So you’re saying that according to moral law (Catholic teaching?), we should protect those who are too young to consent. And that depends on how we raise our children.Whether such and age is 18 or 14 is subject to change based on the way society raises children. What does not change (in the moral law) is that one who is too young to consent to sex should be protected.
I do not agree with this, at this time. Society has changed a lot over its thousands of years of existence At this time, in Western society, we bring about adulthood at a later age than in time past. Thus, we do not have the same age of maturity of a this early teenage back when such a one was expected to be on their own at that age.There would be some girls that would be old enough at 13 or 14 who could give assent. Would you be happy with that if it was shown they were capable?
Earlier you said that the moral law does not change. Now you are suggesting that what was OK in earlier times was acceptable then but not now.I do not agree with this, at this time.
I also quoted a post. You can glean what I mean by disorder based on the context.Slavonic,
You make this statement as to disorder based on what?
Queer individuals are functional and whole as you say based on what? What if there are queer individuals that want to change, are they less whole if they do?
That link takes a vary broad definition of behavior that does not align with human social behavior. Behavioral ecology is worth considering, but one must recognized that that it, like any other field, can provide a small bit of insight into understanding human behavior, sexual or not.Bradski,
You and othe Homosexual propagandists have no science only criticism and deny fact…You and the Homosexual propagandists do not understand Fixed Behavior and learning. You are essentially saying that we as humans are robots when it comes to sexuality…
mansfield.ohio-state.edu/~sabedon/campbl51.htm
While the Homosexual Propagandists propose fixed behavior they will have to silence many…as seen here…
renewamerica.com/columns/fischer/110914
You misunderstand the article. The reason the author is opposed to the “Born this way” thinking is that presents the idea that Queer individuals “can’t help it” and are worthy of pity from straight people. I would add that it gives anti-gay groups the grounds to demand scientific evidence of such statements.In an astonishing column published in the winger-left publication, “The Atlantic,” openly “queer woman” (her words) Lindsay Miller says flatly, “In direct opposition to both the mainstream gay movement and Lady Gaga, I would like to state for the record that I was not born this way.”
You, and the other link you posted also misunderstand the meaning of choice when the LGBT community speaks of choice. That choice refers to the choice between suppressing oneself and his or her true desires or being oneself despite the challenges one may face in a heterosexist society. The woman who wrote The Atlantic article refers to her choice to form the relationships she finds most fulfilling.
Also, this:
The “born this way” argument is frequently used in defense of gay rights, but whether or not I deserve the same rights as straight people has nothing to do with whether I chose to be the way I am. I deserve equal rights because I’m an equal. I’m a human being sharing my life with the person I love.
Slavonic,I also quoted a post. You can glean what I mean by disorder based on the context.
Queers are functional based on the fact that they by and large function in society. They hold jobs; maintain family ties; have friendships; and have close, personal relationships. They are active in their communities (evidenced by the various LGBT charities and social organizations), maintain households, and pursue hobbies and interests. They’re like anyone else.
That link takes a vary broad definition of behavior that does not align with human social behavior. Behavioral ecology is worth considering, but one must recognized that that it, like any other field, can provide a small bit of insight into understanding human behavior, sexual or not.
You misunderstand the article. The reason the author is opposed to the “Born this way” thinking is that presents the idea that Queer individuals “can’t help it” and are worthy of pity from straight people. I would add that it gives anti-gay groups the grounds to demand scientific evidence of such statements.
You, and the other link you posted also misunderstand the meaning of choice when the LGBT community speaks of choice. That choice refers to the choice between suppressing oneself and his or her true desires or being oneself despite the challenges one may face in a heterosexist society. The woman who wrote The Atlantic article refers to her choice to form the relationships she finds most fulfilling.
Also, this:
Chastity and homosexuality
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,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 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.
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.
One of the problems is contending with the Eastern Orthodox view of Homosexuality that I doubt will change either…2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
Thus, the Orthodox Church cannot subscribe to the demand that homosexuals be recognized by society and its agencies as legal spouses and as deserving the same respect as men and women enjoy in the state of wedlock.
Society and its values, religious and societal, have legitimate claims over the behavior of its members, especially in so vital a function as the sexual one on which not only the survival but its quality as well depend. No one has the right to do whatever he wishes with his body and still claim recognition and respect on the part of society.
The Orthodox Church believes that homosexuality should be treated by society as an immoral and dangerous perversion and by religion as a sinful failure. In both cases, correction is called for. Homosexuals should be accorded the confidential medical and psychiatric facilities by which they can be helped to restore themselves to a self-respecting sexual identity that belongs to them by God’s ordinance.
In full confidentiality, the Orthodox Church cares and provides pastorally for homosexuals in the belief that no sinner who has failed himself and God should be allowed to deteriorate morally and spiritually.
Psychiatric restoration, without religious direction and reconciliation with God, is bound to prove short lived.
What is your Catholic perspective on Homosexuality?A healthy society and various religions do not recognize perversions. Rather, they work to restore the homosexual to the status of a self-esteemed individual and thus to a valued instrument of their own survival and wellbeing under God.
But if they are just like everyone else and are not treated like everyone else (like in housing, employment or in social or some religious organizations), then there is a problem. How society addresses discrimination is another thread.Slavonic,
I am of the opinion that brevity is important.
In consideration that you say homosexuals are functional. Can we agree that Homosexuals exist? They are like everyone else and therefore do not and should not demand special privelges. You are correct.
I don’t need special training in behavior or sociology to understand that the definition of behavior for the purposes of the Biology 113 class notes you posted is different from layman’s definition of behavior and the definition of behavior used in other fields. Nor do I need special training to know that your use of Fixed Action Patterns is not appropriate to prove a point in out discussion.You speak of behavior. Do you have experience, training, in behavior and sociology? Whatever definition you believe or see as it regards behavior you agree that it is a puzzle and the puzzle is incomplete. To favor any behavior absent the full puzzle does a diservice to understanding.
A more direct statement would be that the article was taken out of context by the other article you posted to make a point that was not even there. I can’t parse the last sentence.You imply I misunderstand choice. I did not write the article. Whatever is implied or stated is what it is. Your notion of suppressing or expressing implies no ability to do anything but those and in that regard I believe you have the either or mentality that clouds this issue.
I am aware of Catholic teaching. It understands homosexuality in terms of sexual thoughts and acts and fails to understand homosexuality in terms of relationships. The morality of sex acts are different when done in relationships or marriages than when done outside them.You will agree that as a Catholic Church teaching is as follows and will not change…
I think I answered it in the previous section. All I will add is that I am well aware that the Church is a slow and deliberate institution that may only make gradual changes.What is your Catholic perspective on Homosexuality?
Just to point out: I think homosexuals are above average in educational attainment and in annual income in the United States.But if they are just like everyone else and are not treated like everyone else (like in housing, employment or in social or some religious organizations), then there is a problem. How society addresses discrimination is another thread.
Moral law does not change. Society changes so moral law impacts it differently.Earlier you said that the moral law does not change. Now you are suggesting that what was OK in earlier times was acceptable then but not now.
So I assume that it is left to the individual to decide. As you said, you personally don’t agree with a 14 year old girl having sex but others would.
But what happens if you disagree with the church on this? Who is right?
Slavonic,But if they are just like everyone else and are not treated like everyone else (like in housing, employment or in social or some religious organizations), then there is a problem. How society addresses discrimination is another thread.
I don’t need special training in behavior or sociology to understand that the definition of behavior for the purposes of the Biology 113 class notes you posted is different from layman’s definition of behavior and the definition of behavior used in other fields. Nor do I need special training to know that your use of Fixed Action Patterns is not appropriate to prove a point in out discussion.
A more direct statement would be that the article was taken out of context by the other article you posted to make a point that was not even there. I can’t parse the last sentence.
I am aware of Catholic teaching. It understands homosexuality in terms of sexual thoughts and acts and fails to understand homosexuality in terms of relationships. The morality of sex acts are different when done in relationships or marriages than when done outside them.
The call to chastity places the gay or lesbian person in a situation that no straight person is called/mandated to do; fulfill their spiritual needs or fulfill their sexual and personal needs. A straight person is allowed to a fulfilling, intimate relationship with a spouse that involves his or her whole person and being (physically and spiritually). Those taking religious vows are aware of the vow of chastity well before they take the vow. A gay or lesbian person must choose between intimate, fulfilling relationships or spiritual fulfillment and cannot have both like the lay straight person has.
I think I answered it in the previous section. All I will add is that I am well aware that the Church is a slow and deliberate institution that may only make gradual changes.
Then 14 is OK with you, as per canon 1057?FYI - Age of sexual consent should coincide with the age of marrigability. The two should never be separated because the two acts are not separated. If a person is too young to understand enough to commit for a lifetime of marriage, understanding what this entails, they are too young for sex.
That canon does not say 14.Then 14 is OK with you, as per canon 1057?
Kevin,Why would any Catholic support conversion therapy? The Catholic church agrees that people are created homosexual, and that the actions, not the attraction, is the sin.
Therefore, “converting” a homosexual cues no sin and changes the person from what god created them to be. Seems incredibly sinful to me.
Also, minors cannot consent to many things, sexual activity for instance. Why should they be allowed to consent to a highly controversial practice that will fundamentally change them for life, and had been linked to numerous suicides?
I’ve studied Doctors Yarhouse’s latest work on SIT framework and he doesn’t consider homosexuality an illness anymore.The Catholic Church does not teach that people are born with same-sex attraction. CCC"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."
As far as BlueEyedLady’s assertion that studies have clearly demonstrated homosexual behavior to be normal and a settled issue, that is simply not true. There are many, many flawed studies that led to these assertions. This podcast by Dr. Janet Smith offers a list of resources that are grounded scientifically. stanastasia.libsyn.com/homosexuality_why_not_dr_janet_smith
There are many books that review the sad state of disinformation provided in the main stream media and by the APA organization. One book that discusses the flaws in many of these studies is “Homosexuality” by Jones and Yarhouse.
Mitex,Maybe I can help bring some clarity to this issue,
I do identify as gay, however for reasons of my Evangelical faith I’m abstinent. I also spent two years in RCIA and almost went through with it the second time. The reason I never went through with my confirmation was a disagreement over the approach to homosexuality.
I agree with the Catholic Church that gays should be celibate (I disagree on the language I think chastity is a girl term that degrades my God gives masculinity) I prefer the term abstinent which is more scientifically accurate and less degrading to males (Catholics would do good to take that word from Evangelicals) anyway I also agree that homosexuality is a “human” condition not something in God’s plan (once again I disagree over the the word “disorder” which is degrading to human dignity).
Anyway when I approached the parish priest on the issue I got a big ticket to Andrew Comiskey and joseph nicolosi. Here’s where I disagree, I don’t have a problem with someone seeking “change” for what they call “unwanted same-sex attraction.”
I’m real big on a protestant concept called Christian liberty, and I believe this so called “ex-gay therapy” should be open to people who want to seek change and marriage. Likewise if someone wants to take the Courage Apostolate or Exodus International approach then I’m not going to stop them either (to disidentify from the gay identity).
My problem with the Church’s approach was that I wanted to continue to identify as gay. Let’s be realistic, I don’t live a “lifestyle.” I don’t let my sexuality define me. It’s one small piece of me. I don’t have sex, I don’t do pride, or bars, and pretty much I spend most my time with heterosexuals. And I spent a year in ex-gay therapy and nothing happened. So my opinion is that my homosexual orientation is fixed (And we have no clue what causes it and for many others in can be very fluid) .
So here I am and I’m already abstinent living a Christian life and this priest tells me “You can’t identify as gay and be Catholic.” Well it was possible to be gay and Catholic and celibate in the late 70’s through early 2000’s considering the moderate approach the Church took back then.
So I’m going to go out on a limb here that the Catholic Church has failed to do what Evangelicals have already done (Andrew Marin, Wesley Hill Alan Chambers etc). That there is room for all three. Gay, ex-gay, and people with an “identity in Christ” (choosing not to identify as gay).
The minimum requirement is for repentance and abstinence, the gay identity itself is amoral, and depending on how its used can either be good or bad. Although I will say there is more bad.
On that note I’d like to say because I love ex-gays as my brothers and sisters in Christ I do oppose the ex-gay ban. That being said I support the principle of informed consent, that people have a right to know the risks and benefits of such therapy.
Also I oppose one being forced into therapy. Especially teens.
Chastity and homosexuality
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,141 tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”**142 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.
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.
Now it may be spliting hairs but the Catechism says that the acts are intrinsically disordered and then the “inclination” towards the act is objectively disordered.2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
Mitex,Coptic the bishops have said nothing on this and Nicolsi isnt a theologian he can’t speak for the Church.
And the more you fight the gay identity the more you will alienate and lose people like me who support traditional marriage and the family.
You’re losing out on a whole group of allies and witnesses to the gay community by opposing something as petty as an identity.
And did you not see the fact I don’t live “gay lifestyle.”
You’re judging me based on one word. How stupid is that?
Sorry, my error. Canon 1083. vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_P3Y.HTM