J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
But Mercygate, it it’s inside marriage can it be considered fornication?
Sorry, I just split my quota of hairs for the day!
- Status
Sorry, I just split my quota of hairs for the day!
O
Other_Eric
Guest
Hi JKirkLVNV!
JKirkLVNV:
The economic question behind obtaining reparative therapy is also incidental. In your example the Church makes allowances for people who cannot attend confession. She would probably do something similar in the case of the homosexual but admonish him to start the therapy as soon as he is able. Perhaps providing low-cost or free reparative therapy is an opening for a ministry to homosexuals?
I would quibble with your point that confession is free. In the strictest sense, none of the sacraments are. Somebody has to pay so that the priest administering the sacraments can support himself.
The economic question behind obtaining reparative therapy is also incidental. In your example the Church makes allowances for people who cannot attend confession. She would probably do something similar in the case of the homosexual but admonish him to start the therapy as soon as he is able. Perhaps providing low-cost or free reparative therapy is an opening for a ministry to homosexuals?
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Other Eric:
B) You still have not addressed the fact that reparative therapy is not successful for everyone. Where does that leave that soul for whom it is not successful? Nothing in medicine, either physical or psychological, is 100% successful. The Church has already spoken to homosexuality in the CCC. A summary is that orientation is disordered, but not sinful. Actions alone are sinful.
C) What you propose is still not the teaching of the Church.
A) It is in the strictest sense that they are free! No one can be refused them due to a lack of money.
B) You still have not addressed the fact that reparative therapy is not successful for everyone. Where does that leave that soul for whom it is not successful? Nothing in medicine, either physical or psychological, is 100% successful. The Church has already spoken to homosexuality in the CCC. A summary is that orientation is disordered, but not sinful. Actions alone are sinful.
C) What you propose is still not the teaching of the Church.
O
Other_Eric
Guest
Hi JKirkLVNV!
Well, as I said before, there is a cost associated with the priest available to administer the sacraments. It’s not a cost that’s borne by me directly but it’s folly to think that it’s even possible that they are completely free. The Church labors to provide them to her children and bears the cost herself. This is a minor point, however, The economics of the sacraments is a topic for another thread.
The reason that I hadn’t addressed the issue of whether the therapy is effective or not is because we are assuming for the purposes of this thread that it is. Nevertheless, your point that there is no therapy that is 100% effective is well taken. In cases where it has not worked it may be appropriate to ask whether the patient has applied enough effort or whether he or she is really willing to change. NARTH does not have any testimonies or literature or even interviews with people who wanted to change but could not and remain homosexual.
Well, as I said before, there is a cost associated with the priest available to administer the sacraments. It’s not a cost that’s borne by me directly but it’s folly to think that it’s even possible that they are completely free. The Church labors to provide them to her children and bears the cost herself. This is a minor point, however, The economics of the sacraments is a topic for another thread.
The reason that I hadn’t addressed the issue of whether the therapy is effective or not is because we are assuming for the purposes of this thread that it is. Nevertheless, your point that there is no therapy that is 100% effective is well taken. In cases where it has not worked it may be appropriate to ask whether the patient has applied enough effort or whether he or she is really willing to change. NARTH does not have any testimonies or literature or even interviews with people who wanted to change but could not and remain homosexual.
B
BibleReader
Guest
I think that testimonials by former male homosexuals saying, “I was a practicing homosexual! But, now I’m a happily married heterosexual!,” are self-delusion by mostly heterosexual bi-sexuals. They really aren’t good precedent for the concept that homosexual inclinations are changeable.
I think that homosexual inclinations are the product of substantially permanent imprinting, and that cultivation of social pressure upon homosexuals to subject themselves to “conversion therapy,” based on a philosophy that homosexuality is changeable, rather than on a philsophy that God requires only that they be celibate, is itself sinful.
I think that homosexual inclinations are the product of substantially permanent imprinting, and that cultivation of social pressure upon homosexuals to subject themselves to “conversion therapy,” based on a philosophy that homosexuality is changeable, rather than on a philsophy that God requires only that they be celibate, is itself sinful.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Other Eric:
See, even here, we are unwittingly victimizing the struggling homosexual. How? I’ve never met a gay who didn’t believe that he or she wasn’t always gay, at least from the time that they became aware of being sexual beings. Whether this is because homosexuality is genetic/biological or environmental doesn’t enter into it (we don’t know for certain which is the case or if either is always the case in EVERY case). In either case, the person stands apart from his or her condition, very much the innocent bystander, until the moment they act on the impulse or attraction. It’s the acting out that is the sin, not the inclination or the temptation. And to say, “well, if this doesn’t work, maybe you didn’t try hard enough” seems to vest a great deal of faith in something that is relatively young in the system of psychological studies and treatments. The CCC is PLAIN in what our response to homosexual people is supposed to be and it doesn’t include,“Here, you’ve got to go to therapy or you’ll die in a state of sin.” That’s the logical conclusion of your argument. By all means, denounce the sin. If a priest has a lover, male or female, expel him from the priesthood. Don’t give into the “gay” agenda in either the Church or in our nation. But we as Catholics have a duty to our homosexual brethren laid down in the teachings of the Church. We all have crosses to carry, each a little different.
O
Other_Eric
Guest
Hi JKirkLVNV!
I think it’s important to remember that reparative therapy is a pretty new and largely unproven procedure. Essentially, those who volunteer themselves for the therapy are little more than human guinea pigs at this point. Based on this I think it would be unwise to insist homosexuals undergo conversion therapy at this time. Nevertheless, NARTH is adamant that change is possible in the vast majority of cases and I note that Courage, the Church’s own chastity ministry has a link to NARTH on its website. I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that sooner or later the Church will recognize that the therapy is largely successful. I think when that day comes the Church must reevaluate the blameless nature of the homosexual condition. I have confirmation from one very prominent apologist that “there may be people who choose to reject something that would reduce the temptation to commit what is, objectively morally disordered [and] such a choice would be sinful.”
I think it’s important to remember that reparative therapy is a pretty new and largely unproven procedure. Essentially, those who volunteer themselves for the therapy are little more than human guinea pigs at this point. Based on this I think it would be unwise to insist homosexuals undergo conversion therapy at this time. Nevertheless, NARTH is adamant that change is possible in the vast majority of cases and I note that Courage, the Church’s own chastity ministry has a link to NARTH on its website. I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that sooner or later the Church will recognize that the therapy is largely successful. I think when that day comes the Church must reevaluate the blameless nature of the homosexual condition. I have confirmation from one very prominent apologist that “there may be people who choose to reject something that would reduce the temptation to commit what is, objectively morally disordered [and] such a choice would be sinful.”
L
Lisa_N
Guest
I find your position bizarre. Why do you think those who say they have left the homosexual lifestyle are “delusional?” Why do you think homosexual inclinations are not changeable?
My own experience with men who currently identify as homosexual is that they were at one point heterosexual but “realized their true nature” all helped by predatory seductions on the part of older homosexuals. I think one of the most extreme examples is a cousin by marriage. He seemed TOTALLY straight all through his teen years and early adulthood. He married, had two kids, had a successful career in law enforcement. After eleven years of marriage he came home one day and told his wife to pack and leave as he was moving in a young man who was his new ‘true love.’ That lasted only long enough for “true love” to extract as much money as my cousin had and then he moved on. Cousin went through a number of transitory homosexual relationships and is now just a single guy trying to repair a broken relationship with his son. Was he NOT heterosexual when he married and conceived children? Unlike women, men DO have to be sexually aroused to engage in intercourse. According to my cousin’s exwife there were no problems in the bedroom and she is frankly thankful he didn’t give her AIDS or another STD. Another friend appeared straight also through teen years, lived with a girl for quite a while. They started a business together and still lived together (platonically) for a while until she married another man. They both said they had a ‘completely normal’ and active sex life but my friend decided he liked sex with men better. She was incidentally the only woman he’d had sexual relations with. Another friend of mine dated through his teen years, seemed rather uninterested in ANY relationships as he was busy establishing a career. He was seduced by an older homosexual and claims he realized he was homosexual at that point. He is very low key and you wouldn’t know he was homosexual by mannerisms.
So what are we to believe? That this is PERMANENT? I know of ONE homosexual who told me he had these inclinations since his early puberty. The rest of them were straight, then homosexual, and who knows what’s next
Lisa N
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Other Eric:
And who is that apologist? And what does he say would happen to that person’s soul if it didn’t “work?” If he’s not JPII, then he doesn’t hold the power to teach authoritatively to the whole Church or to bind or loose. And the Church never insists on medical treatments!
E
Exalt
Guest
Other Eric:
Other Eric:
This is a large assumption. It is why your arguement fails.
Other Eric:
No, because your primary assumption (that repairative therapy works) is unproven. In fact, the highest estimates for success rate of repairative therapy (that I have observed) is 33%.
O
Other_Eric
Guest
Hi JKirkLVNV!
JKirkLVNV:
Moreover, the teaching of the Church on homosexuality is not just arbitrary. It is based upon the best social science we have on the issue so far. My point is that the science may have something new to add in this debate that has not been offered before. That homosexuality can be cured. Are you saying that Church teaching should ignore this? Is your opinion of homosexuals so low that you would keep them in ignorance about the sinful potential of all the choices that they make?
It really doesn’t matter who the apologist is because I am not going to make his identity a point of debate. This says nothing about the state of a man’s soul should he be a homosexual. Nor do I anymore than I would presume to pontificate on the state of a man’s soul should he use contraception, miss his Sunday obligation or even commit murder. Nevertheless, all of those examples remain objectively sinful and adding homosexuality to this group would not necessarily say anything about whether our hypothetical homosexual is in a state of grace.
Moreover, the teaching of the Church on homosexuality is not just arbitrary. It is based upon the best social science we have on the issue so far. My point is that the science may have something new to add in this debate that has not been offered before. That homosexuality can be cured. Are you saying that Church teaching should ignore this? Is your opinion of homosexuals so low that you would keep them in ignorance about the sinful potential of all the choices that they make?
O
Other_Eric
Guest
Hi Exalt!
It may be a large assumption, but the area of homosexuality is rife with assumptions and unproven theories. This has not stopped people from proposing legislation based on the theory of a “gay gene,” nor has it stopped the Church from responding to the morality of the homosexual condition in the face of these genetic arguments. This is merely an argument from another direction.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Other Eric:
T
tuopaolo
Guest
Having a mere homosexual emotional inclination, as long as it is not approved of, dwelt on, indulged in, or acted upon, or consented to, is not a sin. It still makes one short of moral perfection but none of us, besides the saints, have reached moral perfection.
But, if a homosexual emotional inclination can be cured or treated then it would be a good thing to so cure or treat it provided the costs of doing so are not prohibitive. It may be a sin to not pursue such a cure if there are no significant costs of doing so. If the homosexual emotional inclination not only can be cured or treated but is also for the person a near occasion of sin, then to not pursue a cure or treatment for it provided the costs are not prohibitive or substantial would be a sin. Jesus Himself makes this clear when He teaches about cutting off the hand that causes us to sin, etc. The teaching that one must avoid near occasions of sin or try to render them remote is an age-old Catholic teaching. A resolution to avoid near occasions of sin (or try to render them remote) is part of some Acts of Contrition.
Just because not pursuing viable and low-cost treatment for one’s homosexual emotional inclination is a sin does not mean that the homosexual emotional inclination itself is a sin. But it is still objectively disordered and an evil that is incompatible with moral perfection.
But, if a homosexual emotional inclination can be cured or treated then it would be a good thing to so cure or treat it provided the costs of doing so are not prohibitive. It may be a sin to not pursue such a cure if there are no significant costs of doing so. If the homosexual emotional inclination not only can be cured or treated but is also for the person a near occasion of sin, then to not pursue a cure or treatment for it provided the costs are not prohibitive or substantial would be a sin. Jesus Himself makes this clear when He teaches about cutting off the hand that causes us to sin, etc. The teaching that one must avoid near occasions of sin or try to render them remote is an age-old Catholic teaching. A resolution to avoid near occasions of sin (or try to render them remote) is part of some Acts of Contrition.
Just because not pursuing viable and low-cost treatment for one’s homosexual emotional inclination is a sin does not mean that the homosexual emotional inclination itself is a sin. But it is still objectively disordered and an evil that is incompatible with moral perfection.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
I disagree. The CCC#2333 uses this phrase: “They do not choose their homosexual condition.” If they do not choose it, then it isn’t a sin on their part until they choose to act on it. As long as they are not acting on it, they are not in a state of sin, regardless of how much they are tempted. When Christ talked about cutting off one’s hand, He simply spoke of avoiding the occasion of sin. He never said that temptations wouldn’t present themselves. And we still do not know whether reparative therapy works over the long term. Of course, this isn’t about the effectiveness, this is a thelolgical point. But it’s a crucial one. I believe you are laying additional and uneeded burdens on already struggling people to say that they have to get therapy or they’re in a state of sin. You’ve also created a special class of sin, one that requires a remedy beyond Christ’s Passion, Death, and Resurrection. It’s one thing to encourage people to therapy, it’s another thing entirely to hang God’s Mercy and Forgiveness on something that He doesn’t require and to create a special class of sinners, whose sins have to be dealt with something “extra.”
T
tuopaolo
Guest
Not it doesn’t. CCC#2333 reads as follows:
Everyone, man and woman, should acknowledge and accept his sexual identity. Physical, moral, and spiritual *difference *and *complementarity *are oriented toward the goods of marriage and the flourishing of family life. The harmony of the couple and of society depends in part on the way in which the complementarity, needs, and mutual support between the sexes are lived out.
It doesn’t include anything like the sentence you quoted. But in the first non-definitive edition of the Catechism in #2358, the sentence you quoted was present. But this sentence was excised in the second, definitive edition and is replaced with this sentence:
“This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial.”
You can read all the changes made in the 2nd edition from the 1st edition here:
scborromeo.org/ccc/updates.htm
And be careful when looking at a website online to check that it is the 2nd edition and not the 1st. And be especially wary of www.christusrex.org as their online catechism mixes and matches the 2nd and 1st editions.
But they do choose it if by ignoring therapy that is viable they choose to remain in that state. Whether or not they initially chose to be in that emotionally disordered state, by disregarding therapy that works and isn’t costly, they would then be choosing to remain in it.
Right, and having this homosexual disorder can be an occasion of sin, in which case you are obliged to “avoid” it if feasible. Getting rid of it is a way to “avoid” it.
If one can get rid of these temptations and these temptations are an occasion of sin, then one has an obligation to get rid of the temptations if that is feasible. Saying that temptations are inevitable is no excuse since these particular temptations are not inevitable if there is indeed effective therapy that can get rid of them. If this effective therapy is not costly and one chooses to not use it then one is choosing to keep one’s self in an occasion of sin.
There’s no special rule. Same thing would apply to any condition that is a near occasion of sin.
J
JustSomeGuy
Guest
wow, homosexuality is the hot topic on these forums. in my experience, Catholics are the most accepting and understanding people. that is not to say that they have no moral backbone. i just thought that we knew the difference between persecution and prosecution. having read many of the posts in these forums, i am not so sure.
point number one: it is not possible to believe that homosexuality is inborn (in anyway) and believe in the Redemption of Jesus Christ. ‘my, what a bold statement’ you say? yes. Jesus Christ died on the Cross to restore us to the original order of creation by God, our Father. the broken and profaned nature of man is purified by the Blood of Christ to its original dignity. not mankind as a whole, but each man and woman individually. this redemption is begun by an act of faith in Baptism and completed when the Son of God confers eternal life upon us.
to hold that a person has an innate, different nature than what is natural in the eyes of God is the same as saying that the person is unredeemable. if the very nature of a person must be destroyed in order for that person to be made into the image and likeness of God, then how does that constitute the redeeming of that person? the nature of mankind was not changed by sin in such a way that the being of each person must be destroyed and created again so that each one can have eternal life. and if it is not so for each one, how could it be so for some? God, our Father, intimately loves each one of us, and the Father loves only that which is good. if the very being of a person is incompatible with life in the Father, how can it be said that they are good and loved by God? if they are not good and loved by the Father, how could Jesus Christ have died for them? to say that a homosexual was “made that way” denies the Redemption. that is why the Church condemns the action and not the individual. homosexuality is “objectively disordered.” ‘objectively’ is used to mean ‘always’ or ‘without any subjective considerations.’ “disordered” means that it is different from, and incompatible with, God’s natural order. ‘disorder’ is in no way used as it is by mental health people.
continued below…
point number one: it is not possible to believe that homosexuality is inborn (in anyway) and believe in the Redemption of Jesus Christ. ‘my, what a bold statement’ you say? yes. Jesus Christ died on the Cross to restore us to the original order of creation by God, our Father. the broken and profaned nature of man is purified by the Blood of Christ to its original dignity. not mankind as a whole, but each man and woman individually. this redemption is begun by an act of faith in Baptism and completed when the Son of God confers eternal life upon us.
to hold that a person has an innate, different nature than what is natural in the eyes of God is the same as saying that the person is unredeemable. if the very nature of a person must be destroyed in order for that person to be made into the image and likeness of God, then how does that constitute the redeeming of that person? the nature of mankind was not changed by sin in such a way that the being of each person must be destroyed and created again so that each one can have eternal life. and if it is not so for each one, how could it be so for some? God, our Father, intimately loves each one of us, and the Father loves only that which is good. if the very being of a person is incompatible with life in the Father, how can it be said that they are good and loved by God? if they are not good and loved by the Father, how could Jesus Christ have died for them? to say that a homosexual was “made that way” denies the Redemption. that is why the Church condemns the action and not the individual. homosexuality is “objectively disordered.” ‘objectively’ is used to mean ‘always’ or ‘without any subjective considerations.’ “disordered” means that it is different from, and incompatible with, God’s natural order. ‘disorder’ is in no way used as it is by mental health people.
continued below…
J
JustSomeGuy
Guest
continued from previous…
point number two: the theory behind reparative therapy, and what it tries to do. the sense of the word ‘reparative’ in “reparative therapy” should not be taken to mean ‘repair’ as in ‘fix’. this misunderstanding leads people to think ‘homosexual=broken’ and ‘heterosexual=fixed’. that is not the theory.
first, the theory takes choice into account. when we make choices, we create consequences. those consequences are the circumstances under which we make other choices. while we would like to foresee the consequences of our choices, that is not always possible, especially when we are young. at certain points and in certain circumstances, people make choices that lead them to engage in homosexuality, whether those choices are explicit or not.
the theory has tried to identify what some of those choices are and under what circumstances people might be faced to make the wrong choices, which lead them to foster a homosexual identity.
“reparative” is used in the sense of ‘making reparations’. that is, re-orienting the person to deal with life as if they had made the proper choices and related to the world with a normal sexual identity. it doesn’t ‘fix’ anything, it tries to habituate the person to unfamiliar behaviors. this does not only mean sexual behaviors, but behaviors concerning all interactions with people, male and female.
here is an example. for whatever reason, a male teen is perceived by his peers as effeminate. they make fun of him, call him a ‘fag’ and don’t welcome him into masculine activities (sports, bs sessions, proper male relationships.) the teen chooses (consciously or not) to turn inward and place their assessment on himself. this choice will affect his future behaviors, possibly leading him to associate other men with sex. if he does, one of the ways to change that association is to help him experience the normal male comradery that he missed. the assumption is that if a man gets what is normal from other men, he will be less likely to try to get what is abnormal.
another example is where the person has weak or non-existent parental models as a youth. this doesn’t always mean that the parent was at fault. it does mean that normal sexual identity is modeled by the parents, and that the child usually is guided to normalcy in the family. it has been found that for the majority of homosexual men and women, this mechanism has failed, often at the unconscious fault of one or both parents. the homosexual male who doesn’t find the right kind of affection from the father, looks to other males for that affection. in some cases, as the person matures, they begin to associate that desire for male intimacy with sexuality. instead desiring a relationship that is formative, they begin to seek to fulfill other needs because they are already in the habit of focusing outwardly on other males. no one can ‘fix’ mistakes of the past. the therapy tries to introduce new alternatives, so that men can play a normal role in their lives. basically, the homosexual male has to eventually ask, “if men aren’t for sex, then what are they for?”
continued again…
point number two: the theory behind reparative therapy, and what it tries to do. the sense of the word ‘reparative’ in “reparative therapy” should not be taken to mean ‘repair’ as in ‘fix’. this misunderstanding leads people to think ‘homosexual=broken’ and ‘heterosexual=fixed’. that is not the theory.
first, the theory takes choice into account. when we make choices, we create consequences. those consequences are the circumstances under which we make other choices. while we would like to foresee the consequences of our choices, that is not always possible, especially when we are young. at certain points and in certain circumstances, people make choices that lead them to engage in homosexuality, whether those choices are explicit or not.
the theory has tried to identify what some of those choices are and under what circumstances people might be faced to make the wrong choices, which lead them to foster a homosexual identity.
“reparative” is used in the sense of ‘making reparations’. that is, re-orienting the person to deal with life as if they had made the proper choices and related to the world with a normal sexual identity. it doesn’t ‘fix’ anything, it tries to habituate the person to unfamiliar behaviors. this does not only mean sexual behaviors, but behaviors concerning all interactions with people, male and female.
here is an example. for whatever reason, a male teen is perceived by his peers as effeminate. they make fun of him, call him a ‘fag’ and don’t welcome him into masculine activities (sports, bs sessions, proper male relationships.) the teen chooses (consciously or not) to turn inward and place their assessment on himself. this choice will affect his future behaviors, possibly leading him to associate other men with sex. if he does, one of the ways to change that association is to help him experience the normal male comradery that he missed. the assumption is that if a man gets what is normal from other men, he will be less likely to try to get what is abnormal.
another example is where the person has weak or non-existent parental models as a youth. this doesn’t always mean that the parent was at fault. it does mean that normal sexual identity is modeled by the parents, and that the child usually is guided to normalcy in the family. it has been found that for the majority of homosexual men and women, this mechanism has failed, often at the unconscious fault of one or both parents. the homosexual male who doesn’t find the right kind of affection from the father, looks to other males for that affection. in some cases, as the person matures, they begin to associate that desire for male intimacy with sexuality. instead desiring a relationship that is formative, they begin to seek to fulfill other needs because they are already in the habit of focusing outwardly on other males. no one can ‘fix’ mistakes of the past. the therapy tries to introduce new alternatives, so that men can play a normal role in their lives. basically, the homosexual male has to eventually ask, “if men aren’t for sex, then what are they for?”
continued again…
J
JustSomeGuy
Guest
last part…
sexual desire is the toughest issue. sexual practice creates habitual sexual response. a person becomes sexually interested in another person largely because they know mentally that they like what is about to happen (or what is happening.) a person who has created the mental and physical habit concerning one kind of sexual practice, will not immediately find other practices appealing. (this goes for all the weird things out there too—auto-erotica, pornography, and other unmentionables.) no self-respecting or God-loving therapist would recommend that the homosexual go off on a rampant heterosexual spree. that’s just introducing another kind of brokenness. that’s why some people say therapy doesn’t work. it takes time and relationship building. it takes trust in self and in God. if the person is going to change into something good, that means that when they end homosexual activity, it will be replaced with no sexual activity. they cannot create a new habitual sexual response until marriage. until they encounter someone holy enough to accept them with their past and insecure future, they are left in doubt of the completeness of their identity.
throughout, the theory assumes that the person wants to change and that the person believes that normal means ‘sex between a male and a female’. the proper therapist is a guide to normalcy, not a mind mechanic. it is my opinion that this is all possible through the Church from the Trinity, but not if the Church assaults people or makes them cower in fear when they approach. so all you gay-bashing Catholics who rant on these forums, ease up, think a little, and have a little mercy.
don’t give in to the impulse to rant some **** back at me. i don’t really expect to change you, and i’m really not interested.
for Christ, in reparation for my sins,
john
sexual desire is the toughest issue. sexual practice creates habitual sexual response. a person becomes sexually interested in another person largely because they know mentally that they like what is about to happen (or what is happening.) a person who has created the mental and physical habit concerning one kind of sexual practice, will not immediately find other practices appealing. (this goes for all the weird things out there too—auto-erotica, pornography, and other unmentionables.) no self-respecting or God-loving therapist would recommend that the homosexual go off on a rampant heterosexual spree. that’s just introducing another kind of brokenness. that’s why some people say therapy doesn’t work. it takes time and relationship building. it takes trust in self and in God. if the person is going to change into something good, that means that when they end homosexual activity, it will be replaced with no sexual activity. they cannot create a new habitual sexual response until marriage. until they encounter someone holy enough to accept them with their past and insecure future, they are left in doubt of the completeness of their identity.
throughout, the theory assumes that the person wants to change and that the person believes that normal means ‘sex between a male and a female’. the proper therapist is a guide to normalcy, not a mind mechanic. it is my opinion that this is all possible through the Church from the Trinity, but not if the Church assaults people or makes them cower in fear when they approach. so all you gay-bashing Catholics who rant on these forums, ease up, think a little, and have a little mercy.
don’t give in to the impulse to rant some **** back at me. i don’t really expect to change you, and i’m really not interested.
for Christ, in reparation for my sins,
john
L
Lisa_N
Guest
Just curious if you know how many “homosexuals” had sexual relationships with the opposite sex either before or during their homosexual days? My experience has been that most homosexuals were heterosexual or at least had normal heterosexual relationships with the opposite sex before deciding their ‘true nature’ was as homosexual…this being helped in no small part by a very strong homosexual lobby that has invaded the media, schools, and entertainment industry. IOW I think that some people feel very validated and rewarded by orienting toward the homosexual world, particularly if they felt marginalized or put upon. It may appear dangerous, glamorous, or exciting. Think about it, that’s what attracts people to other very dangerous behaviors including drugs, smoking, driving too fast.
I think too often, maybe because of the homosexual lobby, people so totally identify with their current genital practices that they see themselves as a homosexual first, thereby making it even harder to change. People are NOT their behavior. I wish we could make that point better but I know it’s too easy to call someone a homosexual or a drunk or a pedophile. I do it all the time without thinking about it.
don’t give in to the impulse to rant some **** back at me. i don’t really expect to change you, and i’m really not interested.
for Christ, in reparation for my sins,
john
Frankly with few exceptions, the people on these boards are not engaged in ‘bashing.’ However they do not back down when homosexuals try to defend their behavior, claim homosexuality is perfectly normal, claim homosexual relationships are equivalent to male/female sacramental marriage, or ignore the incredible damage inflicted by predatory homosexuals on the Church as well as on many individuals.
Indeed some people probably speak very strongly but I would say that is the exception. Please correct me with examples as you may consider statements “bashing” when my interpretation is that they are simply truthful and forthright.
Lisa N
- Status