Evangelicals with gay children challenging church

  • Thread starter Thread starter WilT
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
commenter said:
From the OP cited article:
“Bill Leonard, a specialist in American religious history at Wake Forest Divinity School, said church leaders should be especially concerned about parents. He noted that many evangelicals began to shift on divorce when the marriages of the sons and daughters of pastors and “rock-ribbed” local church members such as deacons started crumbling. While conservative Christians generally reject comparisons between the church’s response to divorce and to sexual orientation, Leonard argues the comparison is apt.”

I think the comparison is apt. Churches that surrendered and adopted the secular position on the divorce issue find it easier to adopt the secular position on homosexuality. In both cases, the surrender is justified by calling it “compassion”. But in both cases this false compassion causes people to get hurt. I have read other stories of Christian spouses and children who suffered, partly because their churches were accommodating to the secular view of “compassion”, rather than Scripture, on divorce. Those stories don’t get picked up by the mainstream media.

Homosexuality has some similarities to alcoholism. Both may have some genetic and social causes. Christians have sometimes been cruel or unfair to both. There have always been some who were formerly acting out their homosexuality or alcoholism, who later reduced this activity, or stopped it totally. For alcoholics and homosexuals, the churches have sometimes been a help for those who wished to stop that activity, just as the churches have historically advocated for the spouse and children, in families where divorce is threatened. It sounds like evangelicals are not only walking away from conversion therapy, but perhaps from conversion itself.
Click to expand...
I agree and well said commenter:aok:
 
commenter said:
Both may have some genetic and social causes.
Click to expand...
I would like to point out there is no biological cause of homosexuality. “Suggested” links etc are just that. they are not proven science per the standard used for other biological causes.
 
BrassAnkles said:
I would like to point out there is no biological cause of homosexuality. “Suggested” links etc are just that. they are not proven science per the standard used for other biological causes.
Click to expand...
In Science, almost nothing is proven. But that does not mean that the overwhelming scientific evidence does not point in a certain direction as it does with the theory of evolution. Just because they have not been discovered yet, that does not mean that it has been proven that homosexuality does not have any biological causes.
 
Thorolfr said:
In Science, almost nothing is proven… Just because they have not been discovered yet, that does not mean that it has been proven that homosexuality does not have any biological causes.
Click to expand...
Being in the medical field and having lived a few years I agree that in the future they may find a biological and/or psychological deviation in ones body BUT, having said that, the homosexual relations and it’s sexual encounter is and would go un-change in Catholicism because it would continue to be an unhealthy relationship and one would be living in a state of sin.
 
Thorolfr said:
In Science, almost nothing is proven. But that does not mean that the overwhelming scientific evidence does not point in a certain direction as it does with the theory of evolution. Just because they have not been discovered yet, that does not mean that it has been proven that homosexuality does not have any biological causes.
Click to expand...
What you propose is acting on unproven or tested assumptions which is nothing more than “faith” that you hope the relation would be proven.

Of course the question is at some point taking into account the vast amount of research on the origin it is much more likely than not that will will be able to isolate homosexuality as a solely psychological cause that is not static but dynamic was it really worth it to destroy lives and cause depression in millions of children and adults basically because “it seemed like a good idea at the time”?
 
BrassAnkles said:
What you propose is acting on unproven or tested assumptions which is nothing more than “faith” that you hope the relation would be proven.

Of course the question is at some point taking into account the vast amount of research on the origin it is much more likely than not that will will be able to isolate homosexuality as a solely psychological cause that is not static but dynamic was it really worth it to destroy lives and cause depression in millions of children and adults basically because “it seemed like a good idea at the time”?
Click to expand...
I can hear it now “At least we tried!”
 
BrassAnkles said:
was it really worth it to destroy lives and cause depression in millions of children and adults basically because “it seemed like a good idea at the time”?
Click to expand...
If you want to cause depression in gay children and adults and destroy their lives, try conversion or reparative therapy on them.
 
Thorolfr said:
If you want to cause depression in gay children and adults and destroy their lives, try conversion or reparative therapy on them.
Click to expand...
Correct me if I am wrong but I believe you have stated as a Christian that publicly identifying as a homosexual and having sexual relationships is perfectly ok, right?
 
Thorolfr said:
If you want to cause depression in gay children and adults and destroy their lives, try conversion or reparative therapy on them.
Click to expand...
👍 YES! imagine your parents or even a religious leader advising you that in order to be a proper member of the Church that you need to go through fake quackery to change your sexual orientation. It’s a sad recipe for increased suicide rates in LGBTQ teens and young adults.
 
kozlosap said:
👍 YES! imagine your parents or even a religious leader advising you that in order to be a proper member of the Church that you need to go through fake quackery to change your sexual orientation. It’s a sad recipe for increased suicide rates in LGBTQ teens and young adults.
Click to expand...
Please post your references to substantiate this claim.
 
kozlosap said:
👍 YES! imagine your parents or even a religious leader advising you that in order to be a proper member of the Church that you need to go through fake quackery to change your sexual orientation. It’s a sad recipe for increased suicide rates in LGBTQ teens and young adults.
Click to expand...
Actually what you advise your child is that homosexual behavior is a grievous sin that puts ones immortal soul in danger. One does not have to be “cured” of their SSA to not participate in homosexual behavior
 
estesbob said:
Actually what you advise your child is that homosexual behavior is a grievous sin that puts ones immortal soul in danger.
Click to expand...
The Catechism is clear that “homosexual behavior” is a grave sin, so telling your children it is not a serious sin is wrong, and worse may lead both down the wrong path putting one’s soul in danger.
 
Thorolfr said:
… Just because they have not been discovered yet, that does not mean that it has been proven that homosexuality does not have any biological causes.
Click to expand...
There may be a few different causes, with varying degrees of inclination from one person to another. Any research that suggested homosexuality is modifiable, or “a pathology” has been suppressed, so appealing to (politically publishable) “science” doesn’t carry much weight on this subject since the 1970s.

But even if there was a biological factor contributing to this inclination, that’s important for other reasons, but doesn’t have a bearing on this thread. Temptations to gluttony, hatred, sloth, and most if not all potential evils may have some kind of biological contributing factor. So what? Perhaps John has a biologically related temptation towards alcohol abuse that someone else does not have. He still needs to fight that temptation. Proving the temptation is biological doesn’t remove it from the moral sphere. We KNOW homosexuality, as a pattern of actions, is sometimes modifiable, because some people have done it.

Even if It is proven that “reparative therapy” does not succeed in one goal (changing sexual orientation) it apparently succeeds in another goal (modifying actions). Suppose you proved that AA does not succeed in changing one’s inner alcoholic orientation, it only causes some members to make superficial changes, like abstaining from drinking. Would you denounce AA for that reason?

“Never be too hard on the man who can’t give up drink. It’s as hard to give up the drink as it is to raise the dead to life again. But both are possible and even easy for Our Lord. We have only to depend on him.” (Venerable Matt Talbot, an alcoholic; Saint JP II when a young man wrote a paper on him, which I would like to find; he may be canonized one day).
 
commenter said:
There may be a few different causes, with varying degrees of inclination from one person to another. Any research that suggested homosexuality is modifiable, or “a pathology” has been suppressed, so appealing to (politically publishable) “science” doesn’t carry much weight on this subject since the 1970s.

But even if there was a biological factor contributing to this inclination, that’s important for other reasons, but doesn’t have a bearing on this thread. Temptations to gluttony, hatred, sloth, and most if not all potential evils may have some kind of biological contributing factor. So what? Perhaps John has a biologically related temptation towards alcohol abuse that someone else does not have. He still needs to fight that temptation. Proving the temptation is biological doesn’t remove it from the moral sphere. We KNOW homosexuality, as a pattern of actions, is sometimes modifiable, because some people have done it.

Even if It is proven that “reparative therapy” does not succeed in one goal (changing sexual orientation) it apparently succeeds in another goal (modifying actions). Suppose you proved that AA does not succeed in changing one’s inner alcoholic orientation, it only causes some members to make superficial changes, like abstaining from drinking. Would you denounce AA for that reason?

“Never be too hard on the man who can’t give up drink. It’s as hard to give up the drink as it is to raise the dead to life again. But both are possible and even easy for Our Lord. We have only to depend on him.” (Venerable Matt Talbot, an alcoholic; Saint JP II when a young man wrote a paper on him, which I would like to find; he may be canonized one day).
Click to expand...
So-called “reparative” therapy does not seek to alter behavior at all. In no way, shape, or form is that its goal. It is considered a total failure if the orientation itself is not altered (in other words, its always a complete and total failure). If a change of behavior was all that was sought, a regular counselor or even a priest would suffice. Protestant parents send their kids there to be “fixed” into heterosexuals, not to cease having gay sex (especially since many of the kids aren’t dating or having sex with anyone).
 
commenter said:
But even if there was a biological factor contributing to this inclination, that’s important for other reasons, but doesn’t have a bearing on this thread.
Click to expand...
True. But some people in this forum keep insisting that gay people definitely can and must try to change their sexual orientation. There is no proof that this is possible, nor does the Catholic Church require this as far as I understand. The only thing that the Church requires of Catholics is that gay people refrain from acting on their same-sex attractions.
 
DrTaffy said:
The Role of Help-Seeking in Preventing Suicide Attempts among Lesbians, Gay Men, and Bisexuals
Click to expand...
According to page 7 of the report the confidence level for “serious suicide attempts” by persons who sought treatment:

" is wide and the results are not statistically significant at the set probability level of 0.05"

with the interval being 5.51 (0.62,6.13) yet for those that sought treatment of a less serious suicide attempts was actually more at 5.65 (1.20, 6.85) so therefore these results are not statistically significant as well. Also, too the population is at the lower end of permissible values to be able to extend the results to larger populations. I expect this error has been discussed in peer review publications but since the press is rarely interested in facts this would go unpublished.

columbia.edu/~im15/papers/meyer-2014-suicide-and-life.pdf
 
estesbob said:
Interesting that the study shows the suicide rate is lower for those who seek spiritual help.
Click to expand...
Higher, surely?

Or are you looking at a comment in the article that I missed?
Compared with individuals who did not seek help at all, those who sought help from a religious or spiritual advisor were more likely to later attempt suicide (OR = 2.86; 95% CI = 1.20, 6.85). This pattern was also found for serious suicide attempts (OR = 1.95; CI = 0.62, 6.13), but the confidence interval is wide and the results are not statistically significant at the set probability level of 0.05.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top