The documents I linked below should answer your questions. I have to admit I’m puzzled you don’t understand what deep seated means. It is a fairly common expression.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...con_ccatheduc_doc_20051104_istruzione_en.html
This comes from this:
THAT’S THE PHRASE!!! Yay!
No, no data. The move for LGBT marriage was only agreed in June. But I have a vicar friend who is a lesbian and she has received a large number of bookings for next year in the summer which is when people get married.
Those who subscribe to the Courage Online mail group for chaste people with SSA would say that homosexual tendencies and SSA are different.
I don’t doubt it. When SSM gets approved there is a rush of a few mostly older homosexual couples to get ‘married’. But that doesn’t mean the organization is growing.
What is the difference?
Homosexual tendencies mean you are not chaste. SSA is simply a condition.
It starts in the home with the nuclear family and appropriate gender roles for each parent. This is what helps shapes the culture.
The word ‘tendency’ comes from ‘tend’…
I’m sure the Romans spoke the same of Christian activism as you do gay activism… It didn’t work for them…
The problem is that whatever you think of SSA, it appears to be inherent (whatever its cause). It isn’t something to be cured, and anyone claiming to cure it is lying, which the studies done thus far have shone. Conversion therapy does not reverse SSA. It does not work.niceatheist:
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?
Go look up reductio ad absurdum
The problem is, I don’t know that. When you say “inherent,” that normally means genetic, as opposed to environmental. Notwithstanding, do you also believe we should not treat alcoholics, especially young ones, or those prone to violent temper because these sins are inherent?
Inherent could be either. And really, comparing SSA to alcoholics? Just how hateful do you want this to get. I guess I should be happy, you didn’t compare gay people to pedophiles or serial killers.niceatheist:
The problem is, I don’t know that. When you say “inherent,” that normally means genetic, as opposed to environmental. Notwithstanding, do you also believe we should not treat alcoholics, especially young ones, or those prone to violent temper because these sins are inherent?
Here:
So now can we lay to rest that polygamous relationships are now going to be made legal?niceatheist:
Here:
In logic, reductio ad absurdum (Latin for “reduction to absurdity”; or argumentum ad absurdum, “argument to absurdity”) is a form of argument which attempts either to disprove a statement by showing it inevitably leads to a ridiculous, absurd, or impractical conclusion, or to prove one by showing that if it were not true, the result would be absurd or impossible.[1][2] Traced back to classical Greek philosophy in Aristotle’s Prior Analytics (Greek: ἡ Εις άτοπον απαγωγή, translit. hê eis atopon apagôgê, lit. ‘reduction to the impossible’),[2] this technique has been used throughout history in both formal mathematical and philosophical reasoning, as well as in debate.
It is a legitimate argument.
I do not desire to be hateful. I just do not think that if something is harmful, that being inherent means it must be accepted. I get that a lot of stuff that has been done is abusive. But why is an attempt to help one deal by reducing desire and behavior abusive? If there is a difference, then please elaborate.