Gay lobby fighting reparative therapy at the expense of our youth

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catolico65
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Joie_de_Vivre said:
This is the site in question.

Now, math quiz, given the prevalence of LGB is 2% and the claim

solve for what percent of people were originally LGB if 2% is 1/50 of the original amount.

Note, 2% is actually an underestimate simply to make the math easy and the more accurate numbers (3-5%) just make the result even more hilarious.

Also make sure to count the number of studies cited either via in-text citation or at the bottom.
Click to expand...
LGB people actually make up 3.5% of the population (1.7% gay/lesbian, 1.8% bisexual), but “an estimated 19 million Americans (8.2%) report that they have engaged in same-sex sexual behavior and nearly 25.6 million Americans (11%) acknowledge at least some same-sex sexual attraction.”

williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Gates-How-Many-People-LGBT-Apr-2011.pdf

So there’s where the claim originates from (though from a different source using rather questionable methods of research and with a noticeable bias). Now, most of us know that many, many straight people experiment in high school and college, especially women, and this difference in #s doesn’t actually represent gay people becoming straight. But that is what the claim is referencing.

I agree, and I think anyone else in this thread would too, that most people who have ever engaged in same-sex physical activity or who have ever experienced attraction towards a member of the same sex are not gay. But obviously that does not even remotely reference an orientation shift.
 
Catolico65 said:
Quote by Frobert:
Click to expand...
The church does not teach that homosexuality is not inherent. The present CC position is neutral.

Source: Courage website:
How does a homosexual tendency originate? … The Catholic Church has no position on this matter. As Cardinal Ratzinger said in reference to the revised Catechism, “We have left room for all the hypotheses on the origin of homosexual tendency - whether it is innate or developed under certain circumstances.”

Nobody here has made disparaging remarks about people suffering from non biological SSA.
Click to expand...

C65 I believe Frobert needs a serious answer and you have not stepped up to the mark here.
My reading of the CCC well before Frobert found this quote from Card Ratzinger in no way matches your very forceful interpretation.

The above quote from CRatz has confirmed me in my original understanding of the CCC. In other words you are mistaken, at least as to what you are trying to get the CCC to say.

The CCC actually says: “Homosexuality’s psychological genesis remains largely unexplained.”
But you interpret this as “Homosexuality is psychological in origin.”
That is clearly quite a leap in meaning.

I suggest only someone with a strongly predetermined solution to this question could possibly see your interpretation as either the only interpretation or even the primary meaning of that CCC statement.

Obviously same sex attraction is a conscious pscyhological experience.
But where does that final conscious experience come from, what are its seeds?
That is what the CCC is asking…

Could it be from environment (no father)
Could it be learnt from childhood trauma (sexual abuse)
Could it be from the way the brain gets hardwired at birth or soon after due to excessive hormones?
Could it be genetically related?

And the CCC simply summarises/agrees with what all the “experts” themselves cannot agree on … we just don’t know.
Now some of the expert opinions re the origin of this psychological problem called homosexual attraction are biological ones. Some are learnt/environment ones.
So the CCC is saying that we do not know if this psychological condition is biological or not, upbringing or not, learning or not. Nothing is ruled in or out.

Now when I read Cardinal Ratzinger’s commentary above - this is exactly what he is saying. The Church is open to this question.

Yet somehow you want everybody here to believe that the CCC agrees with your very narrow view that NO homosexual attraction (a psychological condition) is biological in origin - it is always learnt/environmental (you confusingly also call this “psychological”) and therefore can be reversed.

For reasons few here can understand you believe a psychological condition must always be psychological in origin and you believe that this is what the CCC is saying 🤷.

It just isn’t convincing sorry, as Card Ratzinger’s quote proves.
Biology is not ruled out by the Church as one possible genesis of the homosexual condition.
[/QUOTE]
 
C65, I want to fair to you. After reading through the posts I learned that you have suffered through a molestation for which you have my deepest sympathy. Most of us can only imagine the trauma it caused you. That trauma, no doubt, is at the root of your SSA and over rides any other causes that may be present. From your experience you are correct when you say that gay youth would benefit form some form of therapy perhaps not to overcome their SSA but to adjust to it.

I am not against therapy and counseling but am against poorly conceived unethical methods and techniques. Before recommending this particular type of therapy.

Here is a statement on the ethics of reparitive therapy the American Counseling Association.

The ACA Ethics Committee considered many factors and derived a consensus opinion that addresses several sections of the ACA Code of Ethics and moral principles of practice present in such a scenario. We started with the basic goal of reparative/conversion therapy, which is to change an individual’s sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. Counselors who conduct this type of therapy view same-sex attractions and behaviors as abnormal and unnatural and, therefore, in need of “curing.” The belief that same-sex attraction and behavior is abnormal and in need of treatment is in opposition to the position taken by national mental health organizations, including ACA.

Before anyone brushes off such this and similar statements, think about it, all legitimate professional mental health association consider reparitive therapy a breach of moral and professional ethics. A professional mental health therapist can not be a member in good standing of their respective professional association, leaving either unethical or illegitimate practitioners to conduct reparitive therapy.
 
Cavaradossi said:
Hardly a reasoned rebuttal. In this thread, you’ve argued that pains in childbirth and sexual desire are characteristics natural to the prelapsarian state of man, opinions which are rather clearly opposed to the Fathers’ interpretation of Genesis. The teachings of the Fathers are far from being mere opinions which can be cast aside in favor of one’s own interpretation of scripture, as the consensus patrem reflects the perennial teaching of the Church. I can understand insisting that people with homosexual desires should live chastely, but to go further and insist, against all patristic teachings on anthropology, that sexual desire for the opposite sex (rather than celibacy and the extinguishing of sexual desire) is the prelapsarian ideal that those with homosexual desires should strive for is ridiculous.

Chastity is the calling for all (whether it be maintained in the context of marriage or of celibacy), and there is certainly nothing sinful or inferior about counseling those with homosexual desires to maintain their chastity through celibacy. For some, marriage may indeed be an option (especially if they already experience an attraction to the opposite sex). But for others it is far more prudent to encourage celibacy, which is an exalted and time-tested tradition of the Church. In the case of one who exhibits little or no sexual attraction to the opposite sex why should one ever resort to these modern “reparative therapies” which are neither exalted nor time-tested Christian traditions, when the Church already has at her disposal a solution which dates back to the very beginning of Christianity itself?
Click to expand...
Please don’t promote opinion as dogma. Thanks.
 
Joie_de_Vivre said:
This is the site in question.

Now, math quiz, given the prevalence of LGB is 2% and the claim

solve for what percent of people were originally LGB if 2% is 1/50 of the original amount.

Note, 2% is actually an underestimate simply to make the math easy and the more accurate numbers (3-5%) just make the result even more hilarious.

Also make sure to count the number of studies cited either via in-text citation or at the bottom.
Click to expand...
Your math is so flawed I don’t even see any point in trying to explain it to you.

For others that are truly interested read the report.
 
A_Augustinus said:
Catolico65, you’ve made this claim a few times in this thread, but I haven’t seen any link to the source of this information. I looked at the article linked in the OP, but I didn’t see it there (I could have missed it). That’s a pretty controversial statement to make without any corroborating evidence.
Click to expand...
I think it is uncharitable to make the above statement w/o reviewing the thread. Paz.
 
Joie_de_Vivre said:
Are you actually suggesting that promoting the teachings of Doctors of the Catholic Church is “promoting opinion” as dogma?
Click to expand...
With all due respect your bias regarding the topic permeates all your comments not to mention you don’t answer all the questions put to you so.
 
Catolico65 said:
Your math is so flawed I don’t even see any point in trying to explain it to you.

For others that are truly interested read the report.
Click to expand...
If my math is so flawed it should be so easy for you to prove it wrong.
 
Catolico65 said:
I think it is uncharitable to make the above statement w/o reviewing the thread. Paz.
Click to expand...
My apologies. I didn’t intend that as a personal attack. I’ve been monitoring this thread for a while before posting, and I believe I’ve read the vast majority of the posts. Somehow, I missed your post where you gave the link to this information. I just found it now. Thanks also to Joie de Vivre for re-linking it.

I would point out that although the site purports to offer a view of the scientific consensus, it contains no citations to the original peer-reviewed literature. I did a brief search for myself, and I couldn’t find a peer-reviewed study to corroborate the idea that 98% of homosexual teens will move toward heterosexuality. One article I found said that there have been relatively few studies on changes in sexual orientation over time.
 
Catolico65 said:
Please don’t promote opinion as dogma. Thanks.
Click to expand...
Once again, unanimous teachings of the Fathers ARE infallible. If the Fathers unanimously taught on this issue, it is infallible. I don’t know if that’s the case, but you should absolutely not be dismissing an argument about unanimous teaching of the Fathers of the Church by claiming their unanimous opinion isn’t binding.
 
Catolico65 said:
With all due respect the “survival” of homosexuality is not dependent on the gay lobby as it has been in existence for at least a few thousand years.

What you should recognize as a Catholic is that the gay lobby is evil, as Pope Francis noted. you do accept the words of our blessed Pope I hope. Paz.
Click to expand...
What I should do is to seek the radiance of God’s love.
 
A_Augustinus said:
My apologies. I didn’t intend that as a personal attack. I’ve been monitoring this thread for a while before posting, and I believe I’ve read the vast majority of the posts. Somehow, I missed your post where you gave the link to this information. I just found it now. Thanks also to Joie de Vivre for re-linking it.

I would point out that although the site purports to offer a view of the scientific consensus, it contains no citations to the original peer-reviewed literature. I did a brief search for myself, and I couldn’t find a peer-reviewed study to corroborate the idea that 98% of homosexual teens will move toward heterosexuality. One article I found said that there have been relatively few studies on changes in sexual orientation over time.
Click to expand...
With all due respect the references are there. Conspicuously others have said the references aren’t there and never have bothered to read the study. That is neither charitable to professional. For that reason I find it difficult to have a meaningful conversation with people regarding this topic because of their lack of experience reviewing research and their obvious bias, good grief.
 
SMGS127 said:
Once again, unanimous teachings of the Fathers ARE infallible. If the Fathers unanimously taught on this issue, it is infallible. I don’t know if that’s the case, but you should absolutely not be dismissing an argument about unanimous teaching of the Fathers of the Church by claiming their unanimous opinion isn’t binding.
Click to expand...
No they aren’t according to my research. This has been discussed on this forum previously. Look it up yourself.
 
frobert said:
What I should do is to seek the radiance of God’s love.
Click to expand...
Since you are Catholic I expect you know the answer.

Nonetheless, from my experience what can prevent one from feeling God’s love are our sins no matter how small and also things done to us that were outside our control.

In my own case I was sexually molested and bullied because I was small and supposedly gay which provoked a crisis later on in my life where I had SSA and was losing control of my mind. In my desperation I started repenting for anything and everything to Jesus Christ (and forgave others) to keep myself from going off the deep end into severe mental illness if not diabolical possession. After that I felt God’s love in spite of my sins. Forgiveness is good; I can’t live without it.
 
For those proposing there was no sex before the fall here is what Genesis 2 says:

That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two of them become one body.

The man and his wife were both naked, yet they felt no shame.* *
 
Catolico65 said:
For those proposing there was no sex before the fall here is what Genesis 2 says:

That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two of them become one body.

The man and his wife were both naked, yet they felt no shame.* *
Click to expand...
18 And the Lord God said: It is not good for man to be alone: let us make him a help like unto himself.
19 And the Lord God having formed out of the ground all the beasts of the earth, and all the fowls of the air, brought them to Adam to see what he would call them: for whatsoever Adam called any living creature the same is its name.
20 And Adam called all the beasts by their names, and all the fowls of the air, and all the cattle of the field: but for Adam there was not found a helper like himself.
21 Then the Lord God cast a deep sleep upon Adam: and when he was fast asleep, he took one of his ribs, and filled up flesh for it.
22 And the Lord God built the rib which he took from Adam into a woman: and brought her to Adam.
23 And Adam said: This now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man.
24 Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they shall be two in one flesh.
25 And they were both naked: to wit, Adam and his wife: and were not ashamed.
Click to expand...
God created woman so that man might not be alone, they are meant for each other and that is why they shall be two in one flesh
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top