosexuality being called a disorder by some in our society?
E
edwest2
Guest
I was addressing certain assumptions about change and affluence. Regarding the disorder aspect, it is necessary to quote experts. The Catholic Medical Association views homosexuality as something a person is not born with. The next point is that it appears that arbitrary reasons were used to remove it as a disorder in 1973 from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. The Catholic Church has spoken in detail about the recent gay marriage phenomenon as well. If rights are based on truths then these rights should exist. If not, then clear information should be presented regarding misconceptions.
Peace,
ED
Peace,
ED
B
bluelake
Guest
bill,
Homosexuality is a sin as described in the Bible (Rom.1:26-28.
Do you think God would create a person this way on purpose and then send them to hell.
Think about it.
God loves all sinners. But, he tells us we must repent.
Sex before marriage is also a sin.
bluelake
- Status