Is Homosexuality Biologically Determined?/New Insight into Research

[Elizabeth502]

Jones points out that homosexuals are a very, very small proportion of the total population.
On those figures alone we would have to conclude, statistically, that very few homosexual people have been amongst the most creative and the most intelligent of people. Unless that is, homosexuals can be identified as being overly represented in the ranks of the most intelligent and the most creative. That is very unlikely.

What is important, though, is how a group that is almost statistically insignificant by any measure has come to hold such sway over the debates regarding accepted moral and social issues.

What is just as interesting to me is the manipulation of statistically insignificant data (from the point of view of generalizing, extrapolating) to over-compensate – to make claims that the minority group is superior to the majority of that category. It is not the first time such over-compensation has emanated from a minority group – or a portion of, but what results is:

(1) reinforcement of isolation from the larger community – both due to voluntary “separatist” efforts and to the consequence of giving offense to others. (How many of you are motivated to hang out with others who constantly claim to be superior to you?)

(2) the substitution of, or preference for, group identity over individual identity. In addition to the immorality of the behavior itself, this, in the “gay movement,” is what defines it as radically opposed to Catholic thought. Nothing could be more fundamentally true than the individual uniqueness of each of us in Christian existentialism. Morally speaking, metaphysically speaking, we do not borrow our identity from a group or claim it from a group – however we define that group, perceive that group. Even as Catholics, we are not “Truth” because we belong to a faith we believe to be Truth. We are privileged to have access to paths toward holiness, but until those paths are activated, our association with a group of others makes us neither better nor worse than people of other faiths or no faith.

And this speaks to what you say here, John:

In the process of vociferously demanding not only ‘equality’ they have created inequality. That inequality is in fact their demand that homosexual acts be considered as ‘normal’ and to be respected, even appreciated.

I would argue that it goes beyond “appreciated.” I would use the word “revered.” (People who “come out” are called “heroes” in the U.S. press; a good deed done by a homosexual is elevated to heroic status, whereas the same good deed done by a heterosexual is dismissed as ordinary. The good deed done by the homosexual is not praised for the deed itself, but rather for the “identity” of the doer – i.e., his “sexual orientation,” which supposedly gives the good deed “Added Value” vs. the same deed done by a heterosexual.)

^ All demonstrating the effectiveness of the Propaganda Machine by the activist Gay Lobby, especially in the U.S.

 

[essie7777]

I understand you are aligned with the now mainstream mental health profession in the dislike for the word ‘disease’ and ‘mental disorder’ or ‘mental illness’ to apply to homosexuality. I think I and a host of others get it (it is not diagnoseable by testing, it does not have clear pathology, etc. etc.) and would like to understand the phenomenon more.

My question then would be if you understand it is not a mental disease why are all of your positions based on this as the fist pillar of what you say?
I think your are missing the point i am making, relying on a falsehood to start building your POV blinds anyone from hearing anything else because it is such a well documented and fundamental mistake to do this.
As Catholics, as the Jones article states very well, we need to start relating in ‘real’ terms on this issue, otherwise we simply are allowing ourselves to be ignored and sidelined.
I am unsure what you mean by i am aligned to main stream mental health professionals. This is an issue i remember from previous threads you personally seem to have a huge issue with someone being in the mental health profession and being Catholic. They are not mutually exclusive.

No matter how you slice it, homosexuality is regarded as a disorder in the common meaning of the word. Sustained homosexual inclination and sexual expression thereof is disordered, out of order, notwithstanding mainstream mental health professionals falling in line with homosexualists that such is a normal and natural variant of sexuality

.
You are completely confused here and very insulting.
Accepting that homosexuality is not a mental disease is not an blanket agreement of anything else. This is your personal supposition, and definitely not something i have stated. If you want my opinion on something ask for it, please don’t presume to know my position unless its been stated.

In the social context that we are to regard the implication of the science, my view is we do not disagree. As Jones said, the social sciences cannot settle the moral status of homosexuality.

I agree and its morality that’s the issue not disease definition.

TBH what i struggle with in your posts is that you fall back to defining homosexuality as a disease in almost every possible permutation. This becomes the basis of your POV,at this point anything else that you say loses credibility, no matter how much as we may agree from there on. I can not accept that as Catholics we need to base our opinions in this falsehood. To me it is completely unnecessary.

Bias? And your comments are free of bias? It could be said you, being in the field of psychology, don’t acknowledge the errors of the APA and their mistakes in dealing with the relevant classification in the DSM.

I’d politely suggest that reread my previous posts – i have NEVER stated the APA is correct in its advocacy and embracing of homosexual lifestyle as 'normal", in fact in response to way the APA is handling this issue currently i have clearly stated that i can agree with the removal from the DSM but disagree with the role the APA now.

Again you are presuming something not stated.

I am saying the removal of homosexuality from the DSM should have been approached differently. I stated this upthread and hereby repeat: {sniped for space}

Self diagnosis is generally thought to be problematic, by the same vein i would suggest with the utmost of respect that a “thoughtful layperson” is in turn unqualified to define a diagnosis criteria. Especially as what you suggest (ego-dystonic sexual identity) IS included in the DSM - but gender is not a factor of definition - heterosexuals suffer as much as homosexuals. This simply demonstrates you lack of understanding that homosexuality IS NOT a mental disease in isolation.

You stated in the first part of the post here that you understand that it isn’t a disease, but as i have pointed out you immediately frame your POV based on it being a disease.

This is why the Catholic position does not engage well on this issue but statements as you wrote are so easily ridiculed, disregarded and people move on before even listening to anything else. This is not a helpful approach.

A position such as these in your post are so bogged down in trying to convince people that a widely accepted research study with robust methods, analysis and results is actually wrong because it is against Catholic morality that you are missing the bigger picture.

While POVs try to defame and rebut an empirical study from 40 odd years ago, the true issue we face today steams ahead spearheaded by a highly motivated pro-LGBT alliance without us even impacting it – the lack of acceptance of the reality of the past means we are losing ground here in the present.

Cont next post

 

[essie7777]

Cont from last post

Dropping the diagnosis from the DSM altogether in the manner it did as a result of political pressure and embrace of “scientific finding” that expression of homosexual attraction is normal and to be encouraged was and remains problematic for society. So it’s clear, I am not proposing it be put back in pre-1973 nomenclature.

Wow and you say you have read the original Jones article which clearly goes through the Hooker study and mentions others stating its findings were conclusive – homosexuality is not a disease.

You are using the argument of the pro-gay alliance to try and justify your POV. But as Jones stated, when outlining the myths the pro-gay movement perpetuate, as you have here, is that Hooker’s study somehow defined homosexuality as a normal variation of sexual identity --it didn’t.

And actually it wasn’t problematic to society to drop it rather it was problematic to include it and this was shown through discrimination, hate crimes, and the cultural era’s response at the time.

I will also repeat that the APA has inappropriately taken an extreme position with its gay advocacy, to the point of signing onto the movement’s objective of legalizing same sex ‘marriage’ and adoption by homosexual couples. These are radical experiments projected to harm the future of society, with impact not to be realized for another generation or two.

The timeline here seems a little out of context – the APA advocacy is a new issue the last few years and homosexual marriage was not an issue when the term was removed from the DSM nearly 40 years ago.

Not agreeing with how the APA is acting now does not take anything away from the evidence that homosexuality is not a disease … they are two distinct issues.

 

[followingtheway]

Homosexuality is a personal Choice.

I believe homosexual acts are wrong, but as to Homosexuality being a choice, raises an important question “when did you choose be straight?”

 

[essie7777]

I find it fairly incredible that you are making such an incredible claim. “Proven” you say, like water is H2O, or proven like Charlie Manson was proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, or maybe proven like gravity, e.g., that which goes up, must come down.

Its not an incredible claim have you read the original article by the author cited in the OP comment. Linked here

It is written by a eminent CHRISTIAN psychologist, who is aiming to debunk the falsehoods and get down to what is important – dealing with the MORAL issue instead of falling into the trap of perpetuating well established falsehoods. He lists the main falsehoods of the religous and social conservative ‘side’ as well as the pro-gay ‘side’.

If you read it you’ll understand why i am so insistent that as Catholics we do not need to a build an ‘argument’ based on falsehoods - the truth of Catholic moral teaching is more than enough.

Trying to manipulate disease to being about morals is the issue – and that what a mental health disease model for homosexuality was built on … and why it was removed from the DSM nearly 40 years ago.

What is the point of your clinging adamantly to this thought?

is it to justify homosexuality as natural and normal? is it to align yourself with the gay agenda? perhaps its to work your way around to the ever-so-popular “if it’s natural/genetic/not a disorder, then it must be okay”?

Wow lots of presumptions here and not one of them based on anything i have said --if you have a question without the sarcasm i’d be happy to answer. But this reads as a litany of fantasy against my character. If i am wrong just point out how i should read this list instead.

In the end, the etiology of homosexuality, homosexual inclinations, homosexual tendencies, and the all-too-often resulting homosexual actions, does not change the moral analysis.

Absolutely so we agree its a moral issue not a medical disease issue.

Harmony is implied in that order. homosexuality is not in harmony with God’s will.

Again i am not sure what you are saying here as i haven’t disagreed that a homosexual person MAY be out of harmony with the Catholic Church, they may not though it depends on their actions etc. The same as it does for EVERY person.

God’s grace is not subject to medical diagnosis, its not subject to even groups of people deciding who can have grace.

Its a gift available to every human being and as an individual we each have the responsibility of answering the call to live in God’s grace.

To the extent that the APA and DSM say that homosexuality is natural and ordered, then those organizations are not in harmony with God’s will.

The DSM is a book, a diagnostic tool for billing in the medical health industry in the US; so i’m pretty sure its not written to reflect the moral teachings of 23% of the US population. It a secular based medical disease reference book built of empirical studies and research, not the bible.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

This is one of the common misunderstandings of what Hooker’s study actually did.

I beg to differ, but I doubt we would reach any concession on this particular issue about the study. However, I will provide this document by Jeffrey Satinover How the Mental Health Associations Misrepresent Science, so readers of this thread could follow where the disagreement lies, which is on Page 7 - 9, for facility of reading. It is not my method, as it seems to be yours to flood the thread with voluminous text and repetition.

Now, Satinover, I would imagine, would fall in the category of ‘breakaway band of professionals’ to which you referred in a post upthread.

… it had such a profound effect, the results have never been disputed, they are robust and stand up to a lot of scrutiny.

Sure, Hooker’ study had a profound effect. Why wouldn’t a study strategically used by the organization taken over by gay psychiatrists and activists in declassifying homosexuality as a disorder, that went on a path of promotion of the homosexual agenda not have a profound effect? Standing up to a lot of scrutiny? Hardly, that is why the criticisms have not disappeared and the controversy continues.
,

 

[InSearchofGrace]

My question then would be if you understand it is not a mental disease why are all of your positions based on this as the fist pillar of what you say?

I think your are missing the point i am making, relying on a falsehood to start building your POV blinds anyone from hearing anything else because it is such a well documented and fundamental mistake to do this.

As Catholics, as the Jones article states very well, we need to start relating in ‘real’ terms on this issue, otherwise we simply are allowing ourselves to be ignored and sidelined.

I am unsure what you mean by i am aligned to main stream mental health professionals. This is an issue i remember from previous threads you personally seem to have a huge issue with someone being in the mental health profession and being Catholic. They are not mutually exclusive.

No, I’m not missing the point. You are stuck on hammering to all here that homosexuality is not a mental illness or disease. I have never called homosexuality a mental illness or disease nor do I work from that point of view. Having said this, you can not deny the findings of studies that homosexuals are more at risk for mental issues. The point is that it’s not just me but others here as well are not swayed by you that it is not a disorder. You can insist we don’t mean that medically, so insist away. It matters not. To me and many, sustained homosexual inclination and homogenital activity is a disorder in the common meaning of the word, in the context of natural law which is not even based on religion or a belief in God.

Because you failed to persuade, notwithstanding the good points raised by Stanton Jones in his essay giving both sides (gays and conservatives) equal blame for the divide on homosexual issues, you latch on this accusatory phrase, ‘relying on a falsehood ,‘ to apply to the unpersuaded.

Jones did not say what you say he said in the article. Read the conclusions over.

When I say you are or have aligned with the mainstream health professionals, I mean what I said, which is you regard homosexuality (to mean here as homosexual inclination brought to its conclusion – homogenital activity) as a normal variant of sexuality. Is that true or not?

I know that being a mental health professional and being Catholic are not mutually exclusive. There are people in the mental health care profession, physicians and non-physicians associated with CMA and Catholic Therapists, for example.
,

 

[essie7777]

It is not my method, as it seems to be yours to flood the thread with voluminous text and repetition.

The quotes i have used are in direct response to questions on the stated and therefore quoted argument --stop looking for something to be critical about with no basis!

The article you post will offer an interesting talking point. However when read, i have every confidence that readers of the thread have enough understanding to see the stark differences between the two articles.

• Jones writes for The Center of Applied Christain Ethics, a non political think tank … a link to his article here
  Satinover is writing for NARTH. An association with a clear agenda to ‘cure’ people of homosexuality. (you posted the link so i wont again)
• Jones writes a balanced piece critical of both religious and social conservatives group falsehoods and pro gay groups falsehoods
  Satinover makes some outrageous, and uncited , personal claims against anyone who is involved in studying homosexuality with views against his.
• Jones objectively analysis and discusses all issues (good and bad) surrounding research on the topic, offering reasons for lack of religious /social conservative research.
  Satinover simply attacks research but offers no suggestions for how to ‘even’ the disproportion of research.
• Jones offers full explanation of both his critical and positive statements.
  Satinover can not seem to find anything positive in 50 years of work.
• Jones offers a realistic overview of the culture and times when Hooker was writing her study --McCarthyism etc, putting the decision to do this study in perspective.
  Satinover seems to suggest that there was some rampant gay movement highly visible and influential lifestyle -in a period of FBI intrusion on every part of life and a belief that being gay=communist.
• Jones offers full rationalization for disapproval of the APA today and its action in the last decade.
  Satinover seems to have confused the 21st Century approach to pro gay issues with the 1950s then simply assumed it been constant ever since.
• Jones offers practical suggestions and opinions as to why the religious and social conservatives are not making traction on the issue.
  Satinover makes no comment as to why his POV is gaining traction.

All of these things add up to a very easy decision as to which is more credible. balanced and objective, whilst actually still projecting and promoting the Catholic perception on homosexuality.

Now, Satinover, I would imagine, would fall in the category of ‘breakaway band of professionals’ to which you referred in a post upthread.

That reference was in direct response to one of your posts – i simply paraphrased your words to ask what you meant … its not a characterization of people as you are suggesting here. So the credit for this meaning you are perpetuating is yours not mine…

Sure, Hooker’ study had a profound effect. Why wouldn’t a study strategically used by the organization taken over by gay psychiatrists and activists in declassifying homosexuality as a disorder, that went on a path of promotion of the homosexual agenda not have a profound effect? Standing up to a lot of scrutiny? Hardly, that is why the criticisms have not disappeared and the controversy continues.
,

I think the points to the first part of your comment answer these questions …if not let me know.

 

[essie7777]

No, I’m not missing the point. You are stuck on hammering to all here that homosexuality is not a mental illness or disease. I have never called homosexuality a mental illness or disease nor do I work from that point of view.

All of your points are built on the idea that homosexuality is mental illness
To paraphrase one, homosexuality should still be in the DSM but under a different title - are you homestly suggesting this doesn’t require that homosexuality is a mental disease.

If you don’t believe homosexuality is a mental disease can you provide one explanation for your POV which doesn’t include the need to classify homosexuality as a disease then?

Having said this, you can not deny the findings of studies that homosexuals are more at risk for mental issues. The point is that it’s not just me but others here as well are not swayed by you that it is not a disorder. You can insist we don’t mean that medically, so insist away. It matters not. To me and many, sustained homosexual inclination and homogenital activity is a disorder in the common meaning of the word, in the context of natural law which is not even based on religion or a belief in God.

Wrong again, We have discussed the positioning of homosexuality in the DSM not the root cause of psychological stress and cause of mental illness for homosexuals.

Again you are presuming to shift my position on one topic to another without having the basic courtesy to ask me what my POV is.

Because you failed to persuade, notwithstanding the good points raised by Stanton Jones in his essay giving both sides (gays and conservatives) equal blame for the divide on homosexual issues, you latch on this accusatory phrase, ‘relying on a falsehood ,‘ to apply to the unpersuaded.

Jones did not say what you say he said in the article. Read the conclusions over.

The point as i have made clear to you a number of times, the POV you advocate is damaging not helpful is this topic when you insist on framing you POV on the basis homosexuality is a disease. I have stated nothing beyond this one central point. Which is one of the falsehoods that Jones points out for the religous groups on this issue. Your posts follow stereotype exactly on this – that’s not a good thing!

I believe in the morality of the Catholic Church Teachings and i sit here rolling my eyes in frustration over some of the comments. They are made with purely anecdotal opinion and put forward as fact. No wonder people don’t listen. I barely do.

Catholic Teachings do not need to manipulated into being used as tools to be used to diagnosis disease in a reference guide for medical billing.

When I say you are or have aligned with the mainstream health professionals, I mean what I said, which is you regard homosexuality (to mean here as homosexual inclination brought to its conclusion – homogenital activity) as a normal variant of sexuality. Is that true or not?

Your posts have a consistent bad habit of presumption – you make comments, especially about me personally, that are unfounded, unspecified and not anything i have ever stated. And to clarify your obsession with making mental health professional some sort of big bad group of people if they “mainstream” is beyond ridiculous.

A professional can work in the area and disagree with the advocacy position of ONE of the many professional organizations for the industry. As you have stated you are not a mental health professional, you clearly have a very myopic perception of the APA and what they do, and use this to define mainstream mental health professionals. It is ill informed and very naive to presume you can classify professionals based on one issue of advocacy in a organization the size of the APA

You are doing a huge disservice to anyone in this field by distilling everything that the APA does down to one element of it advocacy approach in the last 10 years.

You also have redefined homosexuality for your own purposes. To rephrase; Do i believe in the normalcy of homosexual acts --NO. Have never said i have, have never stated i support this or any of the possible permutations there of.

I know that being a mental health professional and being Catholic are not mutually exclusive. There are people in the mental health care profession, physicians and non-physicians associated with CMA and Catholic Therapists, for example.
,

One of the divisions of the APA focuses solely on the implications of psychology and religion and spirituality --how to incorporate faith views in therapy. Its one of the most popular divisions, so your implied idea that mental health professionals who are Catholic need to be associated with the groups you listed is just untrue.

As a point of reference the Catholic Therapists is BLOG, as informative as it is is is not an accredited association with ongoing training that most professionals need to do to keep licensed.

Professional may join these in addition to an accredited organization but never instead of, especially if they practice and need to remain licensed, and as such require up to date ongoing training on therapeutic interventions. Again you are misguided in your comments as a layperson and not one of these professionals.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Thinking better.
I said in the beginning that homosexuality, I would accept if they would find the gene, but now I see that it cannot be.
Why? Because some genes are not considered normal, they give way to diseases.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

…
You are completely confused here and very insulting.

Excuse me? I disagreed with you. You take offense and yet you do not recognize it when the offense comes from you.

I’d politely suggest that reread my previous posts – i have NEVER stated the APA is correct in its advocacy and embracing of homosexual lifestyle as 'normal", in fact in response to way the APA is handling this issue currently i have clearly stated that i can agree with the removal from the DSM but disagree with the role the APA now.

Your clarification is appreciated then as it was not clear that you are against the role of APA in its gay advocacy role. I have a few follow up questions but I will wait to read your response if you think homosexuality (inclination and action) is a normal variant of sexuality.

Self diagnosis is generally thought to be problematic, by the same vein i would suggest with the utmost of respect that a “thoughtful layperson” is in turn unqualified to define a diagnosis criteria. Especially as what you suggest (ego-dystonic sexual identity) IS included in the DSM - but gender is not a factor of definition - heterosexuals suffer as much as homosexuals. This simply demonstrates you lack of understanding that homosexuality IS NOT a mental disease in isolation.

Wait a minute now. Did I say or put myself out as qualified to define a diagnosis criteria? I expressed a layperson’s view, which is not to be judged as professional opinion, but not to be judged as stupid. In the public square, professionals and non-professionals have a say.

Did you really mean to indicate that I don’t or would not understand homosexuality is not a mental disease in isolation? Now that’s weird to come from you as if you are considering homosexuality as a mental disease as long as it presents with some other complaint.

Anyway, let me lay out a little timeline. The removal of homosexuality as a mental disorder came in three stages, first in 1974 following the pressure of gay psychiatrists and activists on the profession when it reclassified to sexual orientation disturbance, to ego dystonic homosexuality in 1979, which was then removed in 1987 to sexual disorder not otherwise specified, which, as I understand is a largely unused category, as patients who present with complaints of homosexual attraction are just assessed as having marked distress about one’s sexual orientation. And then all the ethics guidelines were drawn up so that patients who seek treatment or management of unwanted homosexual attraction / behavior or re-orientation are not to be entertained for the specific complaint as they are not sick in that sense. They are being told they are normal, to have homosexual urges, and it would be normal to carry on, even encourage to conduct in homogenital activity. In fact, the opinion is that to suppress homosexuality is harmful, to seek re-orientation is harmful.

Now Jones himself has indicated that re-orientation attempts do not appear to be harmful on average or prove inherently harmful, based on the research work he did with Yarhouse.

Do you see why there would be sincere, thoughtful and intelligent folks (not confused!) that would say the profession has done patients who wish to be treated and who have a right to self directed treatment a disservice with the development I outlined?

Will turn in and will pick up the thread tomorrow.
,

 

[John21652]

We can go round and around on this as you have in exchanges with some posters in this and other threads. I understand you are aligned with the now mainstream mental health profession in the dislike for the word ‘disease’ and ‘mental disorder’ or ‘mental illness’ to apply to homosexuality. I think I and a host of others get it (it is not diagnoseable by testing, it does not have clear pathology, etc. etc.) and would like to understand the phenomenon more. It would be gross simplification and unfair accusation to say this means we are perpetuating myth.

InSoG, as Jones demonstrated in his article, the attempts at diagnosing what homosexuality is is now very much a political football.

No matter how you slice it, homosexuality is regarded as a disorder in the common meaning of the word. Sustained homosexual inclination and sexual expression thereof is disordered, out of order, notwithstanding mainstream mental health professionals falling in line with homosexualists that such is a normal and natural variant of sexuality.

Just the small variation in the general population demonstrates that there is nothing “normal” about it. The behavioural deviation from the norm is indicative of something being very wrong. The ordinary meaning of the word 'disorder" refers to something that upsets the normal mental and physical functioning of someone. If the gay protagonists insist that there is no mental disorder, then what is it, a physical disorder? Even so, a homosexual act requires volitional behaviour, so for someone to carry through with a disordered behaviour requires a mental acceptance of something that is not normal. .

Bias? And your comments are free of bias? It could be said you, being in the field of psychology, don’t acknowledge the errors of the APA and their mistakes in dealing with the relevant classification in the DSM.

I am saying the removal of homosexuality from the DSM should have been approached differently. I stated this upthread and hereby repeat:The mental health profession could have stopped at the change or refinement of the diagnosis to ego-dystonic homosexual attraction so therapy can still continue for those who seek management of their unwanted same sex attraction. Dropping the diagnosis from the DSM altogether in the manner it did as a result of political pressure and embrace of “scientific finding” that expression of homosexual attraction is normal and to be encouraged was and remains problematic for society. So it’s clear, I am not proposing it be put back in pre-1973 nomenclature.

I will also repeat that the APA has inappropriately taken an extreme position with its gay advocacy, to the point of signing onto the movement’s objective of legalizing same sex ‘marriage’ and adoption by homosexual couples. These are radical experiments projected to harm the future of society, with impact not to be realized for another generation or two.

Jones in Homosexuality: the use of scientific research in the Church’s moral debate outlines just how the APA went about removing homosexuality as a pathologial state from the DSM-IV. It really was a disgraceful episode and has tainted the science ever since. He points out that the decision was made in great haste and under threat of disruption by gay activists. As Jones points out, despite the actions of the APA, four years after the removal of homosexuality as a pathological condition from the DSM-IV, 69% of psychiatrists still regarded homosexuality as a pathological adaptation. He also cites a 1993 survey done by the APA’s international affairs office which found that the majority of psychiatrists around the world still regard homosexuality as signalling mental illness. Most people feel the same way and it doesn’t require “science”, particularly of the dodgy variety, to percieve and understand this.

Just on these issues alone, anyone falling back onto the APA’s DSM is relying on compromised science.

 

[St_Francis]

(Please forgive me if this is a little jumbled up and/or unclear)

Mark Twain wrote a great essay in response to a news article claiming that the perpetrator of a murder must have been crazy to commit the crime.

And his point is well-taken in this context because… some people do have urges to murder, and some of these people even commit murder.

But having the urge to commit this terrible crime does not, in our view, make a person mentally ill, nor does actually committing a murder.

So we can see that having the urge to commit a sin is not in and of itself a sign of mental illness, nor is committing the sin.

Now, there are two main sides to the homosexual issue: the activist homosexual side and the anti-activist side. (NB: not all people with homosexual inclinations are on the activist side.)

The activists propose that since homosexuality as a state of being is not a choice, and yet is not a mental illness, that it must be all right and that homosexuals and their condition and activity should be as accepted as heterosexuality is and should in no way be fettered, just as heterosexuality is unfettered.*

The Catholic view is, as I understand it, that different people have different temptations to sin; however, these are seen as malleable and somewhat chosen. It is like the devil provides each of us with a cornucopia of temptations then watches to see which ones we will pick.*

Because of the apparent immutability of the homosexual temptation, it is seen differently from your average urge to commit the sin of your choice other than homosexuality. This is the reason that Catholics tend to want to label it or classify it as a disease, because of the apparent lack of choice in the matter. If it weren’t for the insistence that homosexuality is not chosen and is not changeable, we could simply regard it as any other temptation.

I think what we are struggling to do is to find a way for us to discuss and consider the issue that is not the currently-accepted “it’s perfectly normal” model which allows for homosexual “marriage” and adoption.

The unfortunate thing is that society’s acceptance of abc and easy divorce have already done so much damage to society’s perception of the institution of marriage that they don’t even see why there is a problem.

 

[michelleds]

Just the small variation in the general population demonstrates that there is nothing “normal” about it. The behavioural deviation from the norm is indicative of something being very wrong. The ordinary meaning of the word 'disorder" refers to something that upsets the normal mental and physical functioning of someone. If the gay protagonists insist that there is no mental disorder, then what is it, a physical disorder? .

It’s a spiritual disorder.

 

[Jason_Firestone]

The best and most comprehensive studies available suggest that depression and substance abuse are 20 to 30 percent more prevalent among homosexuals. This is typically dismissed by the claim that it results from social stigma, but (in Jones’ words), “the possibility that the orientation and all it entails cuts against a fundamental, gender-based given of the human condition, thus creating distress, is not raised.” Tellingly, the percentages do not appear to drop in cultures which are deliberately gay-friendly.

–Early claims that homosexuality is biologically determined were based on a theory of pregnancy which posited that the mother’s body increasingly reacted against male hormones with successive male children, thereby causing a higher percentage of younger brothers to be incompletely masculinized, and so to be homosexual. This thesis that homosexuals have a disproportionate number of older brothers has now been disproven.

–Genetics is, of course, another area of research into homosexual biological determinism. But the latest and most comprehensive studies of twins and siblings show that heritability for homosexuality is relatively weak (no stronger than for other behavioral tendencies); further, there is no evidence to support the notion that these tendencies are not as modifiable as other tendencies (such as a tendency to watch a great deal of television, which appears also to be heritable).

–In addition, there are many studies which correlate homosexuality with environmental factors such as broken families, absent fathers, older mothers, childhood sexual abuse, and even being born and living in urban settings.

–Despite the uniform proclamation of the psychiatric establishment that homosexual orientation cannot change, no body of properly-conducted studies proves this contention. Jones himself has led studies of groups of persons who are trying to change their orientation, resulting in either a completely successful change in orientation (23%), or the ability to live chastely (30%), or at least a continuing effort with limited success (27%). Only 20% abandoned the effort and affirmed their homosexuality more strongly. Jones concludes that “homosexual orientation is…sometimes mutable.”

–Conclusive evidence exists that committed relationships between homosexual men are 50% more likely to break up than heterosexual relationships. Between homosexual women, the dissolution rate is 167% higher than the heterosexual rate.

The problem with that group of statements is that there is not one citation for ANY of the studies and “evidences”. THAT is simply not acceptable, no matter what position one takes on this issue.

 

[Jason_Firestone]

I am NOT in any way taking a position on this issue. I just want the dialogue to be consistent.

Just the small variation in the general population demonstrates that there is nothing “normal” about it.

Wrong. ALL behaviors exist on a continuum, (on a Bell curve), over a range of behaviors. ANY behavior exists as, (presuming it can somehow be “measured” at all), it does, within the curve. Where EXACTLY are you positing on either end of the curve, does the behavior become “abnormal”, (2 standard deviations out, 3, 4 …where ? ALL behaviors are “normal” because they are behaviors. Whether they are moral or not, is a completely different matter.

The behavioural deviation from the norm is indicative of something being very wrong.

Wrong again. You have provided no support for that assertion, and you also presume that all “straight” behaviors exist in a “narrow range” of behaviors. Did you give them a “normal” test ?

The ordinary meaning of the word 'disorder" refers to something that upsets the normal mental and physical functioning of someone. If the gay protagonists insist that there is no mental disorder, then what is it, a physical disorder?

This argument misses the point. You have not established what “normal” means, AND why deviation from (your) “normal” might not be a good thing. Maybe Almighty God thinks diversity is a good thing ?

Even so, a homosexual act requires volitional behaviour, so for someone to carry through with a disordered behaviour requires a mental acceptance of something that is not normal. .

Same argument. You have not defined “normal”, or "disordered’.

 

[St_Francis]

Hey, all, let us remeber how the word diordered is used by the Church when referring to this topic: 1. it is used to modify the inclination or the act, and 2. it refers not to a medical or physchiatric/psychological/psychanalytical state of disorder (ie, not a mental disorder as seen by those professions), but disordered in the Thomistic sense of not being directed toward an apprpriate end (goal).

I think we need to be clear about the way we are using the word.

 

[chrysostim83]

One aspect of this discussion that has been confusing me is what folks are getting at when they argue that the APA’s decision to remove homosexuality per se from the DSM was not grounded in fact but politics. When they make this claim, are they saying the decision was wrong, that homosexuality per se is a mental illness? If not, then would they say there’s an empirical basis for keeping homosexuality out of the DSM? And again, if not, then upon what basis other than politics could the APA have come to the right decision on this issue?

 

[John21652]

I am NOT in any way taking a position on this issue. I just want the dialogue to be consistent.

Ok, but I think you need to rethink the way you view statistics.

Just the small variation in the general population demonstrates that there is nothing “normal” about it.

Wrong. ALL behaviors exist on a continuum, (on a Bell curve), over a range of behaviors. ANY behavior exists as, (presuming it can somehow be “measured” at all), it does, within the curve. Where EXACTLY are you positing on either end of the curve, does the behavior become “abnormal”, (2 standard deviations out, 3, 4 …where ? ALL behaviors are “normal” because they are behaviors. Whether they are moral or not, is a completely different matter.

Wrong Jason. The wrongness of behaviours is why they are ascribed moral wrongness. It’s a chicken and egg problem, but one that is easily solved. In simple terms, killing is wrong because we deduce that people wish to live and if killed they are denied their right to live. Then, only then, do we lay down that killing is a moral wrong. Not all killing is morally wrong, as evidenced by the rule regarding self defence and in times of a Just War. So, unjustified killing is described as being ‘morally wrong’.

Not all behaviours belong on the same Bell Curve. If you put all human behaviours onto the same Bell Curve, then the number of points which relate to behaviour would be so many it would be almost impossible to discern a norm. For instance, do you put prefences for certain types of football onto the one Bell Curve? Or preferences for certain types of food? What about movie genre preferences? Include them too?

No, you Bell Curve each behaviour to discern what the norm is. As for whether it is one, two or three ppints away from the normal range doesn’t really matter, because with the regard to the topic at hand, it isn’t really hard to tell.

The behavioural deviation from the norm is indicative of something being very wrong.

Wrong again. You have provided no support for that assertion, and you also presume that all “straight” behaviors exist in a “narrow range” of behaviors. Did you give them a “normal” test ?

What exactly do you mean by "all ‘straight’ behaviours? Movie going? Broccoli eating? Book reading? At this point you need to look up what is meant by normative behaviour.

The ordinary meaning of the word 'disorder" refers to something that upsets the normal mental and physical functioning of someone. If the gay protagonists insist that there is no mental disorder, then what is it, a physical disorder?

This argument misses the point. You have not established what “normal” means, AND why deviation from (your) “normal” might not be a good thing. Maybe Almighty God thinks diversity is a good thing ?

You are speaking in very general terms. Diversity of what, for instance? We have indeed established what “normal” is and there are arguments aplenty about the harm it causes. Is the diversity you think God might like to include behaviours that result in harm?

Even so, a homosexual act requires volitional behaviour, so for someone to carry through with a disordered behaviour requires a mental acceptance of something that is not normal. .

Same argument. You have not defined “normal”, or "disordered’.

OK, I’ll define it for you. It has been done before.

The topic is homosexuality.
Homosexuality has two aspects to it. The first is same sex attraction and the second is, well, same sex sex.

When most human beings experience sexual attraction, it is usually because they are in close proximity to a human being of the opposite sex. Sexual attraction to someone of the same sex is a rare event and is not the norm.

When a human being normally has sex, it is with a partner of the opposite sex. Penises go into vaginas and it is rather obvious that’s what penises and vaginas were designed for. Rumour has it that’s how babies are made and they eventually exit the female body via the vagina.

In homosexual sex, penises go into anuses. The penis so used is pointing in the wrong direction. The anus so used is recieving something into it, when it is actually designed to expel something out of it. That’s what anuses, properly functioning, do. Rumour has it that penises pushed into anuses will not result in babies being made and no babies have been observed coming out of anuses, so it’s probably true.

So we can deduce, using our God given logic, that penises being forced into anuses is not normal.

Staistically, the number of human beings that engage in the latter behavioural patterns are quite small. This, when Bell Graphed, or any other sort of graphed, sets alarm bells ringing in the minds of researchers, because it is indicative of behaviour that lies outside the boundaries of what is discerned as normal behaviour.

I hope this goes part way towards clarifying this issue for you.

 

[essie7777]

Excuse me? I disagreed with you. You take offense and yet you do not recognize it when the offense comes from you.

I am more than comfortable to accept VALID criticism of anything i have written. Again though you are giving me credit for your own posts.

You did not disagree with me at all – you went off on your personal crusade against "mainstream mental health professionals and then again with no basis went on to sate that these people fully supported all gay rights etc … i am paraphrasing here.

I pointed out you are confused and insulting in this presumption. That’s not you disagreeing with me, its you judging people based on fantasy without fact, your judging and commenting based on nothing that has been written.

No matter how you slice it, homosexuality is regarded as a disorder in the common meaning of the word. Sustained homosexual inclination and sexual expression thereof is disordered, out of order, notwithstanding mainstream mental health professionals falling in line with homosexualists that such is a normal and natural variant of sexuality

And again you refer to that group onto which you are trying desperately to force the moniker “mainstream healthcare professionals”, as if this is a bad thing. You have no idea what those main stream professionals are like in their work, thoughts or anything.

You are making gigantic leaps in assuming that a layperson with no clinical experience at all can talk for the industry as a whole. That’s simply wrong. Your opinion is based on such a small concept of interpretation of one issue in mental health care … using this to judge a whole profession and its actions is unbelievably arrogant and unfounded.

As has been pointed out to you licensure REQUIRES membership of accredited associations with ongoing certifiable training. The alternatives you list as a layperson assuming you know the industry better than those working in it --are not accredited for licensure requirements at all. People may be member of a blog based directory such as Catholic Therapists, but i would bet that they are also members of one of the larger accredited organisations such as the APA as well.

Your clarification is appreciated then as it was not clear that you are against the role of APA in its gay advocacy role. I have a few follow up questions but I will wait to read your response if you think homosexuality (inclination and action) is a normal variant of sexuality.

Actually what you clearly meant to say here was “i apologize for putting words in your mouth when you have never stated it.”

As polite as your response is you abstain yourself from all responsibility of making something up --a lie by any other definition. There has been no clarification, i responded to something you made up in fantasyland.