Evangelizing The Homosexual

[Other_Eric]

Since I am a christian, do I get to tell you what to believe and how to conduct yourself?

Christianity demands fraternal correction. This is the essence of any attempt to evangelize those with same-sex attractions. Therefore, while in certain instances, another Christian telling me what to believe or how to conduct myself may wound my pride, it can never amount to the self-satisfied presumption of one who is not Christian. Although, I must warn you, one attempting to correct another must be very sure of oneself and ready to back up one’s intended correction.

 

[Mirdath]

As far as my citations are concerned, at least I have some. As I said before, arguments that automatically dismiss data because of its source rather than its substance tend to be nothing more than ideologically driven screeds.

And when the sources are ideologically driven screeds? What then? Am I not allowed to discount them because of their raging bias against people like myself?

I have failed to find anything in the literature that would support the existence of even one long-term same-sex couple that did not eventually develop a libertine attitude towards sexual fidelity.

You’re not looking for that, are you now? You want your sweeping generalizations to be true, and you’re rejecting anything and anyone who says otherwise.

The incidence of domestic violence in same-sex relationships citation that I referenced pointed to an increased incidence of domestic violence among same-sex couples. It does not deny that domestic violence exists in other relationships but it highlights that the pathologies that lead to domestic violence are far more prevalent in those relationships that are formed by individuals of the same sex.

Correlation does not equal causation. Basic logic.

Further, I would not say that a heterosexual relationship necessarily involves the gender first to the same degree that it does for those who indulge their same-sex attractions. This would account for the rampant promiscuity among those of that ilk.

Because heterosexuals are never promiscuous. Please. And why should gender be the first consideration anyway? It has not been in any relationship I’ve been involved in – love has.

Since sex is merely recreational, the only thing that becomes important to the man or woman with same-sex attractions is the gender of the person that they are going to use to achieve orgasm.

Merely recreational? I can’t make up my mind whether to be aghast or pitying.

For those with normal heterosexual impulses, the search is characterized by the desire not for some man or some woman but someone

The same is true for homosexuals just as often as it is for heterosexuals. And it’s not an absolute barrier – many people find that someone who differs from their perceived orientation, and get used to it pretty fast because they love them.

That obscenity is currently defined in such a way as to make the publication of any sort of filth acceptable is a problem that has not escaped my notice. The silencing of those who would use their gift for words in order to corrupt the impressionable has a solid grounding in Catholic practice. I would encourage you to read up on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum.

Well, aren’t we lucky we aren’t living in a Catholic theocracy, then? I know about the Index, and I disagree both with its ever having existed and with the reasoning behind it. If you wish the innocent to remain uncorrupted, make like the Jesuits and get to them first.

Furthermore, this accusation of dehumanizing someone because we will not allow him or her to corrupt the multitudes is entirely without merit. We are not penalizing a group of people because of their affiliation; we are penalizing the conduct of those who would lead the impressionable into error.

You are silencing – excuse me, properly silencing an entire group of people because you think your God frowns upon what they like to do in bed. What you’re saying is that you should be free to express your opinions because you think they’re just and moral and righteous in the eyes of your deity of choice, while those you happen not to think so should be made quiet by force. That is not merely ‘penalizing’ – that is your hatred stripping them of their human rights and potentially their lives.

In all, I fail to see anything in your argument that is any more authoritative than “because I say so.” Following your example, I call your constant reliance upon yourself to be reliance upon a source that has a rather obvious bias and an agenda to push. Perhaps you can diversify the spectrum of your own argument by supplying even one citation of your own.

My argument is that I don’t say so. ‘Because I say so’ is all you have managed to bring up, backing it up merely with your Church and your interpretation of God. Not convincing in the slightest. I’ve cited nothing because, honestly, a laissez-faire position needs no bibliography.

 

[Other_Eric]

And when the sources are ideologically driven screeds? What then? Am I not allowed to discount them because of their raging bias against people like myself?

It is quite an arrogance that allows one to completely discount any source of information simply because one has defined, on his own authority, that the source has a “raging bias.” Perhaps I would find your rejection of any of this more plausible if you actually took the time to address the arguments presented therein rather than simply dismissing them out of hand. The unsubstantiated denial you are engaging in has all the substance of an eight-year-old child clapping his hands over his ears rather than hear something he does not like.

You think I haven’t found any source citations about the nature of the long-term same-sex couples you seem to believe exist because I haven’t been looking? Coming from one who refuses to cite anyone other than himself, this is laughable. The reason I haven’t found any indication of these sorts of relationships is because they do not exist. They are a fantasy used for ideological purpose, nothing more. Neither you nor I can find anything that would indicate otherwise.

As far as your “correlation does not equal causation” quip, I submit that you do not know what the phrase means. To substantiate your implied claim that pathology is not a cause of domestic violence, you would have to go against over sixty years of psychological research that says otherwise. I’ll admit, that you may find some citations from the 1920s that claim those who fall victim to domestic violence had it coming or otherwise asked for it but otherwise the scientific community is united in the opinion that pathology is the direct cause of domestic violence. It’s basic psychology.

Since you know of the Index, then you know that there is no contradiction involved in silencing those who spread error. This has nothing to so, by the way, with what particular individuals like to do in bed, this has to do with what any individual attempts to disseminate through speech or print. Sexual predilections are entirely irrelevant if one is going to be going around corrupting society. Those sorts of people are, I repeat, properly silenced.

As far as whether my argument is based upon what I say or upon what my so-called biased sources say, I’m afraid you’ll have to make up your mind. I don’t doubt that you would find any citation that I could reference convincing in the slightest since it seems yours is the only authority you are inclined to accept. I submit that this is why you have submitted no bibliography and further predict that this is why you will continue to submit none.

What I am dealing with here is a resource linked to by the Original Poster which presumes to instruct Christians on the proper way to deal with those who have same-sex attractions. Since, as a non-Christian, you don’t recognize Christianity in the first place or any of the moral framework that support my arguments against the piece, I fail to see that you even have standing to object. Your comments belong on another thread unless you are prepared to come around back to the topic of this thread and argue from a Christian point of view why this article does or does not have merit.

 

[Mirdath]

It is quite an arrogance that allows one to completely discount any source of information simply because one has defined, on his own authority, that the source has a “raging bias.” Perhaps I would find your rejection of any of this more plausible if you actually took the time to address the arguments presented therein rather than simply dismissing them out of hand. The unsubstantiated denial you are engaging in has all the substance of an eight-year-old child clapping his hands over his ears rather than hear something he does not like.

Citing WorldNetDaily as a serious source on many issues, including homosexuality, has all the credibility of citing the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as a source on Judaism. If you’d care to link a site that’s got actual scholarly research without an undeniable social conservative bias, I’m open to reading it.

You think I haven’t found any source citations about the nature of the long-term same-sex couples you seem to believe exist because I haven’t been looking? Coming from one who refuses to cite anyone other than himself, this is laughable. The reason I haven’t found any indication of these sorts of relationships is because they do not exist. They are a fantasy used for ideological purpose, nothing more. Neither you nor I can find anything that would indicate otherwise.

Have you interviewed every homosexual couple in existence? Apparently not – otherwise you wouldn’t be saying such things. Until you have done so, you cannot say long-term homosexual relationships are entirely the stuff of myth. It’s a little difficult to find sources just on Google as it’s much more popular to condemn such things, but I found references within the first page of results (and I’m lazy, whereas you take the time to exhaustively footnote every post in this thread). And if anecdotal evidence will satisfy, I have known several such couples – by which I mean loving, stable couples, both male and female, together for decades. If you are truly looking, take off the blindfold first.

As far as your “correlation does not equal causation” quip, I submit that you do not know what the phrase means. To substantiate your implied claim that pathology is not a cause of domestic violence, you would have to go against over sixty years of psychological research that says otherwise. I’ll admit, that you may find some citations from the 1920s that claim those who fall victim to domestic violence had it coming or otherwise asked for it but otherwise the scientific community is united in the opinion that pathology is the direct cause of domestic violence. It’s basic psychology.

‘Basic psychology’ includes not conflating two entirely different pathologies. Sure, domestic violence is often caused by mental problems – but as it’s not limited to hetero- or homosexuals, it’s pretty obvious that the one doesn’t cause the other.

Since you know of the Index, then you know that there is no contradiction involved in silencing those who spread error.

Lack of contradiction does not make a thing right. And since you’re American, you operate under US law, which expressly forbids ‘silencing’ others. Short of screaming ‘fire!’ in a theater, you can say whatever you like – including the nonsense you’re spouting.

What I am dealing with here is a resource linked to by the Original Poster which presumes to instruct Christians on the proper way to deal with those who have same-sex attractions. Since, as a non-Christian, you don’t recognize Christianity in the first place or any of the moral framework that support my arguments against the piece, I fail to see that you even have standing to object.

I can object because you’re talking about imposing a Christofascist (yeah, I’m aware of the irony; are you?) ‘silence’ on me and everyone like me. What’s next, gay concentration camps? I am not subhuman, no matter what you think or imagine of my sex life or my religious beliefs. I don’t have to take that kind of treatment and I will not.

Your comments belong on another thread unless you are prepared to come around back to the topic of this thread and argue from a Christian point of view why this article does or does not have merit.

Since I am the intended target of this article, why should I not comment from my own point of view?

 

[blessedtoo]

OtherEric, your posts unfortunately put me in the position of contradicting/debating a Catholic brother. You, as usual, have many many excellent and valid points which are utterly lost with the stridency of your delivery. I think this is the point of the OP’s link and I’m sorry you missed it. The article itself did, in some respects, “blunt” the Catholic position, but the author states

Of course, you must never give the impression that you approve of what they are doing, but it is usually sufficient to say that, yes, as a Catholic, you support the Church’s teachings on homosexuality and believe that homosexual behaviors are morally wrong

and again

There is likely to come a point where the person you are evangelizing will want to know why this Church and this God that are suddenly starting to be appealing insist that homosexuality is sinful.

When this point comes, you are going to need to be able to explain Catholic doctrine clearly, rationally and with the greatest possible compassion.

After reading all your posts and links, it seems as though you are saying (and correct me if I am wrong) that it is best for Christians to state the sinfulness of homosexuality, avoid engaging in discussions about the “causes” or psychology on a one to one basis, refer all homosexuals to the professionals, and keep one’s children far away from known homosexuals. Have I got that right?

I suspect this approach is doomed to fail. And I would wonder if you have been successful using this method in helping any homosexuals convert?

There are support groups for families of homosexuals who take your approach too. Sometimes they refuse all contact with loved ones who are active in the lifestyle. As someone who was in the lifestyle myself, and has a sister still active in the lifestyle, I can assure you the success rate with this approach is not favorable. And as someone who still maintains the friendships from my “past life”, I can say that engaging in the manner described by the author in her article has yielded more fruit than I could have ever imagined. And let us not forget that we are not in charge. In my experience, it is enough to let the truth be known in love and leave the hard stuff to the Holy Spirit. And pray, pray, pray.

 

[chotock]

blessedtoo, outstanding! You have found words for what I was wanting to say.

Kendy, there is a lot to be said, but as someone who has been working through SSA without any in person help, doing all I can with what books and websites I can find, I can tell you that one will encounter more hatred and fear than they will true Christian love.

Those of us carrying the burden of SSA are not wimps needing to grow up, we are fellow Christians struggling to live as pure a life as possible, just like everyone else.

 

[goofyjim]

While it’s rather commonplace to find sexually permissive attitudes in those who self-identify as gay, bisexual or something else, it never ceases to amaze me how professed non-Christians presume to dictate to Christians what they are to believe and how they ought to conduct themselves. The arrogance is galling.

In fact, same-sex relationships do not work out “just fine.” Indeed, after about five years, same-sex couples begin to introduce outside parties into their sexual relationship. The relationship tends to start out with an emotional high but as that wears of, sexual exclusivity goes out the door in order to buttress what would otherwise fall apart of its own accord. (1) That there are pathological power struggles in these relationships can be seen in the high rate of domestic violence in these relationships. (2)

It must be understood that same-sex relationships start with the gender of the sexual partner first before any other consideration. The nature of this sexual nature of this relationship does not permit love in any normative sense. Indeed,

In essence, the entire relationship, no matter how romanticized, is one of mere sexual convenience.

The predilection of those with same-sex attraction to stalk and prey upon the young is well documented.

In fact, there exists a large subculture in the homosexual community that would seek to legalize sexual activity between adult men and the underage. (5)

It is clear that children are in urgent need of protection from individuals with same-sex attractions, but adults also need to be wary.

That same-sex attractions are destabilizing to society can be seen in the persistent spread of AIDS and other venereal diseases in urban centers known to have large homosexual populations. (7) This is a public health nuisance. Moreover, the activists’ drive to uproot age-old social conventions and create broad, new legal precedents to justify their hedonism threatens the stability of the family that legal institutions, such as marriage, are designed to safeguard for the good of the country.

It seems that accusations of quackery for organizations such as NARTH are based more on ideology than anything substantive. Any anecdote one can relate about such-and-such a person returning to the homosexual lifestyle after attending reparative therapy or some of the conversion groups sponsored by Exodus can be matched threefold by anecdotes of individuals who claim to have successfully made the transition to a normal, heterosexual orientation. I encourage you to read some of those stories.

(continued below . . .)

Same sex behavior leads to AIDS. Same sex attractions do not. One can live chastely with a homosexual orientation.

 

[puzzleannie]

I suggest this thread be closed by mods, and a new thread open, with a link to the original article cited, since Eric and I evidently read two different articles in the same issue of the National Catholic Register.

You cannot evangelize to anyone, of any denomination, of any sexual orientation, of any philosophical orientation, if you do it in a spirit of condemnation, bitterness and hatred. If you have not love, as Paul says, you are as a clanging gong or a tinkling symbol and do nothing but damage. If you cannot remember that basic principle of apologetics and evangelization, please do not attempt to do either in the name of the Catholic Church.

the author of this article was giving a personal testimony about their own faith journey and experience, not a treatise on the origins, spiritual, social, psychological and physical dimensions of homosexuality. To rebut a personal essay in terms used for a scientific article is absurd and arrogant. The author of the article did not use her experience to make any global claims, why do you do it in your rebuttal?

And incidentally, if you do claim to offer reliable scientific evidence in any instance, you will not be taken seriously if you cite sources notorious for bias, untruth, and hysteria. There are numerous reliable sources that carefully and properly enunciate Catholic teaching on this topic, and which do give careful treatment to what science actually says and does not say about it, so please be more careful in your selection of sources if you wish to give the appearence of presenting the Catholic viewpoint.

 

[morriec]

What I am dealing with here is a resource linked to by the Original Poster which presumes to instruct Christians on the proper way to deal with those who have same-sex attractions. Since, as a non-Christian, you don’t recognize Christianity in the first place or any of the moral framework that support my arguments against the piece, I fail to see that you even have standing to object. Your comments belong on another thread unless you are prepared to come around back to the topic of this thread and argue from a Christian point of view why this article does or does not have merit.

Thanks Eric for your efforts. Appreciate the good work.