V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
It likely develops at some other time during a person’s life.
Last edited:
If homosexuality is contrary to natural law, then why did God create people that way?
- Status
M
Maximus1
Guest
I don’t believe that. When you say developed later, I am not sure you are contradicting. A red rose will develope " later " on a red rose bush.
R
rom
Guest
I do not think that SSA is a mental disorder. However, lust and sexual desire for a person of the same sex is a grave moral disorder.
I agree, and some psychologists get away with it by changing the definition of “mental illness.” This is why I distinguish between a male gay (a man with SSA) and an transgender (a man who behaves and thinks he’s a woman). I do not think the gay has a mental disorder; but I’m not so sure about the transgender. You see, if you have a male body, male sexual organs, and male chromosomes, but you think you are a woman, then I think you are sick. Psychologists can always define “sickness” to cover every form of abnormality as “healthy,” but that does not change the fact that a man thinking himself to be a woman is a sickness. You can always manipulate words and call a particular disease “sense of identity” or “sexual orientation,” but that does not change the obvious fact that objectively a man is a man, and a woman is a woman, and any confusion between the two is a form of disorder. A rose by any other name still smells as sweet, and sh*t by any other name still stinks.
Note: the above paragraph is not directed against the transgender, whom I look at with compassion. It is directed against the psychologists who twist the meaning of words and terms to deceptively make something abnormal sound normal.
Last edited:
T
Thorolfr
Guest
It’s not as if something is objectively a psychological disorder or not regardless of how psychiatrists classify it. In the United States, if the American Psychiatric Association’s DSM lists something as a disorder, then it’s a disorder. If it’s not in the DSM, then it’s not a disorder. That’s because the whole system of deciding whether something is a disorder or not isn’t based on scientific knowledge about the biological causes of these conditions that are classified as “disorders” such that a test can be done to determine if someone has this disorder. Instead, it’s a fairly arbitrary system based on lists of symptoms the causes of which are largely unknown. They can’t even say for sure that the symptoms listed for a particular “disorder” in the DSM are all caused by the same thing. And the number of symptoms required to be diagnosed with a particular disorder listed in the DSM is also completely arbitrary. And because there isn’t a blood test or brain scan that can tell in most cases whether someone has a specific psychological disorder, it’s up to the somewhat subjective opinion of the diagnosing physician or psychologist as to whether someone meets the criteria for a diagnosis.Thorolfr:
That’s because they were aggressively lobbied and became agenda driven. It doesn’t necessarily mean that same-sex attraction isn’t a disorder.
Just to give an example of how arbitrary the diagnosis process is, a psychiatrist named Dr. Daniel Carlat interviewed Dr. Robert Spitzer, the psychiatrist largely responsible for putting together the DSM III, and asked him: “How did you decide…on five criteria as being your minimum threshold for depression?” Spitzer responded, “It was just a consensus. We would ask clinicians and researchers, ‘How many symptoms do you think patients ought to have before you would give the diagnosis of depression?’ And we came up with the arbitrary number of five.” So, Carlat asked, “But why did you choose five and not four? Or why didn’t you choose six?” Spitzer responded, “Because four just seemed like not enough. And six seemed like too much.”
Last edited:
N
Neithan
Guest
And that relativism is why sin cannot be assessed based on psychology, which is about our subjective mental experiences; but on acts of the will — objective misdeeds. Contrast shame and guilt.
Last edited:
F
Freddy
Guest
True. There are very many psychological organisations around the world that consider it a disorder. Here are a few:Thorolfr:
That’s because they were aggressively lobbied and became agenda driven. It doesn’t necessarily mean that same-sex attraction isn’t a disorder.
Afghanistan Primary Health directorate, the Saudi Psychological Association, the Libyan Psychiatric Association, the Amanuel Mental Hospital in Ethiopia, the Nigerian Mental Health Service, the Ugandan Ministry of Health, the Yemeni Mental Health Association…
Lots more than that but that should be enough to back up your assertion. All those guys didn’t fold when they were lobbied. Stood up and were counted! Not like the APA or the Chinese Society of Psychiatry which were overrun by the gay movement (in China? Well, I guess they must have been…why else declare it not to be a disorder - you know how strong the gay movement is in China!).
So the heads of all those organisations will agree with you even if the rest of the civilised world doesn’t. And they will back up their beliefs using the full force of the law. Homosexuality is illegal in all of them and in some of them you’ll be executed by the state.
One way to cure it I guess. Kill the patient.
B
Buks
Guest
Freddy, I wouldn’t label you as pantheistic or as a relativist, but based on this thread IMO it seems worth considering those dangers.
I doubt you are thinking that anyone here is likely to discuss intimate details with gays or others, but your “don’t dare” language does seem to suggest that concern.
I doubt you are thinking that anyone here is likely to discuss intimate details with gays or others, but your “don’t dare” language does seem to suggest that concern.
F
Freddy
Guest
How on earth does the sexual proclivities of any couple have anything at all to do with anyone else? Does your conversation with anyone include warning them about the types of sexual acts in which they might be engaging that you consider to be immoral? If you have a straight couple living on one side of you and a gay couple on the other, do you question all of them about their sexual preferences over the back fence?
I don’t know where you live, but in my neck of the woods if anyone were to suggest that I limit what my wife and I do in the bedroom to acts which you consider to be ok then there’d be some pointed comments and some chest prodding and a forthright request as to what could be done with said suggestions.
But that’s what’s happening in this very thread.
I perfectly respect your right to your own beliefs. And I have no problem with you esposing them. And full marks if you manage to live up to your own moral code. Heaven knows we all struggle in that regard. But do not take that as license to dictate to others what they cannot do as consenting adults in the privacy of their own home.
B
Buks
Guest
What a curious reply, when my point was that I do not think people are approaching gays, or others, to address intimate details of their relationships. Now I have to think that you do indeed think some here, even myself, are that disrespectful. I guess that’s a narrative that you’re going to stick with.Buks:
How on earth does the sexual proclivities of any couple have anything at all to do with anyone else? Does your conversation with anyone include warning them about the types of sexual acts in which they might be engaging that you consider to be immoral? If you have a straight couple living on one side of you and a gay couple on the other, do you question all of them about their sexual preferences over the back fence?
I don’t know where you live, but in my neck of the woods if anyone were to suggest that I limit what my wife and I do in the bedroom to acts which you consider to be ok then there’d be some pointed comments and some chest prodding and a forthright request as to what could be done with said suggestions.
But that’s what’s happening in this very thread.
I perfectly respect your right to your own beliefs. And I have no problem with you esposing them. And full marks if you manage to live up to your own moral code. Heaven knows we all struggle in that regard. But do not take that as license to dictate to others what they cannot do as consenting adults in the privacy of their own home.
Last edited:
R
rom
Guest
Exactly! That’s why I don’t think anyone in this thread will ever ask a gay couple what they do in private. And the gays don’t have to justify their private actions to us either. They have to justify them before God.
I don’t think that’s what’s happening in this thread, Freddy. People here are not actually telling couples what they should or shouldn’t do in their bedroom. People here are only declaring their own principles or beliefs. And we are allowed to do that. For example, I can declare that, in my opinion, murder is wrong and immoral. That is not telling anyone that he or she is a murderer. Not at all. Now, if anyone listening to me is, in fact, guilty of murder, then he might not like what I said, but that is because his conscience would be bothering him, not me. That is true as well of statements made in this thread about homosexual acts. People in this thread (for example, o_mlly in Post #139) said that the homosexual act is perverted. That does not mean that o_mlly called a homosexual reading this thread a pervert. Of course, if there is a homosexual reading the Post, who is guilty of a homosexual act, then his conscience might bother him. But o_mlly cannot help that anymore. What do you want us to do, just be silent and not declare the truth? Just remember this, a statement of principle or belief is NOT an indictment on another person. The indictment will come from that person’s conscience, if he is guilty.
T
Thorolfr
Guest
I’m glad that homosexuality isn’t considered a mental disorder in the US any more. It was removed from the DSM in 1973, but only three years before that at the 1970 meeting of the American Psychiatric Association, Dr. Nathaniel McConaghy presented a paper in which he explained his research on ways to try and wean homosexual men from their attractions to other men:AdamP88:
True. There are very many psychological organisations around the world that consider it a disorder.Thorolfr:
That’s because they were aggressively lobbied and became agenda driven. It doesn’t necessarily mean that same-sex attraction isn’t a disorder.
Fortunately, treatments like this are no longer being considered since most psychiatrists don’t believe anymore that homosexuality needs to be cured.
Last edited:
T
Thorolfr
Guest
But wouldn’t o_milly be saying to any person that is in a homosexual relationship and is engaging in homosexual acts that they’re a pervert? This person might not feel at all guilty about engaging in homosexual acts and their conscience might not bother them, but I think that they would nevertheless conclude that they had been called a “pervert.”
F
Freddy
Guest
Not telling anyone what they can and cannot do?Freddy:
Exactly! That’s why I don’t think anyone in this thread will ever ask a gay couple what they do in private. And the gays don’t have to justify their private actions to us either. They have to justify them before God.
I don’t think that’s what’s happening in this thread, Freddy. People here are not actually telling couples what they should or shouldn’t do in their bedroom. People in this thread said that the homosexual act is perverted.
And what would you call a person that performed a perverted act? Are you saying that someone who it is claimed performs demeaning, unatural, obscene, unhealthy and perverted acts can not be described as a pervert? These adjectives can be tossed around with reference to gay people with abandon. But heavens, to suggest that it means that they are perverts themselves…gracious no. Where did that idea come from?
R
rom
Guest
When I say “Murder is wrong,” it does not mean that I accused anyone of murder. But if I was heard by a murderer, then his own conscience will call him out as having done something wrong. Same thing. When o_milly declares that a homosexual act is perverted, then a homosexual might feel that he was called a pervert, but only if he was in fact guilty of a homosexual act. But it is his conscience indicting him, not o_milly, because o_milly does NOT know what he does privately in his bedroom.
Based on what you quoted, Lara called out the behavior, not the gays, as perverted. If the gays were in fact guilty of that behavior, and feel offended, then she is being kind in advising them to stop the behavior. This is not really dictating them what they should do, because they are still free to follow her advise or not. It is nothing different than what you yourself are doing, when you tell us to stop telling people what they should or shouldn’t do. Aren’t you also dictating?Not telling anyone what they can and cannot do?
Lara:
I’d call him a pervert, just as I would call a person who murdered someone a murderer. But I would not call him a pervert unless I have evidence that he performed a perverted act, just as I would not call a person a murderer unless I have evidence that he murdered someone.
Someone who is claimed to perform demeaning, unnatural, obscene, unhealthy and perverted acts, may be claimed to be a pervert. But the indictment has to wait until the claim that someone has performed the perverted acts is actually proved with evidence.
An adjective applied to a person only follows the adjective used to describe the acts of that person. If you don’t like a homosexual being described as a pervert, then the best thing to do is to prove that homosexual acts are healthy, normal, natural acts of a decent human being. Can you prove that?
Last edited:
R
rom
Guest
I agree. Thanks. I just looked at the meaning of effeminate in the dictionary. What term is appropriate then, “transgender”?
R
rom
Guest
I corrected my post.
F
Freddy
Guest
Your whole post is nothing but a convoluted attempt at misdirection. There isn’t any implication of what you propose. You’re all quite baldly stating it: If you are gay and you have sex then you are a pervert.
And really, is your only defence in demeaning so many decent people the risible: ‘Well, they’re only perverts if they actually have gay sex’. So you’re not at fault for calling them perverts. It’s their fault for being perverts!
Everyone seems more than happy to use such terms from behind a keyboard. But what you have to answer is this: Are you prepared to tell a woman that her son (known to be in a loving relationship with another man) is a pervert? To her face?
Shame on anyone who would. But apparently there is no shame in posting such comments.
I’ll tell you something that I have told others on forum discussions, here and elsewhere. I will never say anything to anyone in a post that I would not say to them face to face in a social setting. There are far too many on this forum that do not hold to that. There are far to many that think the anonymity of a forum gives them license to let loose. But maybe that’s the real person we see. Maybe it’s not so much ‘in vino veritas’ as ‘in forum veritas’.
There don’t appear to be many gay members on the forum. But those that are here have to put up with the insults and the innuendo and the outright demonisation of who they are as people on a weekly basis. Someone seems to thinks to start a thread on homosexuality every couple of days. But the way they comport themselves and the manner in which they respond to what I can only describe as vitriol puts many other members to shame.
- Status