Evangelizing The Homosexual

[Maranatha]

Evangelizing The Homosexual
from The National Catholic Register

Last week, I said I couldn’t say for certain when I first became involved in a homosexual relationship. I said I always perceived my relationships with men as a power struggle — and that with another woman I could always easily perceive myself as more in control.

…

What is necessary, therefore, is to show them that someone can love them, and love all of the things that they erroneously associate with homosexuality, without actually loving their sin. Only when this becomes a practical reality, rather than a theoretical tagline, will they actually believe that it is possible, and understand that they have an identity and a personality with which their sexual desires are not integrally connected.

more

 

[Riley259]

Evangelizing The Homosexual
from The National Catholic Register

Last week, I said I couldn’t say for certain when I first became involved in a homosexual relationship. I said I always perceived my relationships with men as a power struggle — and that with another woman I could always easily perceive myself as more in control.

…

What is necessary, therefore, is to show them that someone can love them, and love all of the things that they erroneously associate with homosexuality, without actually loving their sin. Only when this becomes a practical reality, rather than a theoretical tagline, will they actually believe that it is possible, and understand that they have an identity and a personality with which their sexual desires are not integrally connected.

more

Thanks for the link. Very interesting article. At the end of the article it says that she will explain why the Church teaches that homosexuality is wrong - it would interesting to hear what she has to say (she said in this article that she was not persuaded by the logic of the argument but by her connection to God and her willingness to please Him). Would it be possible to include that article as well (I don’t know if you can access this for free online).

 

[Other_Eric]

It is instructive that Melinda Selmys, the author of this article, is a person who experiences same-sex attraction herself. This would account for the laissez-faire attitude that she takes to questions of sexual morality and the reductionist theology she uses to justify it. Let’s examine her article in detail.

This obviously is not reflective of the entire lesbian community — relationships between two emotionally distant, hyper-independent psychological cowards wouldn’t work, both because they would never form in the first place, and because they would ultimately lead to power struggles that would eliminate their appeal.

It is important for us to understand, contra Ms. Selmys, that same-sex relationships don’t work. Those relationships do lead to power struggles that ultimately tear them apart. This does not prevent these relationships from forming or lessen their appeal because the basic purpose of the relationship is sexual hedonism.

Even within a homosexual relationship there has to be some sort of complementarity — and so it is necessary that there be a number of different psychological conditions that produce same-sex attractions.

There need never be any complementarity in any same-sex relationship. To be blunt, since the entire purpose of the relationship is sexual in nature, the only things that necessarily need to be there are two sets of matching genitals. Therefore there is no need to apply false nuance to the psychological genesis of the attraction.

What is most important, though, is that we realize that the reasons underlying homosexual behavior are genuine emotional and psychological needs or fears.

People who experience these desires are people whose sexuality, and possibly the ability to identify with their own gender, has been wounded in some way.

That the behavior is a manifestation of some type of emotional or psychological disorder is a fine thing for all Christians to recognize. This, however, should not cause us to become enablers by in any way ratifying these disordered emotions that are pointing them away from Christ. Nor should it evoke sympathy in such a way that we fail to safeguard our children and ourselves from a dangerous element that is poised to destroy society.

Many have gone through years of guilt and shame before finally deciding that any God who demands such an impossible sacrifice is cruel, and any church that rejects their sexual actions is unjust. It is important, therefore, to seek to bring the healing power of God into their lives so that, rather than simply telling them to live chastely, we give them the emotional and psychological means by which to do so.

The “emotional and psychological means” by which to live chastely is a heterosexual orientation. The proper direction to give to a person with same-sex attractions is a referral to NARTH or some similar therapeutic institution. We should not ourselves think that we possess the tools to handle this ourselves. It is a job best left to experts who have training in exactly how to deal with such individuals.

Notions of a cruel God or impossible sacrifices are simply a manifestation of some type of adolescent victim syndrome or “hyperdramatization” and are best disregarded entirely.(1) When the Christian encounters this type of temper tantrum coming from someone with same-sex attractions, the proper response will always be one which invites them to grow up.

(continued below . . .)

 

[Other_Eric]

(. . . continued from above)

This work requires a one-on-one approach — it cannot be done through the mass media — and it cannot be achieved from the pulpit. Most people who have had any success in ministering to persons with same-sex attractions agree that you can’t get anywhere unless you first form a personal relationship.

Any attempt to evangelize by a Christian not specifically trained to handle people with same-sex attractions is incredibly dangerous. It should be noted that most people with that condition are professional apologists for their own lifestyle. As such, the proper individual to attempt any type of one-on-one interaction would be a professional psychologist, psychiatrist or specially trained confessor.

This is one of the reasons why fear, hatred or disgust directed towards those who are attracted to their own sex is so crippling when it is found within the Christian community. It repels those who have embraced the “gay” lifestyle, and alienates those who are struggling to remain faithful in spite of their same-sex attractions.

It pains me to have to repeat this time and time again. The supposed fear, hatred or disgust that those with same-sex attraction feel is merely a part of their own pathological persecution complex. (2) It is a fantasy. Any supposed evidence that the same-sex attracted might muster to be able to support the existence of this loathing, upon close examination, can readily be demonstrated that the fear, hatred or disgust is directed to the sin, not the sinner.

We must be clear on this: Persons with same-sex attractions, even the most strident, anti-Catholic, shamelessly sexualized demonstrators, are not the enemy. They are our own people, who have fallen into enemy hands, and it is our responsibility as Christians to do anything necessary to win them back.

Inasmuch as these people have transformed themselves into the tools of Satan, they are the enemy. While winning them back is important, what is more important is that the strident, anti-Catholic and shamelessly sexualized demonstrators be silenced before they can transmit their loathsome message to the impressionable. Once the threat is properly contained, we may then allow ourselves the luxury of converting these individuals.

First, while it is important to be conscious of the psychological problems that may underlie a homosexual orientation, it is equally important not to openly psychoanalyze. People hate being told that their feelings and attitudes are the result of an Oedipus complex, even if it happens to be true. If it becomes appropriate to help them realize, at some point in a long-term relationship, that their feelings stem from a lack of comfort with identifying with their own gender, that’s fine, but you have to make sure that this conclusion is something that they are coming to realize themselves, not merely something that you are trying to tell them as a supposed expert.

I find it interesting that this author in one paragraph can maintain that it is our responsibility to do anything necessary to win these souls back, but then deny us the means of doing so. Christ Himself told His followers a fair number of things that they didn’t want to hear and this is the example that we should follow. The Christian should not wait around for one with same-sex attraction to come to all these realizations on his own. Christ meant His disciples to tell people the truth even when those people didn’t want to hear it. To withhold from one the obvious psychological origins of one’s disorder is to withhold from one the healing power of Christ.

(continued below . . .)

 

[Other_Eric]

(. . . continued from above)

Secondly, it is usually not a good idea to go into a deep discussion of the moral theology of sex unless they absolutely insist on doing so. 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 — but that those teachings don’t in any way interfere with your personal feelings of love or affection for them as a person.

Whether they insist on discussing sexual morality or not, the Christian is bound to explicitly condemn whatever sinful act a person with same-sex attractions engages in. Silence here would be to assist in that person’s sin. Moreover, it is likely that a failure to directly address the sinful nature of the disorder could be interpreted as acceptance, and this must be thwarted at all costs lest the person sink deeper into error.

Once you’ve established a relationship, it is tremendously important that you seek to undermine their identification of self with sexual preference.

This can be difficult, because our sexuality does form an important and integral part of our personality, and since those who experience same-sex attractions usually suffer from a wounded sense of sexual identity, it is easy to see why they would think that their “sexual orientation” was tied to something more profound and fundamental than the mere sex act itself.

Thus, if you tell someone suffering from same-sex attractions that their sexuality is objectively disordered and their behaviors are immoral, but that you love them in spite of their sexuality, they are going to call you a hypocrite. This sentiment is baffling to many Catholics because we tend to see same-sex attractions primarily in terms of homosexual intercourse. We need to bear in mind that many people in the homosexual community feel that they have only ever really been personally accepted by that community — not just because the outside world condemns homosexuality, but because some significant part of the outside world failed to accept their personality even before they had any sort of homosexual feelings.

As a result of this, their genuine personality traits — aspects of themselves that actually are part of the way God made them — are psychologically bound up with their homosexuality. The things that made society (or Daddy or whoever) reject them are a part of their “gayness,” and to reject their homosexuality is, in their eyes, to reject all of those aspects of their personality, as well.

It is hard to know where to begin with this psychological pap. Those who feel they have been “accepted” by the gay community should be forced to embrace the reality that this acceptance was a proxy to have their bodies used as a means to an end. For any of us, lacking in psychological training, to attempt to unravel the deep pathological intertwining of identity with disorder is incredibly presumptuous.

What is necessary, therefore, is to show them that someone can love them, and love all of the things that they erroneously associate with homosexuality, without actually loving their sin. Only when this becomes a practical reality, rather than a theoretical tagline, will they actually believe that it is possible, and understand that they have an identity and a personality with which their sexual desires are not integrally connected.

The love that these people need to experience can only come from Christ, not us. Christians need to let go of the pride in thinking that they can be the means by which these sick individuals are healed. These people, looking for love and acceptance are properly directed to Christ and the saints, not armchair psychologists wishing to dispense warm fuzzies.

(continued below . . .)

 

[Other_Eric]

(. . . continued from above)

Since we can’t bring people who identify themselves as “gay” into the Church simply by demonstrating that their actions are contrary to natural law, we need to use another approach.

The one that is most appropriate is, in fact, surprisingly simple: Make the faith appealing. Show them a God who is patient, merciful and loving, a God who brings healing to a world broken by sin. Talk to them about your faith, your experience of God’s healing power and of his forgiveness. Show them that God will meet, perfectly, all of the psychological needs that they have been trying to fulfill through homosexuality.

If you show a patient, merciful and loving God and forget to mention the God who scolds, punishes and drives sinners from His temple with a whip, you are presenting a God other than the One Christians are called to worship. (3) This is nothing more than a call to make the faith into something other than what it is in order to make it marketable to those who persist in perversion. Preach about a God who is only patient, merciful and loving and you are liable to meet the Judge who scolds and punishes at your own particular judgment.

When I finally decided to join the Church, and to abandon my homosexual lifestyle, it was not because I had been rationally persuaded that homosexual acts were unnatural, it was because I had developed a relationship with God, and he asked it of me.

At the time I didn’t even remotely understand the logic behind his request, but he had died for me on the cross, so he had the right to ask that I give up something as relatively minor as my sexuality for his sake. Before I believed this, there was no amount of logic in the world that could have persuaded me that what I was doing was wrong. Once I believed it, it didn’t matter if all the logic in the world was against me, because my God had asked it.

It is important to understand that this new lifestyle in which Ms. Selmys undertakes to “give up” her sexuality is every bit as irrational a fantasy as the rational that led her to indulge in same-sex sexual activity in the first place. This sort of thinking can absolutely not be encouraged in people who are already as psychologically damaged as those who have same-sex attractions.

. . . one of the most dangerous forms of this unrealism is to think one can live without sexuality. This is the old heresy of manicheism or albigensianism which long ago led to terrible sexual excesses on the part of those who sought to be absolutely pure. These misguided heretics are a reminder that one of the most dangerous sexual unrealisms is the pretense that humans can be angels.(4)

To “give up” the sexuality and to describe it as something “relatively minor” is to deny that

sexuality is a fundamental component of personality, one of its modes of being, of manifestation, of communicating with others, of feeling, of expressing and of living human love, (5)

and, thus, is to lapse into heresy.

(1) Van Den Aardweg, Gerard J.M. The Battle for Normality. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1997.

(2) Ibid.

(3) Ratzinger, Joseph. On the Way to Jesus Christ. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2005.

(4) Groeshel, Benedict J. The Courage to be Chaste. New York: Paulist Press, 1985. p. 35.

(5) López Trujillo, Alfonso. The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality. Vatican City: Pontifical Council for the Family, 1995. §10. Available online at: newadvent.org/library/docs_cf9601.htm

 

[chotock]

I had writen a rather scathing responce to Eric here, but on second thought, I will let other less involved person’s respond.

 

[Mirdath]

I had writen a rather scathing responce to Eric here, but on second thought, I will let other less involved person’s respond.

Got your back

Before I start taking that apart, I’d like to say that as a bisexual non-Christian, I have a great appreciation for the sentiment expressed in the article. It’s wonderful that someone is finally taking the time to treat non-heterosexuals like people and trying to convert them with kindness instead of condemnation.

Now then…
Other Eric:

It is important for us to understand, contra Ms. Selmys, that same-sex relationships don’t work. Those relationships do lead to power struggles that ultimately tear them apart.

They work just fine. There’s no more an innate power struggle in homosexual relationships than there is in heterosexual unions.

To be blunt, since the entire purpose of the relationship is sexual in nature, the only things that necessarily need to be there are two sets of matching genitals.

Ludicrous. No relationships are founded merely on the basis of the members’ genitalia – that’s what one-night stands are made of. For it to be honestly called a relationship, there is love and understanding.

This, however, should not cause us to become enablers by in any way ratifying these disordered emotions that are pointing them away from Christ. Nor should it evoke sympathy in such a way that we fail to safeguard our children and ourselves from a dangerous element that is poised to destroy society.

Oh, think of the children! Is your problem that they’ll make the kids gay, or molest them, or both? The first case doesn’t seem to happen – kids with perfectly straight and square parents can turn out queer just as easily as anyone else (I’m an example), and kids raised by gay couples can turn out straight as an arrow. And pedophilia is an entirely different problem; in fact, most same-sex child molesters either have no interest in adults or claim to be otherwise heterosexual.

Also, it’s never been really explained to me: exactly what danger is society in? As far as I can tell, the vaunted ‘homosexual agenda’ starts with ‘getting out of bed’. Do you really think this 4-10% of the population is going to infect everybody else? What trouble would it cause you personally to let them live their own lives?

The proper direction to give to a person with same-sex attractions is a referral to NARTH or some similar therapeutic institution. We should not ourselves think that we possess the tools to handle this ourselves. It is a job best left to experts who have training in exactly how to deal with such individuals.

NARTH and their ilk are no better than quacks. Return to one’s original nature happens in vast numbers – in fact, one of the ‘reformed’ founders of Exodus International left them to become the same-sex partner of one of the volunteers there! To such organizations, homosexuals are no more human than dogs were to Pavlov.

Notions of a cruel God or impossible sacrifices are simply a manifestation of some type of adolescent victim syndrome or “hyperdramatization” and are best disregarded entirely.

Really? It worked for Job – but oh, he wasn’t gay.

When the Christian encounters this type of temper tantrum coming from someone with same-sex attractions, the proper response will always be one which invites them to grow up.

Last I checked, the ‘homosexual community’ would simply rather wish certain people stopped condemning them out of hand. How is one to ‘grow up’ from that? You’d do better to stop your own (admittedly highly, if selectively, literate and footnoted) tantrums on the subject.

Any attempt to evangelize by a Christian not specifically trained to handle people with same-sex attractions is incredibly dangerous.

How? It’s not likely to change either person’s mind, but I don’t see how that’s ‘incredibly dangerous’.

It should be noted that most people with that condition are professional apologists for their own lifestyle.

I’ve never seen a paycheck for that in my life Strictly amateur.

It pains me to have to repeat this time and time again. The supposed fear, hatred or disgust that those with same-sex attraction feel is merely a part of their own pathological persecution complex.

Your posts alone justify those feelings of persecution perfectly. It’s not a ‘complex’ if people really are condemning you.

 

[Mirdath]

Inasmuch as these people have transformed themselves into the tools of Satan, they are the enemy.

Just quoting this to reinforce the last thing I said in my previous post

While winning them back is important, what is more important is that the strident, anti-Catholic and shamelessly sexualized demonstrators be silenced before they can transmit their loathsome message to the impressionable. Once the threat is properly contained, we may then allow ourselves the luxury of converting these individuals.

They must be silenced? Is your ideal government run by Francisco Franco, by any chance? Everybody has an equal right to be heard, particularly in matters relating to government and social oppression, and gays are no exception. Nobody is oppressing you by being gay, or even by being gay and vocal. When they try to make heterosexuality illegal, then it’ll be your turn to complain about being oppressed. I doubt that’s ever going to happen – though I’ll note you’re on the homosexuals’ side when it comes to requiring heterosexual marriages to produce children within three years or be dissolved

I find it interesting that this author in one paragraph can maintain that it is our responsibility to do anything necessary to win these souls back, but then deny us the means of doing so.

If your only tool is a hammer… people still aren’t nails.

Christ Himself told His followers a fair number of things that they didn’t want to hear and this is the example that we should follow. The Christian should not wait around for one with same-sex attraction to come to all these realizations on his own.

Christ did. Time and again in the gospels: dinner with the social rejects, a smile, a healing, an admonition to ‘sin no more’, assuming they’d know what he was talking about. Do as he did, and you’ll win far more converts.

To withhold from one the obvious psychological origins of one’s disorder is to withhold from one the healing power of Christ.

It isn’t that obvious!

Whether they insist on discussing sexual morality or not, the Christian is bound to explicitly condemn whatever sinful act a person with same-sex attractions engages in. Silence here would be to assist in that person’s sin. Moreover, it is likely that a failure to directly address the sinful nature of the disorder could be interpreted as acceptance, and this must be thwarted at all costs lest the person sink deeper into error.

And if that person comes right out and tells you ‘it’s none of your business, please don’t bring it up’ will you respect that? If not, you’ve likely lost a friend, and probably lost a convert.

Those who feel they have been “accepted” by the gay community should be forced to embrace the reality that this acceptance was a proxy to have their bodies used as a means to an end.

So, the ‘gay community’ is a ravening monster that eats people? Ridiculous: it is people, people who happen to have similar interests, causes, and sometimes aesthetics. The group does not ‘lure’ innocent people in like an anglerfish. Those innocents seek it as a refuge from the persecution they encounter in their own daily lives.

For any of us, lacking in psychological training, to attempt to unravel the deep pathological intertwining of identity with disorder is incredibly presumptuous.

That much, at least, is right. But I’m not sure it applies to homosexuality anyway.

If you show a patient, merciful and loving God and forget to mention the God who scolds, punishes and drives sinners from His temple with a whip, you are presenting a God other than the One Christians are called to worship.

That’ll sell a lot of bingo cards. Jesus did not drive people with whose nature he did not agree from the temple; he drove out people who were actively profaning holy ground by their own choice in the pursuit of riches. Those who were not defiling the temple, he healed, talked, sat, and ate with, and forgave.

 

[havemercy]

This is another very good article.

 

[Other_Eric]

Got your back

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,

it is not a sharing of love, but stripped of the game that must be played, in essence an impersonal event, like contacts with a prostitute. (3)

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.

A six-year study of sexual abuse committed by foster parents in Illinois found a highly disproportionate percentage of the cases were homosexual in nature.

About one-third were same-sex while estimates are that no more than 3 percent of people in the general population say they engage in homosexual acts. (4)

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.

Homosexuality has become a phenomenon with growing concern and has been considered in various countries as a normal attribute, although it always presented itself as a problem in the psychic constituency and has never been determinant in the options of a society. It can be referred to as a destabilizing reality for persons and society. It is not a basis of which we can educate youth. Homosexuality is not significant in any human symbolism or religion, that makes people and societies between relate to each other. (6)

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 . . .)

 

[Other_Eric]

(. . . continued from above)

It seems to me that the “homosexual community” wants so much more than mere tolerance. They want full-fledged approval. They have used legalistic thuggery to strip Catholic adoption agencies of their ability to place children in safe, Christian homes, (8) vandalized synagogues in order to intimidate those with whom they disagree (9) and delight in sending away to reeducation camps those whose opinions they find inconvenient. (10) This behavior is hardly indicative of an oppressed minority merely seeking that people stop disparaging them. This is the behavior of a politically powerful subculture that threatens people for unconditional approval or else.

Since those with same-sex attraction tend to be highly educated, affluent and literate partisans for their sexual behavior, this puts the average Christian at a disadvantage when confronting them. Thus, I maintain that such confrontation or other attempts at evangelization be left to the professionals who know exactly how to handle such people.

Since no one has the right to disseminate what is undeniably obscene propaganda, I can’t see why any type of homosexual advocacy would be protected speech. The freedom to say what one will has its proper end in the promotion of societal good, not in the advocacy of sexual anarchy. Thus, those who promote so-called “gay rights” are properly silenced by whatever means temporal authority has at its disposal.

It is interesting that people have this particular notion in their head that Christ dined with tax collectors, prostitutes and similar pariahs and yet can still maintain that He was completely passive in His evangelization. Scripture directly contradicts this. In the episode of Christ’s dinner with the tax collector he referred to Himself as a “doctor” who actively sought the sinner and encouraged him to sin no more. (11) Therefore, what I said is exactly correct. The Christian does not wait around for one with same-sex attraction to come to all these realizations on his own, he actively seeks them out and exhorts them to amend their evil, exactly as Christ did.

The acceptance one might experience from the “gay community” is ordered only to the individual’s use of their sexual faculty. Interests, causes or aesthetics are all irrelevant to the acceptance so long as the individual submits his body to the sexual hedonism that defines the gay community. Thus, the acceptance is, at best, strictly conditional.

The Christ of Scripture is simply not the passive pushover some wish to make of Him. He threw the impure out of the Temple just as he will spit out the lukewarm at the end of days. (12)

The call of the Christian is not to sit idly by and allow people to wallow in their errors. He does not deny inconvenient truths because they happen to be unpleasant. He does not disregard solid science and statistical analysis when making prudential judgments. He does not sugarcoat the terrible end that lies in wait for those who defy Christ. In short, he looks upon the pabulum offered in an article such as this and condemns it for the invitation to error and heresy that it represents.

(continued below . . .)

 

[Other_Eric]

(. . . continued from above)

(1) McWhirter, David P. and Andrew M. Mattison. The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1984.

(2) Greenwood Gregory L., et al. “Battering Victimization Among a Probability-Based Sample of Men Who Have Sex With Men.” American Journal of Public Health Vol 92, No. 12. 2001. American Public Health Association. December, 2002. Available online at: liu.edu/CWIS/CWP/library/workshop/citmla.htm

(3) Van Den Aardweg, Gerard J.M. The Battle for Normality. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1997. p. 59.

(4) “Study Finds Disproportionate Abuse by ‘Gays’.” WorldNetDaily. 2005. Available online at: worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43118

(5) Nicolosi, Joseph, and Dale O’Leary. “On the Pedophilia Issue: What the APA Should Have Known.” National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality. September 31, 2004. Available online at: narth.com/docs/whatapa.html

(6) Anatrella, Tony. “Reflections on the Instruction on the Admittance of Homosexuals into Seminaries.” Catholic News Agency. December 15, 2005. Available online at: catholicnewsagency.com/document.php?n=100

(7) King, Warren. “Health officials warn of new HIV threat found in King County.” The Seattle Times. February 2, 2007. Available online at: seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003552431_hiv02m.html

(8) Gallagher, Mary. “Banned in Boston.” The Weekly Standard Volume 011, Issue 33. May 15, 2006. Available online at: weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/191kgwgh.asp?pg=1

(9) White, Hilary. “Tel Aviv Synagogue Desecration in Support of Jerusalem Gay Pride.” LifeSite. November 6, 2006. Available online at: lifesite.net/ldn/2006/nov/06110605.html

(10) Joseph, Candace. “CS instructor in need of sensitivity training: Chair.” The Ryersonian. September 20, 2006. Ryerson University School of Journalism. Available online at: ryersonline.ca/articles/408/1/CS-instructor-in-need-of-sensitivity-training-Chair/Page1.html

(11) The New American Bible. Washington: Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, Inc. 1991. Matt 9:10-13. Available online at: usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew9.htm

(12) Ibid. Rev 3:16. Available online at: usccb.org/nab/bible/revelation/revelation3.htm

 

[Mirdath]

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.

If you’re going to proselytize me, I’d rather you do it politely. Is that so much to ask?

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.

Generalizations ahoy! I’ve known couples who’ve stayed together for decades. You can’t make a blanket statement like that – one anecdote is sufficient to disprove it. One might as well assume that all heterosexual marriages end in divorce; after all, some 60% do, isn’t that close enough?

That there are pathological power struggles in these relationships can be seen in the high rate of domestic violence in these relationships.

There isn’t a big enough for this. Domestic violence is not a ‘homosexual phenomenon’.

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.

What does that say about heterosexual relationships? Obviously they start with the sex of the partner first too – otherwise we wouldn’t qualify them with the word ‘heterosexual’! And to say that homosexuals are incapable of love in any of its forms only shows your ignorance. Have you ever even met a homosexual in a long-term relationship?

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)

The footnote makes this. NARTH has an anti-homosexuality agenda and there’s absolutely no denying that. If you can provide a citation that isn’t biased, I might take it seriously. As it stands, yes, there is in fact a (not actually that large) subculture – but it’s present in the ‘heterosexual community’ as well.

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.

I’ve read several. As someone who was effectively brainwashed at a young age, I can recognize that in others too.

They have used legalistic thuggery to strip Catholic adoption agencies of their ability to place children in safe, Christian homes, (8)

As public agencies (and are you really recommending privatizing the adoption industry?), those Catholic adoption centers should not be concerned with the religion, race, or orientation of the adopters as long as they are good parents. Seriously, Christian-only?

This behavior is hardly indicative of an oppressed minority merely seeking that people stop disparaging them. This is the behavior of a politically powerful subculture that threatens people for unconditional approval or else.

I’d be happy if you’d just stop telling me I’m going to hell over and over; I’ve heard it once, that’s enough, okay (and my wife has her own opinions on where you can stuff that attitude)?

Since those with same-sex attraction tend to be highly educated, affluent and literate partisans for their sexual behavior, this puts the average Christian at a disadvantage when confronting them. Thus, I maintain that such confrontation or other attempts at evangelization be left to the professionals who know exactly how to handle such people.

The literate and educated ones are those who can express such a thing without having to be afraid, for one thing. Also, the isolation and self-examination that come with having that much guilt shoved upon one often leads to hitting the books.

 

[Mirdath]

Since no one has the right to disseminate what is undeniably obscene propaganda, I can’t see why any type of homosexual advocacy would be protected speech.

That’s a pretty general definition of obscenity, and I would go so far as to say it’s entirely too general to be correct. Obscenity is highly specific and subjective; after all, William Burroughs’ Naked Lunch managed not to fall under the legal definition, if only barely.

Thus, those who promote so-called “gay rights” are properly silenced by whatever means temporal authority has at its disposal.

‘So-called’? And properly silenced? What you are advocating is nothing short of dehumanizing a whole class of people. And before you say they’re dehumanizing themselves – how is that Catholic and not Fascist? An unborn fetus is more human than a gay man or woman?

The acceptance one might experience from the “gay community” is ordered only to the individual’s use of their sexual faculty. Interests, causes or aesthetics are all irrelevant to the acceptance so long as the individual submits his body to the sexual hedonism that defines the gay community.

Completely wrong. The ‘gay community’ (which is a bizarre term to start with) is not founded on hedonism but on similar interests, rejection from the rest of society, and, dare I say it, romance.

Also, on your footnotes… you claim WorldNetDaily, NARTH, Ignatius Press, Catholic News Agency, the USCCB, and lifesite.net as sources? Try finding some that aren’t pushing an agenda. Everybody will be, but try at least to get a reasonable spectrum.

 

[Other_Eric]

If you’re going to proselytize me, I’d rather you do it politely. Is that so much to ask?

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. As such, I doubt there is any source who disagreed with your own position that you would accept. Indeed, that you admit to having been “brainwashed at a young age,” calls any perception of your own into sharp question.

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. As far as the couples that you know to have been together for decades, I can only assume that as it is your habit to reject data that does not support your own preconceived views (see the paragraph immediately preceding) that you might likely be blind to what is going on around you.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

 

[Kendy]

I had writen a rather scathing responce to Eric here, but on second thought, I will let other less involved person’s respond.

What is there to say?

Eric, please, keep in mind that greatest of all virtues is love. I am amazed by your reaction to what was a very instructive and uplifting article about this woman conversion, and her very needed advice on how we can reach out to people suffering from same sex attraction. I am always amazed by how Christians work to turn people away from the gospel.

Eric, please remember what St. Thomas said, “Lord, let not my love for truth lead me to forget the truth about love.”

 

[Kendy]

How did a good posting about a woman’s journey out of sin turn into this?

I just read that article a few days ago and decided to subscribe to the Register based on that reading.

Kendy

 

[Kendy]

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.

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

 

[Riley259]

This is another very good article.

Thanks for the link.