Psychologist Ruth T. Barnhouse in her book entitled:
Homosexuality: A Symbolical Confusion;
…
books.google.ca/books?id=OBCLFjqJdyIC&pg=PA190&lpg=PA190&dq=Ruth+T+Barnhouse+homosexuality:+A+Symbolical+confusion&source=web&ots=5SMiKNHZOx&sig=UmRJK
…
claims that “thirty” percent of male homosexuals who come to psychotherapy for any reason ( not just for help with their sexual preference ) can be converted to the heterosexual adaptation. The author adds that the 30% statistic just given is well known, documented, and not difficult to verify, and suggest that homosexual persons denying that their sexual orientation is reversible are resisting an awareness that would threaten their complacent acceptance of a gay identity.
Gay militants, however, will hear of no talk of psychotherapy, maintaining that homosexuality is normal. They, rather, are aggressively demanding the legal recognition of same-sex-“marriages” which we see on a global front today in Europe, the U.K., Canada and in an increasing number of U.S. States poised to set the stage. Nevertheless, the word “matrimony” (from the Latin word “matris munium”, clearly means (“the union of a man and woman to form a family”). To allow a man to marry a man or woman to marry a woman is to deny the inherent procreative nature of marriage and therefore change it’s very definition.
It not only changes it’s definition, it essential voids it…If one eliminates procreation from the basic definition of marriage, on what legal basis could one stop three people from getting married, or a mother and son etc ? For liberal minded people supporting the gay agenda, the time has come to recognize the definitive decline of the ideal ( Or the Illusion ) of an ethic. ( And especially a sexual ethic concerning traditional marriage, that is universally shared and therefore worthy of institutional protection. This means that the idea considered an illusion by liberals), that “private forms of life” - including sexual forms-
can all be reduced to uni-vocal models, which can be uni-vocally determined at the level of law (“as is indeed the case of marriage that requires people of different sexes”) has become obsolete. The law’s in the courts responsibility—again in the opinion of liberals—is not to give preference to some but to recognize them all, without any kind of discrimination. Legally regulating homosexual unions would (“NOT”) mean rejecting the law, but merely asking the law to put itself at the service of the new polytheism that dominates our time and history in the world today.
The very communal nature of marriage and family stands in radical contradiction to the “liberal” emphasis on individual freedom and rights. Throughout many countries of the world and in the United States the gay rights movement with it’s avid supporters in Hollywood, the grand media and mass entertainment, including the multi-billion dollar porn industry, have all been in the forefront leading the battle against the idea that there are (“objective”), or-if-you-will natural modes of interpersonal communication, modes that the law is called on to formalize, regulate, and guarantee.
The Catholic Church, therefore, finds same-sex “marriages” and domestic partnerships objectionable because they can only damage society by weakening the institution of traditional marriage and thus encouraging heterosexual couples to forego the marital commitment.
). I can’t imagine anyone choosing to be gay and being willing to be the scorn of society for it. I know of gay people who have been spit on, beaten, and murdered for being gay. Why would you suffer that if you could choose?