Big problem relating to homosexuality

[Riley259]

Well, if what you are saying is true it’s really easy for you to take the spec out of my eye huh? Are you calling yourself Catholic? Have you ever mortal sinned? If so, drop it mister. I would also advise you to not predict where I am going. I also dont think you have read my whole thread in which you would better understand my arguement. Thanks for the chat though.

Your welcome.

 

[Faith1960]

The wisdom of the Church is that a marriage is established by the creator. It is much more then two loving couples. The Bible teaches that a woman must submit to the man and the man must submit to the woman. God decides if their conjugal union will bear fruit. That is why it defends the practice of birth control.

Then God will have a pregnancy result when He wants a pregnancy to result, regardless of whether the couple practices ABC, NFP or nothing at all. The number of resulting pregnancies will be the same. Either that or…if it’s up to the good Lord to decide if the union will bear fruit, deliberately calculating when a woman is least likely to conceive is messing with nature and God’s plan and He’s still allowing humans to intervene in His plan.

 

[Exalt]

Because homosexual acts are against the natural law, they carry serious health consequences.

First of all, I can’t find the full text to the Netherlands study you mentioned. I’ve searched all of my databases for my campus, as well as the public internet as a whole. So, I searched for a similiar study. I found one: Gilman, Stephen E.; Cochran, Susan D.; Mays, Vickie M.; Hughes, Michael; Ostrow, David; Kessler, Ronald C.; “Risk of psychiatric disorders among individuals reporting same-sex sexual partners in the National Comorbidity Survey.” American Journal of Public Health, vol 91, Jun 2001. Pp. 933-939. Here is the Full Text.

Second of all, 31% of those men in the study who said they had at least one same-sex partner in the last five years were married to a woman (57% of those men in the study who had not had at least one same-sex partner in the last five years were married, just to give you some perspective on percentages here). A third of the people who said they have at least one same-sex partner in the last five years were committing adultery when they did it. They were not in exclusive relationships.

Third, the sample size for “any same sex partner” was very small - 74 men and 51 women.** On the other side, the number of people who reported only ppposite-sex partners was very large: 2310 Men, 2475 Women. While the population itself reflects this sort of difference in sexual behavior, it is nonetheless true that the sample size of men and women who had a same-sex experience in the last five years is tiny. The margin of error in such a small sample is huge.

Fourth, the differences between people who had same-sex experiences and those who had only opposite-sex experiences is very small. You exagerate them greatly. If you want the details, see my thoughts below.

Check out Table 2: Of those 74 “Same Sex Partner” men, %15 of them reported some anxiety disorder of some kind. Of the 2310 men in the “Opposite-Sex Partners Only” group, %11.6 of men reported some sort of anxiety disorder. That’s a difference of only 3.4%. How about in mood disorders? %11.7 of “Same Sex Partner” men and %8.0 of “Opposite Sex Partner” men reported some sort of mood disorder. That’s a difference of 3.7%. %20 of “Same Sex Partner” men and %17.2 of “Opposite Sex Partner” men reported some sort of substance disorder (i.e., Alcohol abuse). That’s a difference of 2.8%. The number of “Same Sex Partner” men who reported thoughts of suicide is 1.9%; those who reported to plan their suicide is 4.7%; those who attempted suicide is 1.5%. The number of “Opposite Sex Partner” men who reported thoughts of suicide is 2.2%; those who reported planning thier suicide is 2.9%; those who attempted suicide is .6%. The highest difference there is 1.8%.

Among women? The differences there are greater in some areas, but keep in mind that** they only interviewed 51 women** who had some sort of same-sex experience in the last 5 years. Of those 51 “Same Sex Partner” women, %40 of them reported some anxiety disorder of some kind. Of the 2475 women in the “Opposite-Sex Partners Only” group, %22.4 of women reported some sort of anxiety disorder. That’s a difference of only %17.6. In mood disorders: %34.5 of “Same Sex Partner” women and %12.9 of “Opposite Sex Partner” women reported some sort of mood disorder. That’s a difference of %21.2. Substance abuse: %19.5 of “Same Sex Partner” women and %7.2 of “Opposite Sex Partner” women reported some sort of substance disorder (for example: Alcohol abuse). That’s a difference of 12%. The number of “Same Sex Partner” women who reported thoughts of suicide is 13.9%; those who reported to plan their suicide is 15.2%; those who attempted suicide is 0.6%. The number of “Opposite Sex Partner” women who reported thoughts of suicide is 3.9%; those who reported planning thier suicide is 4.8%; those who attempted suicide is 1.0%. The highest difference there is 11.1% - and heterosexual women reported more attempts at suicide.

I’ve highlighted the only differences greater than 15%. It’s interesting to note that the high differences are found among women only.** If the actual cause for the psychiatric disorders is that homosexual acts are unnatural, shouldn’t the rates of psychiatric disorder be equal among men and women?**

 

[Exalt]

Catherine, you said that:

Catherine:

An extensive study in the Netherlands undermines the assumption that homophobia is the cause of increased psychiatric illness among gays and lesbians. The DUTCH have been MORE ACCEPTING of same-sex relationships than any other Western country and same-sex marriage is legal. The HIGH rate of psychiatric disorders associated with homosexual behaviour in the Netherlands CANNOT be attributed to social rejection and homophobia

Here’s a quote from the abstract of the study you mentioned:
"Theo Sandfort:

Among Ss who could be classified, 2.8% of 2878 men and 1.4% of 3120 women had had same-sex partners.

That’s from the abstract of the study you mentioned. 2.7% of 2878 men is about 80. 1.4% of 3120 women is about 43. Another tiny sample, by the way. If you could find the Full Text for me, I could talk more about it, like I talked about the other text.

But even so, you make it seem that these studies are saying that homosexuality causes these disorders - but they aren’t saying that all. No peer-reviewed study that I found or have even heard of has ever said that the cause of these phsyciatric disorders is homosexuality itself. There are *higher* rates of physciatric disorders among homosexual sexually-active people than heterosexual sexual active people - and, as I pointed out above, these are tiny samples. There were 80 men that they surveyed and 43 women that said they had a homosexual experience during the period specified.

So what is the real cause? The study I mentioned (Gilman, Stephen E.; Cochran, Susan D.; Mays, Vickie M.; Hughes, Michael; Ostrow, David; Kessler, Ronald C.; “Risk of psychiatric disorders among individuals reporting same-sex sexual partners in the National Comorbidity Survey.” American Journal of Public Health, vol 91, Jun 2001. Pp. 933-939.) considers this hypothesis, among others:

pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1446471&blobtype=pdf

Although our investigation focused on
risks of psychiatric disorders associated with
homosexual behavior, we consider such behavior
to be a proxy for sexual orientation,
which may be associated with an elevated risk
of mental disorders for a number of reasons.

One of the most common is that stresses due
to stigmatization and exposure to discriminatory
behavior lead to higher rates of mental
disorders. This hypothesis is consistent with
the finding that lesbians and gay men experience
discrimination in multiple domains of
life46–51 and that such discrimination is related
**to elevated levels of psychologic distress.**9,25

Another interpretation is that the heightened
risk of mental disorders among lesbians and
gay men might be related to the occurrence of
victimization and abuse, especially during adolescence.
4,52–54 Various psychosocial factors
such as a sense of isolation,55 low levels of social
support,56 and frequent stressful life
events57 may also contribute to elevated rates
of psychiatric disorders in this population.

 

[CRW]

Then God will have a pregnancy result when He wants a pregnancy to result, regardless of whether the couple practices ABC, NFP or nothing at all. The number of resulting pregnancies will be the same. Either that or…if it’s up to the good Lord to decide if the union will bear fruit, deliberately calculating when a woman is least likely to conceive is messing with nature and God’s plan and He’s still allowing humans to intervene in His plan.

CRW:

The wisdom of the Church is that a marriage is established by the creator. It is much more then two loving couples. The Bible teaches that a woman must submit to the man and the man must submit to the woman. God decides if their conjugal union will bear fruit. That is why it defends the practice of birth control

NFP is based on the Authority of the Church and yes, if it is God’s will, it will be fruitful. This is all connected with the wisdom of the Church provided by the creator. The OP was directed at the creation of marriage by the creator and natural law of marriage.

 

[Exalt]

Other Eric:

Arguing from a strict design perspective you are correct that neither of these things follows from either the design of the nose or the mouth. What you fail to consider are the ends that are meant to be achieved by these activities.

You admit, then, that the end caused is the important part, not the state of “naturalness” or not. The Catholic position is that using body parts for purposes other than their original designs is wrong. The original design for the nose is supposedly to smell things. Glasses use the nose for a purpose other than that. Why isn’t it wrong, according to you? Because the “ends caused” is a positive thing. Therefore, the “naturalness” of a given body part is irrelevant, according to you. Or, at the very least, not as important as the ends caused.

Turning to the use of one’s sexual organs with a member of the same sex, we ask ourselves the same question; what is the end to be achieved?

The “end achieved” by a loving long-term healthy gay couple having sex: (1) Intimacy. My partner and I express the love that we feel for each other. (2) Mutual romantic joy. (3) Pleasure. What is wrong with any one of these ends? They all seem pretty positive to me.

Here, the end is one of hedonistic self-satisfaction. It is to use the body of another person for one’s own orgasm in a manner that directly frustrates the original purpose of the act, reproduction. Thus, it is an evil application of the use of one’s body and an inherently selfish one at that.

Prove that gay sex is never anything more than just two men wanting to use the other as a sexual object. With so much testimony to the contrary, I don’t see how you or anyone else could actually believe that.

Turning towards Scripture, you point out that there are many passages that, on the surface, tend to be contradictory. Certainly the wealth of strains of Christianity testify to the various ways in which the same scriptures could be interpreted. You might even have a point if this was a Sola Scriptura forum but, being that it is not and us Catholics happen to have a Magisterium endowed with the authority to inerrantly tell us what Scripture means, not only do you have to contend with the Scriptural condemnations, you have to grapple with the Church’s teaching authority.

So, how does the Church deal with the issue such as Joshua 6?

16 The seventh time around, the priests blew the horns and Joshua said to the people, “Now shout, for the LORD has given you the city 17 and everything in it. It is under the LORD’S ban. Only the harlot Rahab and all who are in the house with her are to be spared, because she hid the messengers we sent. 18 But be careful not to take, in your greed, anything that is under the ban; else you will bring upon the camp of Israel this ban and the misery of it. 19 All silver and gold, and the articles of bronze or iron, are sacred to the LORD. They shall be put in the treasury of the LORD.” 20 As the horns blew, the people began to shout. When they heard the signal horn, they raised a tremendous shout. The wall collapsed, and the people stormed the city in a frontal attack and took it. 21 They observed the ban by putting to the sword all living creatures in the city: men and women, young and old, as well as oxen, sheep and asses.
I might remind you that Catholicism holds Sacred Tradition AND Sacred Scripture as an authority for morality. Is not God’s valuing silver and God over the lives of the innocent people of Jericho (God told them to murder children) completely contradictory to the Church teaching on the inherant value of every human life? Is the Bible really a moral guide for us, when it contains stuff like this?

 

[Exalt]

That religion is something that can be empirically verified is a fallacy

.

Can you empirically verify that?

But seriously: so you’re basically saying that you’re supposed to accept the authority of the church on faith, right?

If not, give me the specific reasons that we ought to hold the Church as the ultimate authority in matters of faith and morals.

We might, as C.S. Lewis did, be able to derive certain moral absolutes, but if we systematically follow those truths and the consequences of them, we arrive right back at the Church and her authority to teach.

In other words, you have to look at what the Church says and see if it’s true or not. The question of Church and Biblical authority is irrelevant. You have to prove it outside without using either as an authority.

Therefore, I find the claim of submission to the Church’s authority far more respectable than any type of morally relativistic scheme which would essentially claim the infallibility of the Magisterium for ourselves.

Moral relevatism: “A theory, especially in ethics or aesthetics, that conceptions of truth and moral values are not absolute but are relative to the persons or groups holding them.”

What I believe: The objective truth about homosexuality is that, in of itself, it is not an unethical action or feeling. Hence why I told Ayeaiii that he ought to seriously consider breaking with the Church. Call my opinion what you will, but it is *not *moral relativism.

I’m calling Catholics like you to listen to your *own *reason for a change. Is the Church really as totally infallible as it seems? Why, then, the Biblical contradictions? Why is the ban on homosexual behavior such a weak position?

 

[setter]

Setter, thanks for trying to set me straight - no pun intended. I hosnestly see your points. In the end, there is no amount of talking that will change my mind as to how I feel about my sexuality. Thanks to all who commented!

You’re welcome.

Your grounding reference to feelings --“how I feel about my sexuality”-- is a formula for destruction and allowing yourself to be seduced by the devil in the present spiritual warfare over the eternal destiny of souls, either for heaven or hell. Our time in this world is the battlefield and the only place where heaven and hell coexists. Along with Riley, I will pray for your conversion (enlightenment of mond and heart) so as at the time of sorting when all is done and said, you may be on the winning side.

 

[setter]

Well, if what you are saying is true it’s really easy for you to take the spec out of my eye huh? Are you calling yourself Catholic? Have you ever mortal sinned? If so, drop it mister. **I would also advise you to not predict where I am going. **I also dont think you have read my whole thread in which you would better understand my arguement. Thanks for the chat though.

Violation or adherence to God’s objective and absolute standards for morality, as found in natural law and revealed moral law, are God’s extension of mercy to sinners to repent and believe and to try to sin no more by His grace. God offers each individual by the end of his life all the grace and information needed to win salvation for their soul. It is only in rejecting His offer of salvation that we condemn ourself to eternal sepration from Him.

I trust that you are not just participating on these CA forums to cause trouble, but to earnestly seek out the truth that is found in Jesus Christ and entrusted to the Church in matters of faith and morals. I suggest that you pray for your own conversion and seriously consider the ultimate outcome of persisting in violation of God’s commandments of love.

"Not every one who says to me, `Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.” Matthew 7: 21

“You are my friends if you do what I command you.” John 15: 14

“And the world passes away, and the lust of it; but he who does the will of God abides for ever.” I John 2: 17

 

[setter]

Are you saying that when two men have sex, because they cannot reproduce, that the whole act is out of hedonism? Do we really throw the baby out with the bath water?

There is no baby to found with the bathwater. The whole idea of sexual activity outside the sanctity of marriage is illicit for those who follow Jesus Christ.

I guess if a man who “shoots blanks” thus cannot conceive with his wife is also having sex with her out of pure hedonism? Should he throw in the towel and become single and celibate?

 

[fix]

Then God will have a pregnancy result when He wants a pregnancy to result, regardless of whether the couple practices ABC, NFP or nothing at all.

God is creator and we are procreators. We may choose to submit to Him out of love or we may reject Him as well. The moral difference is striking.

The number of resulting pregnancies will be the same. Either that or…if it’s up to the good Lord to decide if the union will bear fruit, deliberately calculating when a woman is least likely to conceive is messing with nature and God’s plan and He’s still allowing humans to intervene in His plan.

The ends never justify the means.

 

[Catherine_S]

First of all, I can’t find the full text to the Netherlands study you mentioned. I’ve searched all of my databases for my campus, as well as the public internet as a whole. So, I searched for a similiar study. I found one: Gilman, Stephen E.; Cochran, Susan D.; Mays, Vickie M.; Hughes, Michael; Ostrow, David; Kessler, Ronald C.; “Risk of psychiatric disorders among individuals reporting same-sex sexual partners in the National Comorbidity Survey.” American Journal of Public Health, vol 91, Jun 2001. Pp. 933-939. Here is the Full Text.

Second of all, 31% of those men in the study who said they had at least one same-sex partner in the last five years were married to a woman (57% of those men in the study who had not had at least one same-sex partner in the last five years were married, just to give you some perspective on percentages here). A third of the people who said they have at least one same-sex partner in the last five years were committing adultery when they did it. They were not in exclusive relationships.

Third, the sample size for “any same sex partner” was very small - 74 men and 51** women. On the other side, the number of people who reported only ppposite-sex partners was very large: 2310 Men, 2475 Women. While the population itself reflects this sort of difference in sexual behavior, it is nonetheless true that the sample size of men and women who had a same-sex experience in the last five years is tiny. The margin of error in such a small sample is huge.

Fourth, the differences between people who had same-sex experiences and those who had only opposite-sex experiences is very small. You exagerate them greatly. If you want the details, see my thoughts below.

Check out Table 2: Of those 74 “Same Sex Partner” men, %15 of them reported some anxiety disorder of some kind. Of the 2310 men in the “Opposite-Sex Partners Only” group, %11.6 of men reported some sort of anxiety disorder. That’s a difference of only 3.4%. How about in mood disorders? %11.7 of “Same Sex Partner” men and %8.0 of “Opposite Sex Partner” men reported some sort of mood disorder. That’s a difference of 3.7%. %20 of “Same Sex Partner” men and %17.2 of “Opposite Sex Partner” men reported some sort of substance disorder (i.e., Alcohol abuse). That’s a difference of 2.8%. The number of “Same Sex Partner” men who reported thoughts of suicide is 1.9%; those who reported to plan their suicide is 4.7%; those who attempted suicide is 1.5%. The number of “Opposite Sex Partner” men who reported thoughts of suicide is 2.2%; those who reported planning thier suicide is 2.9%; those who attempted suicide is .6%. The highest difference there is 1.8%.

I’ve highlighted the only differences greater than 15%. It’s interesting to note that the high differences are found among women only.** If the actual cause for the psychiatric disorders is that homosexual acts are unnatural, shouldn’t the rates of psychiatric disorder be equal among men and women?**

I expect for each report that one reads in seeking to understand human nature in this particular area one can also find another report saying something quite different. There are however, those much better suited to sort these things out with clarity (as you have done here). Thank you.

How about the medical findings** in terms of diseases?** Are they fairly accurate? **They are certainly shocking! **Time spent helping out at a Catholic home for men dieing of Aids left a heart wrenching impression on me and apart from the spiritual aspect of homosexuality ( which will remain set) the experiance left me asking many other questions.Thank you again for your response.

**PS…**I removed a small part of your post so that my mine could meet the required size for messages.
.

 

[Sixtus]

Ayeaiii wrote:

I am truely sorry, I hope no one is offended

Ayeaiii

You should not feel the need to apologise. You have done EXACTLY THE RIGHT THING TO COME HERE.

There are a lot of adults with a lot more experience of life than you. They are also Christians. You can hear from Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants. What better explanations could you ask for?

I would just say one thing and it is only my personal opinion. It may not give you the answer you are looking for, but I hope it gives you something else to reflect upon:

'All the cruelty in the world, vulnerable people dying from hunger and denial of their rightful share of the worlds resources, folk in Oriental, Indian and African sweatshops working 18-hours a day for a $1 a day. In some South American countries, computer manufacturers do not pay staff while they are training. They get no sick pay medical care or holiday pay. They work for a poultry sum. The owners are multi-billionares, etc etc and all we worry about is feelings of homosexuality!

The fact you feel compelled to ask, makes me realise that in the mature adult world, our sense of morality has gone seriously off track.

 

[setter]

Hi Ayeaiii,
lgcm.org.uk/
Maybe this organisation could help you?
Best wishes, C.

This is not a Catholic answer. Offering one confirmation in a disordered and gravely sinful lifestyle is gavely sinful in itself. Do you wish to recant?

 

[goofyjim]

The way I see it is there are those who are born with parts of both genders. This should make people think that alot of this can be chemical. Is it so farfetched tob allow for something chemical in the brain that causes one to be attracted to members of their own gender? Although one does not have to act on those attractions one should not be coerced into overcoming those attractions either. Live and let live.

 

[iserve]

quote=goofyjim;1890625 Live and let live.

This is not a good moral argument, and it only works in a democracy, not in a spiritual context. In fact, moral neutrality is more vilified by God than straight-out evil because of its’ tendency to confuse the innocent and encourage the guilty. You can personally choose it, at your own peril, but to publically proclaim moral neutrality is gravely wrong.

 

[goofyjim]

quote=goofyjim;1890625 Live and let live.

This is not a good moral argument, and it only works in a democracy, not in a spiritual context. In fact, moral neutrality is more vilified by God than straight-out evil because of its’ tendency to confuse the innocent and encourage the guilty. You can personally choose it, at your own peril, but to publically proclaim moral neutrality is gravely wrong.

One is only obligated to avoid the behavior. There is no moral obligation to overcome the attractions.

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

No, I do not wish to recant. I stand by my advice. This is a very young man, who is very confused. He needs support, and this organisation, or a similar organisation, are probably best placed to support him. He has not experienced any feelings that he should feel ashamed of. I don’t believe that I have sinned by trying to point him in the direction of support.

With best wishes, C.

Acting on such disordered feeling will bring misery to himself and to those he involves. Supporting someone in sin is in itself sinful. Please pray on this.

 

[fix]

No, I do not wish to recant. I stand by my advice. This is a very young man, who is very confused. He needs support, and this organisation, or a similar organisation, are probably best placed to support him. He has not experienced any feelings that he should feel ashamed of. I don’t believe that I have sinned by trying to point him in the direction of support.

With best wishes, C.

Support yes, but not propaganda that distorts the truth and misleads folks. How is that support?

 

[jmcrae]

No, I do not wish to recant. I stand by my advice. This is a very young man, who is very confused. He needs support, and this organisation, or a similar organisation, are probably best placed to support him. He has not experienced any feelings that he should feel ashamed of. I don’t believe that I have sinned by trying to point him in the direction of support.

With best wishes, C.

How is it “support” to place him into a situation where he may be raped and sexually abused?