Gay Marriage: The Death Knell of Christiany

[R_H_Benson]

Not even the Church views SSA as a disorder.

Yes the Church does consider SSA to be a disorder.

Conversion therapy is a fraud, and this has nothing to do with abortion.

Whether it is a “fraud” or not is not the point. The point is twofold: 1.) Parents have a right to seek that which they deem best for their own child, not the state 2.) People like you feign to have an interest in protecting minors, but are perfectly OK with their systematic murder through abortion, rendering your opinions on the matter entirely hollow and insincere.

You do not own your child, and that child has inalienable rights, one of them being not to b psychologically abused by quacks.

God alone has ownership of the child, and God has placed the child’s parents above the state, as the primary earthly authority over him or her. It is the parent’s decision - not the state’s - to decide what medical and psychological treatments their children will receive.

 

[niceatheist]

niceatheist:

You do not own your child, and that child has inalienable rights, one of them being not to b psychologically abused by quacks.

So would you also agree that parents should not engage in seeking them to find alternate genders, or explore homosexuality?

I’m certainly very uneasy about the former when it comes to minors, but what exactly are you going to do if your fifteen your older daughter says they’re a boy? Put a gun to their head and put them in a dress?

As for the latter, again, when you figure out how to stop teenagers having sex, you let me know. It certainly kept me awake at night when my children were growing up.

 

[niceatheist]

niceatheist:

Not even the Church views SSA as a disorder.

Yes the Church does consider SSA to be a disorder.

Conversion therapy is a fraud, and this has nothing to do with abortion.

Whether it is a “fraud” or not is not the point. The point is twofold: 1.) Parents have a right to seek that which they deem best for their own child, not the state 2.) People like you feign to have an interest in protecting minors, but are perfectly OK with their systematic murder through abortion, rendering your opinions on the matter entirely hollow and insincere.

Bringing up abortion is just a red herring. You cannot believe you can win every debate by screaming “Abortion!” do you?

And no, parents have no absolute right of any kind of their children. Children are not chattel, they are not property, and they have certain inalieable rights which not even a parent has the authority to abrogate. Conversion therapy is child abuse, pure and simple, and any adult who attempts to put a child through it should face legal ramifications for their actions.

You do not own your child, and that child has inalienable rights, one of them being not to b psychologically abused by quacks.

God alone has ownership of the child, and God has placed the child’s parents above the state, as the primary earthly authority over him or her. It is the parent’s decision - not the state’s - to decide what medical and psychological treatments their children will receive.

Sorry, don’t buy it. The state cannot recognize God’s “ownership” of a child, and it certainly does not recognize anyone’s ownership over another human being. Believe me, I grew up as a JW, and heard all the horrible stories about the evil doctors and courts that forced blood transfusions on children, despite the parents’ wishes, and thank goodness too.

 

[pnewton]

Sorry, don’t buy it. The state cannot recognize God’s “ownership” of a child, and it certainly does not recognize anyone’s ownership over another human being. Believe me, I grew up as a JW, and heard all the horrible stories about the evil doctors and courts that forced blood transfusions on children, despite the parents’ wishes, and thank goodness too.

And Hitler Youth? I mean, if you are going to bring extreme examples, let us put both sides out there, especially since it seems what a parent can or cannot do depends on whether it is something that traditional religion teaches or something that is taught by a progressive society (I am trying to find a synonym for gay agenda).

I know parents can run the gamut, and we do have to draw the line somewhere, but the idea the government can raise children better that parents is not something I can swallow. No set of rules, much less that drawn up by lawyers and politicians to cover every child, can be more effective than parental judgment.

 

[niceatheist]

niceatheist:

Sorry, don’t buy it. The state cannot recognize God’s “ownership” of a child, and it certainly does not recognize anyone’s ownership over another human being. Believe me, I grew up as a JW, and heard all the horrible stories about the evil doctors and courts that forced blood transfusions on children, despite the parents’ wishes, and thank goodness too.

And Hitler Youth? I mean, if you are going to bring extreme examples, let us put both sides out there, especially since it seems what a parent can or cannot do depends on whether it is something that traditional religion teaches or something that is taught by a progressive society (I am trying to find a synonym for gay agenda).

I can’t even sort out what the reference to the Hitler Youth even means? The fact is that in most jurisdictions, particularly in the West, a parent has no right to subject their child to psychological abuse. Conversion therapy is psychological abuse, and I could care less whether some more traditionalist true believers think otherwise. They have absolutely no right to abuse their children, no matter how deluded they may be in believing that conversion therapy actually works.

 

[JustLamb]

I would say ‘Yes’

With 49% of 18-24s describing themselves as not 100% heterosexual, no amount of conversion therapy is going to work.

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/08/16/half-young-not-heterosexual/

There are examples of Protestant churches which have accepted LGBT marriage and are thriving. There is no reason why the Catholic Church can’t do the same. It’s a matter of Pride.

 

[pnewton]

Conversion therapy is psychological abuse, and I could care less whether some more traditionalist true believers think otherwise. They have absolutely no right to abuse their children, no matter how deluded they may be in believing that conversion therapy actually wor

I won’t argue with this, but only question how broad this might be. I say that, because wiki presented this idea: “The American Psychiatric Association opposes psychiatric treatment “based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the a priori assumption that a patient should change his/her sexual homosexual orientation”[8] and describes attempts to change sexual orientation by practitioners as unethical.”

So is it the things done in the name of conversion therapy you oppose, or is it the idea that one is trying to reduce or eliminate same self attraction?

 

[whyeyeman]

I disagree. Gay marriage is simply a consequence of a wider problem, namely, the sexual revolution of the 1960s.

 

[frobert]

niceatheist:

The jurisdictions that are banning this quackery are banning it for minors.

Like most Liberal nanny-state advocates, you don’t seem to recognize the hypocrisy of your statement.

Are you saying conservatives shouldn’t ban quackery?

 

[JustLamb]

I disagree. Gay marriage is simply a consequence of a wider problem, namely, the sexual revolution of the 1960s.

I think it goes back further than that… The abolition of slavery and the American Civil War, Rosa Park, the Civil Rights movement… Minorities standing up for themselves… It’s been going on for centuries…

 

[niceatheist]

niceatheist:

Conversion therapy is psychological abuse, and I could care less whether some more traditionalist true believers think otherwise. They have absolutely no right to abuse their children, no matter how deluded they may be in believing that conversion therapy actually wor

I won’t argue with this, but only question how broad this might be. I say that, because wiki presented this idea: “The American Psychiatric Association opposes psychiatric treatment “based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the a priori assumption that a patient should change his/her sexual homosexual orientation”[8] and describes attempts to change sexual orientation by practitioners as unethical.”

So is it the things done in the name of conversion therapy you oppose, or is it the idea that one is trying to reduce or eliminate same self attraction?

Even the Church no longer asserts SSA is in and of itself a psychological abnormality, so I think we’ve moved to the point that any attempt to “remedy” SSA, particularly in minors, is abuse. If you want to teach the value of chastity for children with SSA, then that’s certainly reasonable, but conversion therapy not only seeks to cure something that is not a disorder, but is quackery in and of itself. It’s right up there with the whole “recovered memories” business; debunked pseudoscientific claptrap.

 

[exnihilo]

There are examples of Protestant churches which have accepted LGBT marriage and are thriving. There is no reason why the Catholic Church can’t do the same. It’s a matter of Pride.

No, Protestant churches that accepted same sex ‘marriage’ are declining. But, basing doctrine on popularity makes it not doctrine but fancy.

The Catholic Church can’t change because of Tradition. She can’t change because the deposit of faith can’t change. If she did change then she would cease to be the Catholic Church.

 

[JustLamb]

No, Protestant churches that accepted same sex ‘marriage’ are declining. But, basing doctrine on popularity makes it not doctrine but fancy.

The Scottish Episcopal Church seems to be doing pretty well. It has become the new Gretna Green in the UK.

 

[exnihilo]

Even the Church no longer asserts SSA is in and of itself a psychological abnormality

Why do you think this? I’ve seen no evidence of this. In fact the Church recently reaffirmed that men with deep seated SSA should not be ordained.

 

[JustLamb]

The Catholic Church can’t change because of Tradition. She can’t change because the deposit of faith can’t change. If she did change then she would cease to be the Catholic Church.

With the Winter Church there must come a Spring Church, new life and rebirth…

 

[niceatheist]

niceatheist:

Even the Church no longer asserts SSA is in and of itself a psychological abnormality

Why do you think this? I’ve seen no evidence of this. In fact the Church recently reaffirmed that men with deep seated SSA should not be ordained.

Which isn’t the same thing as as saying SSA is abnormal, although what exactly “deep seated” even means escapes me.

 

[JustLamb]

Why do you think this? I’ve seen no evidence of this. In fact the Church recently reaffirmed that men with deep seated SSA should not be ordained.

Can you provide a link, please?

 

[exnihilo]

The Scottish Episcopal Church seems to be doing pretty well. It has become the new Gretna Green in the UK.

I find that hard to believe. Membership and attendance for most Christians groups is declining. It would be unusual for any organization to be growing. In the US the organizations the support same sex ‘marriage’ are declining more quickly than others.

It appears this group just recently embraced SSM. I would think we need to give the issue time to see how it impacts membership and attendance. Regardless, do you have statistics on this group?

 

[pnewton]

Even the Church no longer asserts SSA is in and of itself a psychological abnormality, so I think we’ve moved to the point that any attempt to “remedy” SSA, particularly in minors, is abuse.

I have not, but only because you used the word "any.’ While I agree abusive attempts to help reduce or eliminate SSA can exist, I will not go so far as to believe that any attempt to reduce that attraction is abusive, any more than it is abusive to help an alcoholic teenager, or one prone to violence. The Church no longer asserts an opinion on the nature of same sex attraction at all. So while your statement is true, it is also has no substance. The Church is simply silent and declines to speak on matters in which the science is unclear and the language must be pastoral.

But when a segment of the population (trying to avoid that phrase) pushes to stop anyone from receiving any treatment, even the most innocuous that might result in one less gay, how is this not an agenda?

 

[whyeyeman]

I don’t understand what you are saying. Do you think gay marriage would have happened if the sexual revolution had not happened?