Ex-Gay.

[constantseeker]

Apollos;6865404:

In fact, at the risk of saying too much, as I study Catholic social teaching, I dare say that a Catholic theocracy would have to be the most just

A Catholic theocracy sounds like a terrible idea. No religion should ever, under any circumstances, force its beliefs on any nation.

It goes against the biblical notion of free will.

 

[Apollos]

Any single sexual act, except rape, is a choice.

Sexual orientation, however, is not. I was not talking about an act, I was talking about the orientation.

Ex-gay ministries aim for changing orientations. That is what the discussion is about.

It’s quite possible to have sex with someone you’re not even remotely sexually attracted to.

It happens in marriages all the time.

So gay rights legislation is aimed at decriminalizing what gays want, rather than what they do? That’s an odd way to look at it.

 

[Apollos]

A Catholic theocracy sounds like a terrible idea. No religion should ever, under any circumstance, force its beliefs on a nation.

That’s relative. I’ve had antislavery, antipedophilia, antiracist, anti-drunk-driving, antidiscrimination, anti-leaf-burning, antimurder, antimarijuana and anti-aerosol-propellant values shoved down my throat by this regime since I was born. Maybe you just think that Catholicism is bad.

 

[constantseeker]

So gay rights legislation is aimed at decriminalizing what gays want, rather than what they do? That’s an odd way to look at it.

I wasn’t addressing gay rights in that post.

I was addressing the nature of sexual orientation in toto versus a single sex act.

Ex-gay ministries themselves are not a civil rights issue, as they are not mandatory.

 

[MariaTS]

That’s relative. I’ve had antislavery, antipedophilia, antiracist, anti-drunk-driving, antidiscrimination, anti-leaf-burning, antimurder, antimarijuana and anti-aerosol-propellant values shoved down my throat by this regime since I was born. Maybe you just think that Catholicism is bad.

You mean to say you support slavery, pedophilia, racism, drunk-driving, discrimination, murder, and marijuana? I won’t even ask about the leaf-burning, marijuana, and aerosol-propellants.

 

[Apollos]

You mean to say you support slavery, pedophilia, racism, drunk-driving, discrimination, murder, and marijuana? I won’t even ask about the leaf-burning, marijuana, and aerosol-propellants.

All those beliefs have been forced on me. *And also on you. *But I don’t hear you complaining about those restrictions on your personal freedom.

Personally I am opposed to slavery and pedophilia and so on. But who am I to impose my personal beliefs on other people?

 

[kenofken]

The sidetracks have gotten a bit absurd. The issues of leaf burning and slavery vs imposition of religious beliefs or theocracy. One set of behaiviors is not covered by the First Amendment. The practice of religion (or not) is. The theocracy issue is purely hypothetical, thankfully. We live in a plural democracy, so no one gets to impose their religion on somone else. If that were not the case, there would be no Catholics in this country. The protestants who established most of the colonies would have refused them entry or executed them outright.

Now, any religious group can attempt to advance their agenda through voting/lobbying like the rest of us, but that’s a moot issue for both theocracy and gay marriage. I would venture to say 99% of American Catholics have no interest in theocracy of any kind and a majority of them are supportive to varying degrees of gay marriage or at least civil unions. With the possible exception of abortion, Catholics and Christians generally have no unified agenda, and in any case, Christians will be a minority in this country by mid-century. Much sooner than that, within a decade or so, gay marriage will have enough support to pass.

It is also absurd to characterize the debate over gay marriage as one about sex. The supreme court has already ruled that “sodomy” between consenting adults is not the state’s business. Fighting gay marriage isn’t going to change that. “Ex-gay” ministry isn’t going to change that, and neither is fantasizing about a Catholic theocracy. Gay people aren’t going away, they’re not going to be “cured” and they’re not going to resign themselves to living like they did in 1960. The only real question in play is whether they will be allowed a modicum of dignity to carry out the 99% of daily life which doesn’t involves sex, like having hospital access to visit someone you’ve spent your whole adult life with.

As to the core topic of ex-gay “therapy”, I don’t know what else to say. It’s available, but then so are the third-world clinics which claim to cure cancer with secret herbal formulations and injections of colored water. Both are about on the same scientific footing.

If you’re Catholic and gay and want to live a celibate life, go for it. If your pattern of sexual behavior is driven by abuse or some other problem, go to a real psychologist, not these wing nuts. They may be able to manipulate gay people into unhappily leading outwardly hetero lives. They almost certainly put people into positions where their sex lives are more disordered and secretive than ever before, as is true with most leaders of the movement. There is no evidence that they ever took someone who was truly homosexual and “re-oriented” them.

 

[manualman]

What’s this nonsense about living in a nation where no-one is coerced into a morality they don’t personally hold to?

ALL, and I mean ALL laws are abotu morality. From murder to speed limits to taxes, ALL laws are an imposition of moral standards on the populace.

In this country, we are living a farce of pretending that the values established in the Constitution and subsequent amendments developed from thin air. The reality is that those concepts came from centuries of experience applying the principles of christianity in general and catholicism in particular (for most of those centuries).

The bold (and foolish) experiment our culture has embarked upon now is one in which we have identified certain specific moral principles we like, severed the connection to the roots that brought these moral principles to being in the first place and somehow expect that we will be able to maintain the plant without the roots.

No thanks.

 

[Aggiornamento]

Because heterosexuality is normal healty human behaviour and response whereas homosexuality may well be rooted in psychological regression and fear of the female leading to the barren narcissistic phallic worship known as gayness.

Homosexuality was taken out of the psychological disorder handbook long ago.

 

[Aggiornamento]

:thumbsup:Awesome and “to-the-point” response.

Thanks! I think it is important that we show that what Catholics believe about homosexuality differs greatly from conservative fundamentalism.

 

[manualman]

Homosexuality was taken out of the psychological disorder handbook long ago.

By the American Psychology Association.

There is a VERYshort list of infallible authorities. I checked and they aren’t on the list.

As I recall, that removal relied on the opinions of people at a time when Kinsey’s work was still considered respectable. Today, he’s been revealed to be a psychopath. It’s entirely plausible that the current APA position is immobile due to politics, not solid science.

I personally am unable to reconcile how an act can be inherently morally disordered but the inclination towards it can be considered psychologically healthy. Seems to me that either the Church is wrong or the APA is. Choose your bet wisely.

 

[kenofken]

By the American Psychology Association.

… It’s entirely plausible that the current APA position is immobile due to politics, not solid science.

.

It’s certainly possible that the APA’s position rests more on ideology than sound science. On the other hand, it’s 100% certain that’s the case with the church’s position.

 

[Dale_M]

Allow two men to marry or two women to marry and you won’t have a problem with sex outside of marriage.

Erm…no, that isn’t true. Its well-known that some heterosexuals play around outside of marriage, much to the upset of their spouse. This is the basis of much divorce.

And, from what I have seen posted online by aggrieved spouses, it occurs among legally married gays and lesbians, too. A marriage license doesn’t immunize people from temptation.

So if those institutions are not good, how can a homosexual change himself?

Is it necessary for a homosexual to change? The Catholic Church doesn’t teach that. Granted, the Church considers homosexual activity to be sinful, so if a gay man or woman wanted to have sex with anyone, they would need to choose someone of the opposite sex. But I am not sure that cost, psychologically as well as economically, of “conversion therapy” is worth it to simply have sex with someone, anyone.

 

[BobObob]

ALL, and I mean ALL laws are abotu morality. From murder to speed limits to taxes, ALL laws are an imposition of moral standards on the populace.

That’s not necessarily true. Laws, like laws against murder, other violent crimes, and property crimes, may be made to preserve liberty, which is what the founding fathers of America mostly believed was the purpose of government (read the Declaration of Independence).

In this country, we are living a farce of pretending that the values established in the Constitution and subsequent amendments developed from thin air. The reality is that those concepts came from centuries of experience applying the principles of christianity in general and catholicism in particular (for most of those centuries).

The values in the Constitution were values of liberty and separation of church and state. These values developed over time and were held by both religious and non-religious men.

 

[Aggiornamento]

By the American Psychology Association.

There is a VERYshort list of infallible authorities. I checked and they aren’t on the list.

As I recall, that removal relied on the opinions of people at a time when Kinsey’s work was still considered respectable. Today, he’s been revealed to be a psychopath. It’s entirely plausible that the current APA position is immobile due to politics, not solid science.

I personally am unable to reconcile how an act can be inherently morally disordered but the inclination towards it can be considered psychologically healthy. Seems to me that either the Church is wrong or the APA is. Choose your bet wisely.

I will trust the APA over those without any psychological background when it comes to psychology.

You are trying to make this Church vs APA, when the reality is that the church says there is no problem with having a homosexual orientation. There is no “bet” to choose.

 

[UnityofTrinity]

I think unlike the Protestant churches that emphasize its social concerns on gay marriage or creation vs evolution. The Catholic Church often emphasize its social concern on abortion.

 

[Aboveallbereal]

You mean to say you support slavery, pedophilia, racism, drunk-driving, discrimination, murder, and marijuana? I won’t even ask about the leaf-burning, marijuana, and aerosol-propellants.

Maria he could just as easily enquire of you what it is about charity, justice, mercy, lack of covetousness and the notion that murder and theft are wrong that you find offensive.

You will find things in catholicism you dislike and object. I personally find funding abortion through my taxes for example utterly revolting but i live in a a liberal humanist power hierarchy and realise that if I carry my objection too far I will be fined or imprisoned.

Every worldview imposes on those who disagree to an extent. You simply don’t see this because in all likelihood you are a paid up liberal humanist who supposes its values to be universal and self evidently right…they are neither.

 

[Aboveallbereal]

Allow two men to marry or two women to marry and you won’t have a problem with sex outside of marriage.

Maria please come back and edit this post or better still remove it altogether so that we can assume you have some vague grip on reality.

 

[MariaTS]

Maria he could just as easily enquire of you what it is about charity, justice, mercy, lack of covetousness and the notion that murder and theft are wrong that you find offensive.

You will find things in catholicism you dislike and object. I personally find funding abortion through my taxes for example utterly revolting but i live in a a liberal humanist power hierarchy and realise that if I carry my objection too far I will be fined or imprisoned.

Every worldview imposes on those who disagree to an extent. You simply don’t see this because in all likelihood you are a paid up liberal humanist who supposes its values to be universal and self evidently right…they are neither.

I don’t find charity, justice, mercy, lack of covetousness, objection to murder, or objection to theft to be offensive. Pkease do not lie. Also, I am a humanist but I am not a liberal, don’t make assumptions.

 

[manualman]

That’s not necessarily true. Laws, like laws against murder, other violent crimes, and property crimes, may be made to preserve liberty, which is what the founding fathers of America mostly believed was the purpose of government (read the Declaration of Independence).

The values in the Constitution were values of liberty and separation of church and state. These values developed over time and were held by both religious and non-religious men.

You are just making a smokescreen. What is Liberty? Why should all men have that right? It is a moral statement to say that all men deserve Liberty? Of course it is! The very concept of individual liberty grows out of the concept of individual human diginity bestowed on us by our Creator. It’s no coincidence that this form of government formed in Christendom rather than in Hindu cultures, Muslim cultures or Pagan cultures.

And the Constitution nowhere contains the concept of “separation of church and state” (Read it yourself, as you say.) What the Constitution contains is a prohibition against the government interfering with Church affairs. It was never meant to be a two way wall. That idea is a house of cards built on some private writings of Thomas Jefferson never voted on by the rest of the Founders or expressed in any amendment or legislation. It is a judicial creation that forms part of the modern judicial power-grab/abuse.