Gay marriage... how we ended up where we are

[Galnextdoor]

Why do you trust these tests devised by psychiatrists and psychologists to test for Autism but you don’t trust their opinion that homosexuality does not meet the criteria for being a mental illness?

It’s easy. I can see atypical behavior, a child not hitting the proper developmental benchmarks, and delayed speech. After other physical causes are ruled out, they perform these tests and a checklist of criteria. They can determine over and over again that the child has autism.

I think that the adult homosexual male exhibits atypical behavior and has issues with the opposite sex. They used to have a criteria for backgrounds that often produced homosexual men. Obviously, gays have mental issues, but these issues will never be treated, because now it is supposed to be normal.

Please watch a gay pride parade like the ones they have in Oregon and tell me the participants are normal, well-adjusted men.

 

[SuperLuigi]

At this point, it is up to the millennial generation to resist the onslaught of evil.

“If this moral degeneration is ever to meet its end, warriors for truth must work toward that goal. The young Catholics of the millennial generation to which I belong may be our best hope. We have watched parents divorce and held friends mourning their aborted children. We know how empty the world’s promises are because many of us at one point were deceived by them. Despite claims to the contrary, many young people are drawn to the Catholic Church because her teachings are true.”

Source

To quote a Romulan from Star Trek:

“What have we come to”.

 

[SuperLuigi]

I volunteer in a Catholic food pantry. Everyone who volunteers there is Catholic. I am the only person who says that gay marriage is wrong. The other volunteers feel sorry for gays and feel that gay marriage is harmless.

I was shocked.

How has it come about that misguided Catholics can see nothing wrong with gay marriage?

Throughout history, homosexuality was a mental illness. Just like psychopathy is a mental illness. Psychopaths are born the way they are. psychologytoday.com/blog/wicked-deeds/201401/how-tell-sociopath-psychopath
They can’t help the way they are, they’re born that way.

The first step was to remove the stigma of mental illness from the deviant behavior. Sigmund Frued was the first “scientific person” to claim that everyone was bi-sexual before they settled on whatever sex they were going to be attracted to. This was supposedly normal. (Most of what Sigmund Frued has come up with in psycho-analysis and psychology has been debunked and is laughed at by modern psychologists.) Alfred Kinsey, a Zoologist, along with some other zoologists then did a “study” that said that 10% of all men and 2-6% of all women were gay so this was not as unusual as people thought. The inference was that if the frequency of those who were gay went up then this was not abnormal and perhaps just another way to live. This study is supposed to be more creditable because it was completed by people who were not psychiatrists or psychologists. (Since when is a study more creditable, because the people had no background in the field they were studying.)

The information from the study and Sigmund Frued were then used by a large number gay lobbyists who attended a psychology/psychiactric conference where decisions were being made about what should be included or removed by the DSM. Due to the large number of gays in attendance, something that had never happened before, those making the decision s about what should be included in the Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental illness were convinced that social norms were changing. (This was in 1973. The height of the Sexual Revolution.) They decided that homosexuality as mental illness was probably just a sexual repression, left over from the days when monogamy, no sex before marriage, and marital fidelity were encouraged. It was then removed from the DSM.

The gay lobbyists were disappointed because even though it was no longer technically considered a mental illness, Americans still called a spade a spade. So they got together and brainstormed, coming up with ways to convince the American people that homosexuality was okay.

A political strategist came up with three methods:

1. Desensitization- You encourage public displays of affection between gay men who were dressed like everyone else. Announcing to everyone that you are gay and show them what a nice person you are. This way people will become accustomed to being around gay people and will tell other people that gays are nice people.
2. Jamming- You run ads and get media stories about the most obnoxious in your face anti-gay people you can find. You get as many pictures and videos of these people bashing gays and use them to run ads. You equate anyone not having a pro gay attitude to being racist. You equate gay rights [whatever you want these rights to be] with Civil Rights. The Baby Boomers who went through the Civil Rights movement will not want to be considered bigots or racist. They will begin to feel that their religious beliefs are persecuting others. The more you can show others who are pro-gay, the more people who think there is something wrong with being gay will feel like they are a minority. Nobody wants to feel like they are a minority.
3. Conversion-- You want to gain their sympathies. You want to portray gays as cool regular guys who think and do the same things as everyone else. The only thing is that they have this private thing that they are being picked on for. Everybody wants to root for the underdog.
   massresistance.org/docs/issues/gay_strategies/after_the_ball.html

The other thing discussed was that religions were against homosexuality. (This was discussed at the conference where homosexuality was removed from the DSM)
Christians had to be made to feel like they were being unchristian and not loving one another like Christ told them to if they were against gay activities.

Basically, the American people have been the victims of a mass manipulation campaign and they have fallen for it.

All of this is probably true, however, I would like add a couple of things.

1. The entitlement mentality. So-called gay “marrage” is not about equality, it’s about government entitlements. Without things like farm subsidies and section 8, it’s not likely so-called gay “marriage” would have resulted—not so soon anyways. If you get a subsidy from the government, you are more likely to vote for politicians who give out that subsidy. But then other people want something, so that same politician promises them that, but even if you disagree with that subsidy and like your own, you’ll still for that same guy.

That’s why progressive politicians have been able to push on and on and on with their agenda.

1. It’s simply easier to support so-called gay “marriage”, just as it was easier to support contraception and living together without marriage. Family members and friends are quite guilty of this in many cases—just let it go cause it’s easier.
2. People being “surprised”. I really wish I had a dollar every time a Catholic thought it was a good idea to be a big government bed fellow and then is just utterly shocked when that beast turns on them and undermines the Catholic Faith. In terms of sexual morality, we’ve seen it now with the American presidential Administration forcing nuns to buy contraception for other people.

 

[SuperLuigi]

**Galnextdoor **

Well , based on your first post in this topic your license should be immediately revoked. Especially considering your anti-scientific and anti-psychology views. You are a danger to children.

edwest

I repeat my questions.

Does you daughter know you consider her a mentally ill person? Does you daughter know you want to reinstate criminal law against homosexual people? Does your daughter know you would want to remove her child(when she has one) from her and her partner because a family of two “sodomites” is a no place for a child to grow up? I’m just curious considering how brave you are here on this forum in your fierce opposition to the universal declaration of human rights , science, psychology and nature itself.

Now, if he were a Muslim, would these questions be asked, or would the conversation be “it’s okay because culture.”? :ehh:

PS—Science, well, the uncorrupted kind, supports natural law, which is a fundamental basis for Catholicism.

 

[edwest2]

All of this is probably true, however, I would like add a couple of things.

1. The entitlement mentality. So-called gay “marrage” is not about equality, it’s about government entitlements. Without things like farm subsidies and section 8, it’s not likely so-called gay “marriage” would have resulted—not so soon anyways. If you get a subsidy from the government, you are more likely to vote for politicians who give out that subsidy. But then other people want something, so that same politician promises them that, but even if you disagree with that subsidy and like your own, you’ll still for that same guy.

That’s why progressive politicians have been able to push on and on and on with their agenda.

1. It’s simply easier to support so-called gay “marriage”, just as it was easier to support contraception and living together without marriage. Family members and friends are quite guilty of this in many cases—just let it go cause it’s easier.
2. People being “surprised”. I really wish I had a dollar every time a Catholic thought it was a good idea to be a big government bed fellow and then is just utterly shocked when that beast turns on them and undermines the Catholic Faith. In terms of sexual morality, we’ve seen it now with the American presidential Administration forcing nuns to buy contraception for other people.

This didn’t start yesterday or happen overnight. I lived through 40 years of the media gradually poisoning the Body of Christ. Our trust was abused. By liars.

Progressive? Progress towards what? Legalizing immorality? I remembers the Hippies who didn’t care about marriage and lived with their girlfriends because they were lied to by a bunch of total strangers. “We got freedom, man!” No, you got slavery to the flesh!!! Some idiot/pervert walked up to you and said, “You know you want to have sex with your girlfriend.” Before that, in the late 1960s, it was: “All you Catholics do is listen to the Pope.” Which more of us were doing. “Why don’t you think for yourselves?” Translation: Why don’t you live exactly like we do because the way you live makes us question the way we live and that makes us uncomfortable. Yeah? The Truth usually does that. But when your group or the in-crowd or the Hipsters are telling you, “Hey man. Ignore the squares. Ignore those uptight people. Do what you want.” You’ve got a negative support group.

Yeah. Doing MY WILL instead of God’s will. That was their preaching. “Drop acid” (use LSD - a dangerous hallucinogen), “expand your mind” (experience hallucinations), and “Catholics think sex is dirty.” No. We dated. Had relationships. Picked a good, compatible partner and had children. It was NOT perfect but it was 100% better than what we have today.

The consensus among practicing Catholics is - THIS -TODAY is NOT better. It is NOT freedom. It NOT Progressive, because promoting evil is promoting evil.

Ed

 

[Thorolfr]

I think that the adult homosexual male exhibits atypical behavior and has issues with the opposite sex. They used to have a criteria for backgrounds that often produced homosexual men. Obviously, gays have mental issues, but these issues will never be treated, because now it is supposed to be normal.

It’s true that gay men have one specific issue with the opposite sex: they’re not sexually attracted to them. Otherwise, most gay men I know don’t really have any problem with the opposite sex. As for the backgrounds that supposedly produce gay men, this is mostly a bunch of baloney. I’ve read all the theories about gay men having distant fathers and overbearing mothers, but these theories have not held up and have mostly been discredited since there are lots of gay men who come from perfectly normal families with great parents. Also, even the Catholic Church has never stated that homosexuality is a mental illness. You can keep believing that it is if you want, but it’s not.

 

[edwest2]

It’s true that gay men have one specific issue with the opposite sex: they’re not sexually attracted to them. Otherwise, most gay men I know don’t really have any problem with the opposite sex. As for the backgrounds that supposedly produce gay men, this is mostly a bunch of baloney. I’ve read all the theories about gay men having distant fathers and overbearing mothers, but these theories have not held up and have mostly been discredited since there are lots of gay men who come from perfectly normal families with great parents. Also, even the Catholic Church has never stated that homosexuality is a mental illness. You can keep believing that it is if you want, but it’s not.

I invite you to read Church teaching on this.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

Ed

 

[Thorolfr]

I invite you to read Church teaching on this.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

I’ve read this before and don’t mind reading it again. But what exactly does this have to do with my comment since I didn’t even mention anything about the issue of legal unions between homosexual persons? This document does not claim that homosexuality is a mental illness nor does it say anything about the etiology (cause) of homosexuality.

 

[Rau]

Why do you trust these tests devised by psychiatrists and psychologists to test for Autism but you don’t trust their opinion that homosexuality does not meet the criteria for being a mental illness?

I must admit that I don’t have a very high opinion of psychiatry or psychology since most of what is in the DSM describes symptoms but has no sound scientific explanations for what causes most of these conditions. They just know what pills to give people to counteract the symptoms…

If you review the relevant criteria, it becomes apparent why SSA does not meet them. Pedophilia does meet the criteria, because:

• the condition is a clear and present danger to another person (child);
• the condition may cause the ‘sufferer’ distress.

Note that neither of these factors go to the issue of whether there is actually a biological or behavioural “aberration” present - they just rely on consideration of the consequences of the condition - and thus whether or not it “demands” recognition as aberrant.

This is not entirely surprising when you consider that the real causes of conditions found in the DSM, and others such as SSA, are not understood. Notwithstanding that, we can plainly recognise that those conditions are aberrant.

If one accepts that a condition (albeit aberrant):

• does not present a clear and present danger to a person;
• does not cause the one who experiences it “distress”;
• lacks effective treatment;

then it is reasonable to question what purpose is served by listing it in the DSM. The condition ought remain a matter for research, rather than inclusion in a diagnostic manual.

 

[Rau]

…Also, even the Catholic Church has never stated that homosexuality is a mental illness. You can keep believing that it is if you want, but it’s not.

Given the Etiology is not known, why do you shut off the possibility? Or are you equating “not a mental illness” with “not in the DSM” [which is fine as a matter of “definition”].

 

[edwest2]

If you review the relevant criteria, it becomes apparent why SSA does not meet them. Pedophilia does meet the criteria, because:

• the condition is a clear and present danger to another person (child);
• the condition may cause the ‘sufferer’ distress.

Note that neither of these factors go to the issue of whether there is actually a biological or behavioural “aberration” present - they just rely on consideration of the consequences of the condition - and thus whether or not it “demands” recognition as aberrant.

This is not entirely surprising when you consider that the real causes of conditions found in the DSM, and others such as SSA, are not understood. Notwithstanding that, we can plainly recognise that those conditions are aberrant.

If one accepts that a condition (albeit aberrant):

• does not present a clear and present danger to a person;
• does not cause the one who experiences it “distress”;
• lacks effective treatment;

then it is reasonable to question what purpose is served by listing it in the DSM. The condition ought remain a matter for research, rather than inclusion in a diagnostic manual.

That begs the question: Why gay “marriage”? Why enshrine gay sex into law as “marriage”? Why? What experts testified one way or the other? Evidence. What is your evidence? Making Gay OK is an agenda about a way of living. Before - it was nobody’s business. What changed? The Supreme Court. They’re not medical professionals. So, again – what is your evidence? Because if you have none or it it’s unclear then what case do you have?

Self-control is effective, gay, straight or LGBT. The biggest lie being told is no one can control themselves.

Ed
A lot of media propaganda proves nothing.

 

[Rau]

That begs the question: Why gay “marriage”? Why enshrine gay sex into law as “marriage”? Why? What experts testified one way or the other? Evidence. What is your evidence? Making Gay OK is an agenda about a way of living. Before - it was nobody’s business. What changed? The Supreme Court. They’re not medical professionals. So, again – what is your evidence? Because if you have none or it it’s unclear then what case do you have?

I assume your questions are rhetorical (directed to the advocates of gay marriage), rather than being addressed to me? [And: “Evidence” for what? ]

But nevertheless, if I could hazard a guess to the “why SSM” question, I would have thought that the proponents of gay marriage:

• concur with the view that SSA does not belong in the DSM; and
• further, they reject the idea that SSA is in fact aberrant (which, in my view, ignores the reality of their own bodies)

and thus:

• they feel validated in pursuing the ultimate acceptance that they believe SSM represents.

 

[Thorolfr]

Given the Etiology is not known, why do you shut off the possibility? Or are you equating “not a mental illness” with “not in the DSM” [which is fine as a matter of “definition”].

Because I don’t think that the etiology matters. The commonly accepted definition of a mental disorder or mental illness is a “mental or behavioral pattern that causes either suffering or a poor ability to function in ordinary life.” Neither one applies to well adjusted gay people and it is precisely because of this that homosexuality was removed from the DSM, not because the etiology has not yet been discovered (as it hasn’t been discovered yet for most conditions classified as mental illnesses in the DSM).

Claiming, however, that someone is mentally ill is certainly a convenient technique for disparaging others and that is how Galnextdoor, for example, seems to me to be using this claim. This is completely contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church which says that homosexual persons “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.” And yet there is nothing respectful, compassionate or sensitive about having a conversation in a forum like this, especially one in which a person or persons with same-sex attraction might be taking part, and claiming that such persons are mentally ill.

 

[Rau]

Because I don’t think that the etiology matters. The commonly accepted definition of a mental disorder or mental illness is a “mental or behavioral pattern that causes either suffering or a poor ability to function in ordinary life.” Neither one applies to well adjusted gay people and it is precisely because of this that homosexuality was removed from the DSM, not because the etiology has not yet been discovered (as it hasn’t been discovered yet for most conditions classified as mental illnesses in the DSM).

Claiming, however, that someone is mentally ill is certainly a convenient technique for disparaging others and that is how Galnextdoor, for example, seems to me to be using this claim. This is completely contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church which says that homosexual persons “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.” And yet there is nothing respectful, compassionate or sensitive about having a conversation in a forum like this, especially one in which a person or persons with same-sex attraction might be taking part, and claiming that such persons are mentally ill.

I don’t have an issue with that perspective. I only take issue with those who assert that a person experiencing SSA differs from one who doesn’t in the same way as man differs from woman or blue eyes from brown. And then they reference the DSM to “prove” the case. This both denies reality and misrepresents the status of the DSM.

 

[Sarah_B_Good]

I don’t have an issue with that perspective. I only take issue with those who assert that a person experiencing SSA differs from one who doesn’t in the same way as man differs from woman or blue eyes from brown. And then they reference the DSM to “prove” the case. This both denies reality and misrepresents the status of the DSM.

So what you are saying is that there is no such thing as a homosexual orientation, that this “SSA” you refer to bears no resemblance to the way in which men and women are attracted to each other?

What proof do you have for that claim? That is the default position all should accept unless/until proven otherwise with say an epigenetic explanation?

Sometimes I think Catholics are like doctors who try to diagnose a patient from their chart, refusing to meet with a patient one on one and actually listening to them. You can’t listen to patients right? They tell you they are eating healthy, but the blood test shows high cholesterol. Obviously they are lying, right?

That is certainly how the Catholic Church treats gay people. We don’t listen to them unless they tell us exactly what we want to hear. Then we heap praise upon them. if they don’t tell us what we want to hear, they are lying and simply trying to legitimize their sinful behavior. Forget about their experiences. Who cares if they find happiness and fulfillment in their relationships. It can’t possibly be the same because the chart says so.

 

[Rau]

So what you are saying is that there is no such thing as a homosexual orientation, that this “SSA” you refer to bears no resemblance to the way in which men and women are attracted to each other?

No, I’m not saying that. I’m saying that by all the evidence there is a condition (specific cause and factors which give rise to it are unknown) and it manifests in SSA (eg. men being attracted to other men, sexually). That such desires are in contradiction to the body, confirms this condition is not part of the ‘normal’ variation we expect in persons, just as many other conditions are not “normal” variations. [Eg. It is not “normal” to grow up autistic, or sterile, etc.] Something is plainly amiss, be that biologically and/or psychologically.

The remainder of your post proceeds from a mistaken premise, so I want respond to it.

 

[1990Domer]

And of course it’s not only LGBT activists who lobby the APA for changes. You should check out all the slick lobbyists from big pharmaceutical companies who wine and dine psychiatrists at their annual convention or pay them to tout the newest wonder drug to get their colleagues to prescribe it even though it’s no better than the old wonder drug which has gone generic but is a lot more expensive.

I work in pharma/biotech and sales people (lobbyists) hardly have access to doctors anymore. It’s the insurance companies who run the show with their formularies. You are about 20 or more years behind the current trend. Poor example. Try again.

 

[Thorolfr]

I work in pharma/biotech and sales people (lobbyists) hardly have access to doctors anymore. It’s the insurance companies who run the show with their formularies. You are about 20 or more years behind the current trend. Poor example. Try again.

So you say that drug companies don’t have access to doctors any more? What about this article from Scientific American from last year with the title, “How Much Are Drug Companies Paying Your Doctor?”:

On Tuesday, the federal government is expected to release details of payments to doctors by every pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturer in the country.

The information is being made public under a provision of the 2010 Affordable Care Act. The law mandates disclosure of payments to doctors, dentists, chiropractors, podiatrists and optometrists for things like promotional speaking, consulting, meals, educational items and research.

Excluding research payments, the drugmaker Pfizer appeared to have interactions with the most health care professionals last year 2014 about 142,600. AstraZeneca came in second with about 111,200. Johnson & Johnson and Forest Labs each had nearly 100,000. There are an estimated 800,000 to 900,000 active doctors in the United States.

“Most physicians that are in private practice are touched in some way” by the industry, said George Dunston, co-founder of Obsidian HDS, the creator of Pharmashine. “You add that up and it’s a pretty significant number.”

scientificamerican.com/article/how-much-are-drug-companies-paying-your-doctor/

Only a few years ago I went to a free dinner at a nice restaurant paid for by a drug company and my own doctor’s office has all sorts of promotional materials around from drug companies (pens, posters, writing pads, etc.) and my own doctor has sometimes given me free drug samples that he got from drug companies…

 

[1990Domer]

So you say that drug companies don’t have access to doctors any more? What about this article from Scientific American from last year with the title, “How Much Are Drug Companies Paying Your Doctor?”:

scientificamerican.com/article/how-much-are-drug-companies-paying-your-doctor/

Only a few years ago I went to a free dinner at a nice restaurant paid for by a drug company and my own doctor’s office has all sorts of promotional materials around from drug companies (pens, posters, writing pads, etc.) and my own doctor has sometimes given me free drug samples that he got from drug companies…

Free drug samples are a good thing. However, the days of flying docs to nice dinner is mostly gone. If you don’t believe me, read a site called Cafe Pharma and you will see how difficult it is for reps to even talk to doctors.

A lot has changed in the few years you talk about. Samples often help lower income people try a drug before getting an Rx filled. That is not a bad thing. And you are speaking from a narrow experience. Perhaps sampling a wider number of doctor offices would be far more accurate.

 

[Galnextdoor]

It’s true that gay men have one specific issue with the opposite sex: they’re not sexually attracted to them. Otherwise, most gay men I know don’t really have any problem with the opposite sex. As for the backgrounds that supposedly produce gay men, this is mostly a bunch of baloney. I’ve read all the theories about gay men having distant fathers and overbearing mothers, but these theories have not held up and have mostly been discredited since there are lots of gay men who come from perfectly normal families with great parents. Also, even the Catholic Church has never stated that homosexuality is a mental illness. You can keep believing that it is if you want, but it’s not.

The Catholic Church says “Homosexual acts are treated as acts of grave depravity. Homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. They are contrary to natural law.” NCC 2357

Gay men have atypical, abnormal behavior where it comes to women.
Gay men have atypical, abnormal sexual behavior.
Gay men have atypical, abnormal behavior in how they relate to other men.
Gay men are not typically well-adjusted, happy people.

In order for you to rationalize your unnatural desires, I realize that you have to pretend that these truths do not exist. We all have our crosses to bear. We are more likely to find peace if we face up to these crosses and bear them bravely, rather than look for ways to dump them or give in to them.

I am going through a divorce. I left my husband because he thought that marriage gave him the right to beat me. There are times when I look at a handsome, friendly guy and think “Man, I would like to go out with him.” I don’t encourage him, because I know that it is wrong. When I look at look at him that way, I am thinking of myself and my selfish wants. I am not looking at him as a child of God. Dating him would bring about false hope and empty promises, along with desires that could not be fully realized in the eyes of God.
This is a cross that I struggle with. I don’t try to change the church because I have this problem.** I don’t say**, "The guy I am married to does not support me, he has choked and beaten me, he has taken me off all his benefits, so I deserve to have the right to marry someone else who will support me. I should have the right to have a relationship with another man. If anyone doesn’t agree with me, they are being hateful."What I do say is, “This is a cross that God has allowed to settle on my shoulders and has asked me to bear. Lord, help me carry it cheerfully.”

Believe me. I really struggle to bear it cheerfully sometimes.