Are homosexuals born with this disorder?

[Tonitz]

Any act done outside the bounds of Love is sin. But that doesn’t mean that people born with homosexul predelicitons weren’t created that way, whatever Romans says.

God created all of us with free will knowing full well that some would experience hell. And He put the burden of choice on two people who didn’t know good from evil and when they did the inevitable, as He knew they would, He punished not only the perpetrators but all of their descendants with no knowable forewarning of the consequences. They did not know what “death” meant, and neither did they know, for sure, what good and evil meant, as they hadn’t yet eaten of the fruit. If their condition truly was paradisic as we think, those concepts were beyond them.

In fact, Eve was seeking wisdom. " 6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it." So we blame a woman who got the info second hand from her husband who was innocently desiring wisdom, and from then on we all pay, even as bystanders in war, and crime, and thefts, and all manner of evil for which we blame Satan for getting us into as well, he being a creation of God allegedly both deliberate and crafty, and we pay for his cleverness as well, having certainly less wits than an archangel.

And under these circumstances you claim that God couldn’t create a person that way on purpose? And what then about deformed babies and mentally sub normal children? Whose fault and whose creation are those? And to surmise that because one innocent woman wished for wisdom, not knowing the difference between good and evil and therefore not competent regarding consequences, that all animals because of her also share pain and death. So because of the “fall,” all life eats life. Is this the response of a loving parent even to direct disobedience? I think that if as a parent today who did anything remotely similar in our society, you would land in jail.

But all that is moot, as we, as Catholics at least, are not obligated to take the Garden story all literally. And Romans 26-27 are the words of a man, not of Jesus. While Paul had a vision of Jesus, and Ananias was told “Go! This man is my chosen instrument to carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel. I will show him how much he must suffer for my name.” He said about suffering, not that he would be infallibly correct in any matter. Do you think that Paul was perfect, or that a Bible that has half the works under Paul’s name actually by someone else, similarly to all of Peter’s? We need to get real about these things.

People are born and have their gifts and defects. If it’s thought that someone would voluntarily choose a way of life that in our society is reviled and misunderstood by people upset by that orientation, think again. Choose??? As a lifestyle or preference? You have GOT to be kidding! Methinks many folks protest too much, being only slightly less influenced by poor teaching, lack of compassion, and questionable interpretations than someone who is born with a propensity, hetero or other sexual. These verses are more often used to bludgeon innocent people and cover someone’s own bigotry and ignorance than convey any genuine Christian love.

 

[Elizabeth502]

GloriousOrder, I want to thank you for that beautiful post #36.

On another note, I’m alarmed (unless I missed it), that no one has commented on this little gem which borders on on the blasphemous:

I feel that when the bible says that Jesus was tempted in every way, that people who are struggling with their sexual orientation should take comfort in His victory against their temptation!

You may “feel” that, but I would compare your feelings to your intellect, if I were you. Just a thought…

(There’s no indication that not just every conceivable sin would have tempted him, but that every possible departure from the norm would have tempted him, as well. Was he tempted to necrophilia? To bestiality? To incest? Come now.)

I do think cultural norms give people “permission” to experiment, to act out their fantasies, and even to live openly contradictory lives – such as the ancient Romans and Greeks did, sexually. In that respect, First Century Judaism was not such a permissive or experimental enviornment. Jesus was a faithful Jew; homosexuality was clearly forbidden; there was no sense that it was routine, let alone ‘celebrated,’ let alone open. Therefore, there is practically no chance that he would have been anything but repelled by something which repelled the culture with which he so clearly identified. In fact, Jews distingiushed themselves from their Roman contemporaries in this respect.

The ability to empathize with someone and feel enormous compassion and respect for them (as he clearly showed) does not require the corresponding inclination to be tempted by how they’re tempted, nor to experience what they have experienced.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

…
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. …

So you do not accept Church teaching that homosexual actions are intrinsically disordered? It is the one that matters as it comes from the Magisterium, not any of the interpretations of 38,000 Christian denominations and dissident Catholics.

…

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.

Who would not marvel at seeing the Sistine Chapel for the first time, and being reminded that its great artist used his unique talents in giving glory to God? As I looked up in awe when I was there, and in regarding the history of Michelangelo, I did not think that his alleged homosexuality was more important than his work, or that was the source of his talent. I know you are not saying this, but it is puzzling that attempts are made to convince that this is somehow significant when any work of art or achievement is being studied. I can understand it is a matter of side interest, a footnote. Not more.

You are right in that people should not blame God. People tend to do that in protest of the condition, which is not productive. But then there are those who choose to stop waving their fists to Him and work around a “given” condition or cross, like I believe what Michelangelo did – by sublimating his physical needs / desires to something glorious and divine.
.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Any act done outside the bounds of Love is sin. But that doesn’t mean that people born with homosexul predelicitons weren’t created that way, whatever Romans says. …

People are born and have their gifts and defects. If it’s thought that someone would voluntarily choose a way of life that in our society is reviled and misunderstood by people upset by that orientation, think again. Choose??? As a lifestyle or preference? You have GOT to be kidding! Methinks many folks protest too much, being only slightly less influenced by poor teaching, lack of compassion, and questionable interpretations than someone who is born with a propensity, hetero or other sexual. These verses are more often used to bludgeon innocent people and cover someone’s own bigotry and ignorance than convey any genuine Christian love.

The Church teaches compassion and love for homosexual persons, but not acceptance nor silence of the sin of homosexual acts.

Since you identify as a Catholic, and if you have not done so, please read

LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
ON THE PASTORAL CARE OF HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS

by then Cardinal Ratzinger, now our Pope.

 

[Tonitz]

Thanks; that was an instructive read.

 

[Hadrianus]

I’ve commented on this already, so I won’t elaborate, but I find it odd that people try to discuss what is or is not created by God without first having an understanding of the Catholic teaching regarding original sin and its consequences.

Note to Tonitz :

               The story of the Fall expresses the truth that man disobeyed the will of his Creator, and suffered the consequences of his action which caused the disordering of the passions and the corrupting of his will. Human beings turn away from God by their own pride,not because God forces them to.

Note to Elizabeth:
We have no idea if Jesus was tempted by any sexual sins, He was tempted by something much worse, which was to reject God's will and use His own power for other ends. This is what the Devil tried to achieve in the wilderness.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Note to Elizabeth:

We have no idea if Jesus was tempted by any sexual sins, He was tempted by something much worse, which was to reject God’s will and use His own power for other ends. This is what the Devil tried to achieve in the wilderness.

Of course that was “much worse.” If you’re implying that it would have been logical that he was tempted by a whole smorgasbord of every human temptation just because he was inevitably tempted to pride and idolatry, you cannot argue backwards from that. No, of course, we don’t “know” definitively what he was tempted by. But neither can we “modernize” Jesus to fit modern obsessions with a fully sexualized culture in every nook and cranny and an utter fixation on sexual “identity.” Such a cultural paradigm was foreign to Jesus in his humanity, a humanity which was culturally and religiously Jewish – not 21st century Western World modern pop psychology. You have to look at what was likely in his sphere of influence, and homosexuality per se would have been one of the least likely things to have tempted him. Also, scriptural language is not modern language. The phrases “every way,” “every thing,” and “in all things” do not have the same import in the gospels that they do for us. It was much more likely that other kinds of sexual temptations were there. And availability is not necessarily a temptation. There are guys with their pants hanging around their knees on every street corner in the most upscale towns. But I am not “tempted” even to speak to them, let alone date them, let alone go to bed with them, because I find them distasteful. Nothing in my own cultural orientation persuades me that such people have anything in common with me, so whatever they’re offering does not “tempt” me.

It’s important not to make Jesus ahistorical in some kind of hidden agenda to normalize homosexuality. That is a horrible abuse of scripture, even simply from the viewpoint of the text – never mind the Church teaching and the morality being discussed. But people who are apologists for the normalization of homosexuality, and particularly its acceptance by the Roman Catholic Church, try this trick regularly.

 

[ctahn]

The story of Sofom and Gommorah clearly shows that Homosexuality is wrong.
**
But does anyone here remember what Lot did at the end of that story?** (With God’s blessing)

 

[larkin31]

The story of Sofom and Gommorah clearly shows that Homosexuality is wrong.
**
But does anyone here remember what Lot did at the end of that story?** (With God’s blessing)

It claims this. But this is not relevant to the thread topic.

 

[Hadrianus]

"Of course that was “much worse.” " Do you really believe that? I wonder. My point was that people in our culture are so obsessed with sex that they actually forget about the spiritual sins which are graver still.

We must first convert people to the truth of the Catholic Faith and then a life of grace will lead them away from their sexual sins. That is what St Paul did.

 

[Jaymax]

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’
,

You have linked to an article in World Net Daily - an extremely conservative online publication with a history of anti-gay bias. The article quotes from NARTH - a small fringe group of conservative religious practitoners who have a bias against homosexuality for religious reasons and whose views are directly opposed to all the mainstream major health organizations. NARTH has also been extremely anti-APA since it was founded in 1992 because the APA has condemned it’s views as religiously biased, unethical and unsupported by science.

But even so, the fact that the panel of one of the 50 or so sub-groups of the APA was comprised of experts in this field is surprising how? Each of these sub-groups has panels comprised of professional clinicians with expertise in their areas. The APA is committed to evidence based practice subject to peer review, not religiously biased ideas that have been proven to have no basis in science. The APA is comprised of over 150,000 professionally qualifed clinicians who all must abide by a Code of Ethics. NARTH do not even have a Code of Ethics and have only about 160 or so clinicians amongst it’s approx 1000 members. Anyone can be a member of NARTH as long as they agree with their religious anti-homosexual idealogy.

NARTH are peeved that they have never been invited to be part of any of the APA task forces and panels. Why would they be? Their only expertise is in the field of anti-gay propaganda and making money from gullible people with their so-called “reparative” therapy - which has been shown to be ineffective and harmful.

 

[larkin31]

You have linked to an article in World Net Daily - an extremely conservative online publication with a history of anti-gay bias. The article quotes from NARTH - a small fringe group of conservative religious practitoners who have a bias against homosexuality for religious reasons and whose views are directly opposed to all the mainstream major health organizations. NARTH has also been extremely anti-APA since it was founded in 1992 because the APA has condemned it’s views as religiously biased, unethical and unsupported by science.

But even so, the fact that the panel of one of the 50 or so sub-groups of the APA was comprised of experts in this field is surprising how? Each of these sub-groups has panels comprised of professional clinicians with expertise in their areas. The APA is committed to evidence based practice subject to peer review, not religiously biased ideas that have been proven to have no basis in science. The APA is comprised of over 150,000 professionally qualifed clinicians who all must abide by a Code of Ethics. NARTH do not even have a Code of Ethics and have only about 160 or so clinicians amongst it’s approx 1000 members. Anyone can be a member of NARTH as long as they agree with their religious anti-homosexual idealogy.

NARTH are peeved that they have never been invited to be part of any of the APA task forces and panels. Why would they be? Their only expertise is in the field of anti-gay propaganda and making money from gullible people with their so-called “reparative” therapy - which has been shown to be ineffective and harmful.

You make a great rebuttal to NARTH, which, furthermore, in no way speaks for the Catholic Church, although I see it cited here a lot.

Secondly, WorldNet Daily is one of the biggest “journalistic” farces on the web. Their stuff cracks me up, literally. I teach journalism (one of my duties), and I sometimes print WorldNet Daily as examples of bias, false conclusions, and lack of evidence. My students are quite appalled, and learn not to be so trusting of what they read that “looks” like “journalism.”

 

[Jaymax]

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.
.

No, that is a revisionist myth propagated by anti-gay advocates. They appear to completely ignore the facts that the decision was based on a review of scientific evidence. Yes the review of the evidence was prompted by protests by both gay rights activists and from many heterosexual psychiatrists within the APA, but the decision was based on the scientific evidence.

Someone earlier posted a selective quote from Ronald Bayer’s book Homosexuality and American Psychiatry, but obviously had not read the whole book. amazon.com/Homosexuality-American-Psychiatry-Ronald-Bayer/dp/0691028370

The link below is a debunking of that myth. Yes it’s from a gay alliance source but you can read Ronald Bayers book (which they quote more extensively from) yourself to see who is presenting a more accurate view of the removal of homosexuality from the DSM and the events leading up to it.

ralliance.org/TVC_APA.html

And from Benjamin McCommon MD -assistant clinical professor of psychiatry at Columbia University:

In 1973 the APA’s Committee on Nomenclature, including Robert Spitzer, reviewed the existing scientific literature on homosexuality and concluded that the available evidence did not support classifying homosexuality as a psychiatric disorder. After this decision was made, a contingent within the APA, led by psychoanalysts that viewed homosexuality as pathological, called for a vote by the entire membership of the APA to reinstate homosexuality as a disorder. This political act failed in 1974 when APA members voted by 58 percent to 42 percent to support the original scientific decision to declassify homosexuality as a disorder from the DSM.

And from Dr Greg Herek - Facts About Homosexuality and Mental Health

Confronted with overwhelming empirical evidence and changing cultural views of homosexuality, psychiatrists and psychologists radically altered their views, beginning in the 1970s.

In 1973, the weight of empirical data, coupled with changing social norms and the development of a politically active gay community in the United States, led the Board of Directors of the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). Some psychiatrists who fiercely opposed their action subsequently circulated a petition calling for a vote on the issue by the Association’s membership. That vote was held in 1974, and the Board’s decision was ratified.

 

[Nec5]

I teach journalism (one of my duties), and I sometimes print WorldNet Daily as examples of bias, false conclusions, and lack of evidence.

I assume you include Time Magazine, The New York Times, and the Washington Post in your case examples of these errors as well. I salute your professionalism.

 

[larkin31]

I assume you include Time Magazine, The New York Times, and the Washington Post in your case examples of these errors as well. I salute your professionalism.

You guessed it: I have included Time magazine (really gone downhill). And some other liberal columnists. And some Ed Schultz clips. He drives me crazy, also.

And then there is always Weekly World News!

 

[Jaymax]

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

Arbitary reasons? Prior to the decision, a review of all the scientific evidence showed that there was no pathology associated with homosexuality. Therefore there was no basis for it to be included as a mental illness. That’s not “arbitrary reasons”.

Before the 70’s, there was a long history of unsuccessful attempts by the medical profession to try to “cure” homosexuality:

Medical attempts to change homosexuality included surgical treatments such as hysterectomy, ovariectomy, clitoridectomy, castration, vasectomy, pudic nerve surgery, and lobotomy. Substance-based methods included hormone treatment, pharmacologic shock treatment, and treatment with sexual stimulants and sexual depressants.Other methods included aversion therapy, the reduction of aversion to heterosexuality, electroshock treatment, group therapy,hypnosis, and psychoanalysis.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation_change_efforts

Is it any wonder that gay rights groups and many clinicians from within the American Psychiatric Association pushed for a review of the scientific evidence? Gays and lesbians were still being subjected to what amounts to torturous inhumane treatment - for absolutely no reason other than social and religious bias.

Religious based fringe groups like NARTH and Exodus are still trying to “cure” homosexuality. And they have been just as unsuccessful according to the 2009 American Psychologial Association’s review of the literature (there hasn’t been any credible scientific studies on so called “repartative” therapy) on Sexual Orientation Change Efforts.

apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/sexual-orientation.aspx

The task force conducted a systematic review of the peer-reviewed journal literature on sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE) and concluded that efforts to change sexual orientation are unlikely to be successful and involve some risk of harm, contrary to the claims of SOCE practitioners and advocates.

Even though the research and clinical literature demonstrate that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality, regardless of sexual orientation identity, the task force concluded that the population that undergoes SOCE tends to have strongly conservative religious views that lead them to seek to change their sexual orientation.

Thus, the appropriate application of affirmative therapeutic interventions for those who seek SOCE involves therapist acceptance, support, and understanding of clients and the facilitation of clients’ active coping, social support, and identity exploration and development, without imposing a specific sexual orientation identity outcome.

You can read the full report here:
apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Of course that was “much worse.” If you’re implying that it would have been logical that he was tempted by a whole smorgasbord of every human temptation just because he was inevitably tempted to pride and idolatry, you cannot argue backwards from that. No, of course, we don’t “know” definitively what he was tempted by. But neither can we “modernize” Jesus to fit modern obsessions with a fully sexualized culture in every nook and cranny and an utter fixation on sexual “identity.” Such a cultural paradigm was foreign to Jesus in his humanity, a humanity which was culturally and religiously Jewish – not 21st century Western World modern pop psychology. You have to look at what was likely in his sphere of influence, and homosexuality per se would have been one of the least likely things to have tempted him. Also, scriptural language is not modern language. The phrases “every way,” “every thing,” and “in all things” do not have the same import in the gospels that they do for us. It was much more likely that other kinds of sexual temptations were there. And availability is not necessarily a temptation. There are guys with their pants hanging around their knees on every street corner in the most upscale towns. But I am not “tempted” even to speak to them, let alone date them, let alone go to bed with them, because I find them distasteful. Nothing in my own cultural orientation persuades me that such people have anything in common with me, so whatever they’re offering does not “tempt” me.

It’s important not to make Jesus ahistorical in some kind of hidden agenda to normalize homosexuality. That is a horrible abuse of scripture, even simply from the viewpoint of the text – never mind the Church teaching and the morality being discussed. But people who are apologists for the normalization of homosexuality, and particularly its acceptance by the Roman Catholic Church, try this trick regularly.

Excellent post and a true statement at the end! Some apologists as you describe find residence in the forum, although some are the drive by kind. Mostly atheists or from different stripes of Christianity, including those that even identify themselves as Roman Catholic. Members faithful to the Church and those acknowledging natural law see through the arguments but the loosely grounded need real discernment.

These apologists can come across as well versed in the Scriptures and ‘know’ CC teaching. Some are from academia, using ‘empirical’ or ‘scientific’ research / evidence of only their side put out there by biased researchers and scientists. The arguments may sound sincere, with lofty aims like ‘broadening of justice’, but they actually ignore true societal impact and real charity and compassion.
,

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Here is an interesting account by former APA president and psychologist from the same organization who joined NARTH, a group which of course is discredited by gay advocates. NARTH is not a fringe group.

*"In a harsh critique of his own profession, a former American Psychological Association president told fellow clinicians at the NARTH Conference that social science is in a state of alarming decline.

Psychologists Nicholas Cummings, Ph.D. and Rogers Wright, Ph.D. had much to say about the profession they had served throughout their long and distinguished careers – charging “intellectual arrogance and zealotry” within a profession that they say is now dominated by social-activist groups.

Dr. Cummings said he has had a career-long commitment to promoting diversity. Therefore has been dismayed to see activists exploit the stature of the parent body to further their own social aims – pushing the APA to take positions in areas where they have no conclusive evidence.

When APA does conduct research, Dr. Cummings said, they only do so “when they know what the outcome is going to be…only research with predictably favorable outcomes is permissible.”

When writing their newly released book Destructive Trends in Mental Health, Wright and Cummings invited the participation of a number of fellow psychologists who flatly turned them down–fearing loss of tenure, loss of promotion, and other forms of professional retaliation. “We were bombarded by horror stories,” Dr. Cummings said. "Their greatest fear was of the gay lobby, which is very strong in the APA."

“‘Homophobia as intimidation’ is one of the most pervasive techniques used to silence anyone who would disagree with the gay activist agenda,” said Cummings. “Sadly, I have seen militant gay men and lesbians-- who I am certain do not represent all homosexuals, and who themselves have been the object of derision and oppression-- once gaining freedom and power, then becoming oppressors themselves.”*
…

More here.
.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Another interesting perspective:

‘Gay’ orthodoxy prevails in academia?
Former law review co-editor lays out case of bias

Oops, it’s from WND, a discredited too-conservative source! How about this direct source then?

PREFACE: Gay Orthodoxy and Academic Heresy
by Ty Clevenger

Excerpt

This volume of the Regent University Law Review might well be known as the refugee edition of Volume 12 of the Stanford Law and Policy Review (SLPR). As co-editor of SLPR’s symposium on gay rights, I solicited and tentatively accepted the articles by A. Dean Byrd and Stony Olson, George A. Rekers and Mark D. Kilgus, Ben Kaufman, and Judith Reisman, all of which question or criticize various tenets of gay rights orthodoxy. Unfortunately, all these articles were rejected at the last moment by the SLPR editorial board.

The history of this process is perhaps as informative as the articles themselves. In 1999, a left-leaning friend and colleague on SLPR proposed a print symposium on gay rights to the editorial board of SLPR, and he asked that I serve as co-editor. As one of the few visible non-leftists at Stanford, my task was to recruit authors with more traditional viewpoints on gay rights, while he was to recruit authors who support expanded gay rights. The editorial board accepted the proposal, and we were appointed co-editors of the symposium.

In the Fall of 2000, the editorial board, without warning or prior consultation, informed me that it would publish only the pro-gay articles. The stated reason for this decision was that the rejected articles did not meet the academic standards of the journal. I found that explanation suspect, to say the very least.

SLPR has historically published symposia that are a mix of traditional law …

 

[BurkinaFaso]

Um yeah people are born gay. Nobody makes the choice to be something that makes their entire lives that much harder to live and it’s insulting to insinuate otherwise.