Thanks beafedor but the problem I’m responding to comes from Homosexualists not homosexuals. The former work to legitimize the homosexual lifestyle or to proselytize for its acceptance. Giving them a link to your website would provoke gales of laughter as well as the old myths that
*]People are born gay.
*]Sexual orientation can never change
*]Efforts to change someone’s sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual are harmful and unethical.
I guess you’ve never met these folks before. If you want, go to this site, become a member and meet the folks over at Religion Pro and Con.
The site BTW is perfectly legitimate and is a great way to put your library online – a way for people to get to know you. The particular forum thread features a group of Catholic haters unlike others you may have ever met. They will not-so-gently “educate” you away from your faith. I throw a little blood in the water to reveal their true colors and defend the faith.
dj
Then two things are apparent:I am going to be hugely skeptical of such “personal testimonies” when many Evangelicals also rely on the same evidence that some of their Pastors can cure people of cancer by laying their hands on them and saying a few words.
Yes, and often. The convincing is a restoration, not a propaganda job.Also, it doesn’t sound like these “programs” remove SSA, but rather convince the sufferers that it is not natural and the reason behind these feelings are the ones you listed, and then end with telling them that they will still suffer from SSA. Tell me, do people going through these programs claim that they no longer feel SSA afterwards?
earlier in my life, I was certain that I was a lesbian. I was secretly involved in a lesbian relationship for years, and my attempts to date boys on the side ranged from dismal to disastrous. I found physical intimacy with men uncomfortable at best. When I became a Catholic, I still believed that homosexuality was immutable, and I did not believe in “praying away the gay”. It came as something of a surprise, therefore, when I found myself falling in love, and being physically attracted towards a man.
Bisexuality would not seem to account for the change. I have not experienced on-going, relatively equal attraction for both sexes. There has been a substantial, noticeable, and decisive swing in the attractions themselves. I would now find the prospect of sexual involvement with a woman just as uncomfortable and sexually unappealing as I once found the idea of intimacy with men.
There is some acknowledgment of this sort of thing in the scientific literature, but almost never discussed in the public forum. The dogmatic assertion that if you are gay once, you will always be gay, overshadows the real experience of women who have undergone a change in their sexual attractions.
Melinda was featured on Women of Grace some time in 2009 or 2010, because I saw the show. She pulled no punches, shattering some stereotypes on both sides of the debate. Melinda is a realist and is not one to engage in unsupported optimism, but speaks from powerful acknowledgement of her previous accommodation to pain and to her previous misinformation. There have been different but equally compelling genuine changes revealed by different guests on EWTN radio programs, etc. (Not all of those from the evangelical group which she refers to here.)Although this experience is more common among women, there is evidence that some men have similar experiences. David Morrison, in Beyond Gay, describes a change in his attractions following a religious conversion. Other writers, usually evangelical Christians, have reported a similar experience. On the other side of the fence there are men like Jack Malebranche, whose book Androphilia describes his homosexuality in terms of preference and choice. It was something that he tried because he was “a kid who wanted to try everything that everyone else was afraid of”, and found that he liked it.
And do you realize that, according to the John Jay report to the Bishops that a majority of the cases involved male victims and that (as the study puts it) “The majority of alleged victims were post-pubescent, with only a small percentage of priests receiving allegations of abusing young children”?Sounds like you think that the priest abuse scandal was not a problem with paedophiles, but homosexual behaviour. You do realise that girls were abused too? You do realise that there is a difference between men being attracted to other men and men attracted to children? If a man was attracted to women, he’s heterosexual. But if that man is attracted to female children, he’s a paedophile. In fact, many paedophiles do not care whether the child is male or female. I believe that those who try to say it was homosexual behaviour have perhaps an agenda behind suggesting so.
I don’t know about you, but I still see a stark difference between a person aged 11-14 (paedophilia) and an adult (sexual attraction to a mature man/woman). Perhaps the reason that was the biggest age group was opportunistic - most likely to be unattended by a parent. Choirs are more likely to be made up of males, males are more likely to be alter servers. “Pre-pubersert” is not the same as adult. There are still legally classed as a child. What would you call it then if it was not a male priest who was sexually abusing them, but a woman? Would it then be a “heterosexual” problem? Are we suggesting that both instances are normal heterosexual/homosexual behaviour?And do you realize that, according to the John Jay report to the Bishops that a majority of the cases involved male victims and that (as the study puts it) “The majority of alleged victims were post-pubescent, with only a small percentage of priests receiving allegations of abusing young children”?
It is the elephant in the room and part of the reason dicussions on homosexuality get so heated. The facts are routinely glossed over.
Have a look for yourself:
usccb.org/nrb/johnjaystudy/
Roughly 77% aged 11 or over…
Table 4.3.2 VICTIM’S AGE AT FIRST INSTANCE OF ABUSE
Age in Years Count % of Total
1 4 .0%
2 11 .1%
3 22 .2%
4 41 .5%
5 82 1.0%
6 158 1.8%
7 220 2.5%
8 369 4.1%
9 362 4.0%
10 752 8.4%
11 895 10.0%
12 1,323 14.7%
13 1,141 12.8%
14 1,188 13.2%
15 1,042 11.6%
16 769 8.6%
17 577 6.5%
Total 8,956 100%
This is the age at which boys begin to go through puberty. 40% of victims were older than 14 years. Average age in 1990s was 13.87 years, rising over time. Also, the study is reporting the age at which abuse started, if abuse continued over a time period, that is not counted in the table. Note too that the age figures include girls, who reach puberty earlier, with the likely effect of skewing the numbers in the table lower.I don’t know about you, but I still see a stark difference between a person aged 11-14 (paedophilia) and an adult (sexual attraction to a mature man/woman). Perhaps the reason that was the biggest age group was opportunistic - most likely to be unattended by a parent. Choirs are more likely to be made up of males, males are more likely to be alter servers. “Pre-pubersert” is not the same as adult. There are still legally classed as a child. What would you call it then if it was not a male priest who was sexually abusing them, but a woman? Would it then be a “heterosexual” problem? Are we suggesting that both instances are normal heterosexual/homosexual behaviour?
Yet again, I reassert my belief that this is an attempt to try and make the sex abuse scandals look less bad, and also to try and pin the blame on a group some people are all too willing to attack. The only ones who are trying to blame this on homosexuals also happen to be actively involved in campaigning against them, such as yourself by the very title of this thread.
I’ve got my own family of nutcakes over at Library Thing. I assume you can be cared for here and I’m not going to start the back-and-forth with you on this. Sorry. Anyone up for straightening out poor LemonandLime? Thanks.First of all, there is more evidence to suggest that people are born gay than not. Including just plain logic. For example, if people chose to be gay - why would they if it would cause them suffering (e.g. a family which did not approve). Secondly, why is that people who are gay make up roughly 2% of the population all over the world? That means it can’t be culture as not everyone has the same upbringing or “exposure” to homosexuality. Thirdly - scientists have successfully shown a link between exposure to female hormones in the womb during pregnancy and homosexuality/“born in the wrong body” syndrome.
Secondly, people’s sexual orientation cannot be changed. There is a huge amount of evidence that attempting to do so can lead to psychological damage and is doomed to failure. This is a fact recognised by the Catholic Church. If you have SSA, it shall be your cross to bear for life.
Thirdly, yes it is unethical. This is something which is not recognised by the Catholic Church as something which is viable, ethical, and reliable. Your viewpoints are therefore going against Catholic teaching and you should revise them.
Thank you.I shared this because it shows that yes the Catholic Church does care about people struggling with sexual identity. I don’t think that it’s a lost cause, some of these guys might throw at you the arguments that you mentioned but maybe one person who is following the discussion will take it seriously. and also I thought that you might want to contact some of the psychologists involved with this Ministry about that discussion.
Are you referring to me as a nutcake and as someone who needs to be “straightened out” - I think that counts as insulting another forum member.I’ve got my own family of nutcakes over at Library Thing. I assume you can be cared for here and I’m not going to start the back-and-forth with you on this. Sorry. Anyone up for straightening out poor LemonandLime? Thanks.
Alternatively you can read this to review the facts behind them. Authored by Peter Sprigg, Senior Fellow for Policy Studies at Family Research Council in Washington, D. C. Or don’t because it’s nothing your hand-me-down Homosexualist thinking would agree with.
dj
Thank you for the link, I shall look at it. But I am still extremely skeptical, especially as all regulatory bodies for psychologists in the UK and USA agree that it cannot be cured - however, the American Christian one does say it is. Therefore I am unlikely to believe what it says, as I have to assume that the reason behind saying that it is impossible is a religious belief, not a scientific one.mercatornet.com/articles/view/reorienting_sexuality/
Melinda was featured on Women of Grace some time in 2009 or 2010, because I saw the show. She pulled no punches, shattering some stereotypes on both sides of the debate. Melinda is a realist and is not one to engage in unsupported optimism, but speaks from powerful acknowledgement of her previous accommodation to pain and to her previous misinformation. There have been different but equally compelling genuine changes revealed by different guests on EWTN radio programs, etc. (Not all of those from the evangelical group which she refers to here.)
Thank you for the link, I shall look at it. But I am still extremely skeptical, especially as all regulatory bodies for psychologists in the UK and USA agree that it cannot be cured - however, the American Christian one does say it is. Therefore I am unlikely to believe what it says, as I have to assume that the reason behind saying that it is impossible is a religious belief, not a scientific one.mercatornet.com/articles/view/reorienting_sexuality/
Melinda was featured on Women of Grace some time in 2009 or 2010, because I saw the show. She pulled no punches, shattering some stereotypes on both sides of the debate. Melinda is a realist and is not one to engage in unsupported optimism, but speaks from powerful acknowledgement of her previous accommodation to pain and to her previous misinformation. There have been different but equally compelling genuine changes revealed by different guests on EWTN radio programs, etc. (Not all of those from the evangelical group which she refers to here.)
Look at the John Jay report. POST-pubescent, primarily male victims, age of male victims not reported, but average of all victims in the 1990’s (latest data) running at 13.87 years old. It is you who are mis-characterizing the victims here.… I do however believe that describing old men sexually abusing children cannot be brushed off by saying that its a “homosexual” issue instead of one of paedophiles. “But the majority of them were pre-pubesant!” doesn’t sit right. They look like children. They have the physiology of children. They do not resemble consenting adults. Yes homosexual men AND heterosexual men have a preference for younger men/women, but I doubt that you would describe the opposite as a “heterosexual issue.”…
This is an official academic report prepared for the US Bishops by a university criminal justice dept.The largest group of alleged victims (50.9%) was between the ages of 11 and 14,
27.3% were 15-17, 16% were 8-10 and nearly 6% were under age 7. Overall, 81%
of victims were male and 19% female. Male victims tended to be older than
female victims. Over 40% of all victims were males between the ages of 11 and
14.
A majority of the offenses were homosexual in nature - this is a statement of arithmetic, not a judgement about the nature of homosexuals.…To summarise my point - I am not comfortable with describing the offences as homosexual in nature, because that implies that such attractions are normal within a homosexual environment…
Can still be crimes of opportunity because parents are more likely to allow a child of that age to be allowed to be out of their sight.A majority of the offenses were homosexual in nature - this is a statement of arithmetic, not a judgement about the nature of homosexuals.
As to your victim of opportunity hypothesis, 40% of the crimes reported (by far the largest category) took place at the priests home/parish residence. It is not the case that altar servers were being grabbed on-duty, so to speak. The locations suggest a high degree of familiarity between victim and perp. and (in the words of the report) “grooming”. These were not crimes of opportunity.
Please. Read the report.
Well, the survey only covered up to ages 17, the legal definition of child, so legally all victims reported on were children. Convenient for your theory, but not useful in understanding the issue.…In my view, they can only be homosexual in nature if the victim is not a child. The victims were children - legally, in appearance, and physically. Homosexuality is men being attracted to other men, or women to other women. …
I’m going to respond to the last paragraph. Perhaps this will interest you, as you seem to be trying to imply that homosexuals lose their virginity younger and by older men, as if preyed upon. Surely this doesn’t happen between morally upstanding heterosexual people?Well, the survey only covered up to ages 17, the legal definition of child, so legally all victims reported on were children. Convenient for your theory, but not useful in understanding the issue.
Appearance? How do you know what the victims looked like? Nice try, but not admissible argument. We have no idea what they looked like, as if that tells us anything. You are studiously avoiding the meaning of “POST-pubescent”, by the way.
My 12 year old son is already 5’ 2", taller than his mother, he is by no means a child. My great grandmother was married at 15 years - gave birth a year later. Clearly, the legal definition of “child” has nothing to do with sexual maturity. Also, we didn’t discuss age of consent, but that obviously varies and misses the point that these were un-wanted exchanges - but an ages-of-consent argument would not favor your case, just to be clear.
You should look into the stats on age of first sexual experience for homosexual and heterosexuals. You should also look at the partner’s age and the difference between ages for heterosexual and homosexual for first sexual experience. I’m not going to point you to them, because it’s clear you have made up your mind.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teenage_pregnancy#Teenage_fatherhoodHowever, “teenage father” may be a misnomer in many cases. Studies by the Population Reference Bureau and the National Center for Health Statistics found that about two-thirds of births to teenage girls in the United States are fathered by adult men age 20 or older.[90][91] The Guttmacher Institute reports that over 40 percent of mothers aged 15–17 had sexual partners three to five years older and almost one in five had partners six or more years older.[92] A 1990 study of births to California teens reported that the younger the mother, the greater the age gap with her male partner.[93] In the UK 72% of jointly registered births to women under the age of 20, the father is over the age of 20, with almost 1 in 4 being over 25.[94]
Paedophilia involves prepubescent children. At most I think 10% of the victims fit that description. Ephebophilia is the term for the majority of these cases- which is sexual contact between an adult and a pubescent child who has not yet reached majority.Can still be crimes of opportunity because parents are more likely to allow a child of that age to be allowed to be out of their sight.
In my view, they can only be homosexual in nature if the victim is not a child. The victims were children - legally, in appearance, and physically. Homosexuality is men being attracted to other men, or women to other women. These were neither men nor women. This was not a homosexual crime, this was the rape of minors. Why didn’t these Priests rape people of their own age, if there was no element of paedophilia? End of discussion as far as I am concerned. I doubt that the parents thought that the crime was an adult male raping another adult male.