Is it wrong to not oppose secular gay marriage?

[Godspells]

The American Medical Association has stated that attempts to change a person’s sexual orientation can be harmful. It says NOTHING about homosexual tendencies being a natural variation in human behavior.

The American Psychological Association has a different story:

Nota Bene…the word “SUGGESTS”.

The APA does not state that research has conclusively proven anything.

Heck! I could say that Zoltan’s research suggests that the APA is a bunch of lunatics and I would be as credible as they are.

Remember our history…until 1973 the APA considered homosexuality to be a disorder and not a natural orientation. Militant homosexual groups began disrupting numerous scientific programs and conferences in the early to mid seventies, including the APA and it’s meetings. Gay political groups especially targeted and disrupted national and local meetings in which the psychopathology and treatment of homosexuality were being debated.

The results were that 243 practitioners and members of the APA petitioned for a referendum to vote on a reversal of the ruling. That vote occurred in April 1974 in which 40% of the voters disagreed with the ruling, asserting that there were no legitimate scientific reasons for the APA’s change in fundamental psychiatric therapy.

In late 1977, 68% of American Medical Association psychiatrists responding to a poll still viewed homosexuality as a pathological adaptation as opposed to a normal variation.

The 1973 APA ruling did not resolve the issue…it simply silenced 80 years of psychoanalytic observation."

As of this moment there exists no truly objective means of determining whether a person is innately homosexual.

If it ever is scientifically proven that “homosexual orientation is in place very early in the life cycle, possibly even before birth.”…then a cure or treatment could be developed. That would send the gay activists into orbit. If science were to identify a biological cause of homosexuality, that day would begin the “race for the cure.” (And a great many purportedly happy homosexual men and women would secretly join that race.) If it is discovered that homosexuality can be genetically determined before birth I would expect an increase in abortions.

I’m not a doctor, so I can’t speak to everything you purported, but the “general consensus” within the medical community is that homosexual tendencies are a natural variation of human physiology. Of course, you can reject that, medical professionals aren’t infallible, but if you do, you should have some reason for it from current medical science. The fact that medical professionals were wrong in the past is not an argument to suggest that they are wrong now.

As for activists, again, there is no reason to believe that they at all wrongly influenced the consensus. Moreover they did want to be treated like animals, but human beings. And most reparative therapies did treat them like that, animals, wherewith enough reward and punishment the behavior could be “trained” out of them. They never produced consistent or definitive results and therefore are not scientifically verified.

As for a “cure”, I am not sure that what gay activists oppose is the notion of someone “switching teams” so to speak, but at the thought pattern that such a thing is even possible. People flock around them trying to figure out what’s wrong with them, and I think that’s what upsets them. It’s fine to be gay, but if you want to be a Christian also, you must learn to be chaste as all of us do.

I believe there is also a “cure” for fornication, but I’m guessing you probably wouldn’t want to take it.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

Well, truly doctors are not infallible. However, characterizing homosexuality as a disease is hardly bringing any homosexuals to the love of Christ.

Agreed to the first statement. Not so sure about the second. Characterizing SSA as a goodness certainly will lead people to the Truth and Love of Christ. Acceptance of SSA as a disease (or equivalently, disorder) is a necessary first step towards goodness.

To be sure, I’m not entirely certain what constitutes a genetic “disease” or “disorder” as opposed to a “variation”, but I presume it depends on whether or not the condition produces destructive tendencies. I do not believe homosexuality is, in and of itself, destructive. At least not any more than promiscuity is in general. .

From a medical dictionary: “Disease - any deviation from or interruption of the normal structure or function of any body part, organ, or system that is manifested by a characteristic set of symptoms and signs and whose etiology, pathology, and prognosis may be known or unknown. See also entries under syndrome.” SSA is such a beast. The normal function of sexual organs is to provide for the reproduction of the organism. That is classic Darwinism. SSA seeks a deviation from this function.

Homosexuality is, however, a complex condition that is caused by many genetic and environmental factors, and most people have very little control, if any, over their sexual preferences. Of course, anything is possible with God, but we as servants of the Almighty certainly cannot “expect” Him to intercede if He has called us to bare that cross. So this “reparative” therapy or “cure” is non-sense both from a medical and spiritual perspective.

That’s like praying, “O God, if you could just make me not want to sin, then I wouldn’t.”

Yeah, nice try. Not going to say that I haven’t prayed that, but I will say it did not work. Although with spiritual growth, virtue becomes more appealing than sin.

I do not believe the primary issue for an individual is the SSA tendency. The primary issue for an individual is how they respond to it. An individual has control over their response. I accept that they have little or no control over the condition. It is only in making choices that may one choose between what is right and what is wrong and thereby be held accountable for it.

 

[Godspells]

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I should have been more clear in my question. I was really just referring to whether the Church has weighed in on whether homosexuality can be “cured.” Since the Catechism just mentions the call to chastity, and says nothing about the removal of the inclination, it seems to me that the focus should be on chastity.

As I understand Catholic teachings, the act is a sin, but the tendency is blameless.

As an Orthodox leaning Protestant, I’m not really comfortable with the Catholic Church’s mingling in politics at times. So to answer the OP, I think that it is perfectly fine to support same-sex marriage as a citizen of a country. Free will, as I see it is a sacred matter, and we cannot force Christ on someone, they must choose Him. So as a matter of civil liberty I personally have no problem with it.

As it pertains to our Faith, same-sex partnership is not “marriage” as our faith dictates. I think there is a danger in doing what the Episcopal Church did in effectively amending the faith (we don’t get to just vote on God’s commandments) but, in my opinion, we should just let the heathens be heathens, as long as it is not affecting the common welfare.

 

[Godspells]

Agreed to the first statement. Not so sure about the second. Characterizing SSA as a goodness certainly will lead people to the Truth and Love of Christ. Acceptance of SSA as a disease (or equivalently, disorder) is a necessary first step towards goodness.

Let the doctors decide on issues of medicine, and the Church on issues of morality. Mixing the two never ends well.

From a medical dictionary: “Disease - any deviation from or interruption of the normal structure or function of any body part, organ, or system that is manifested by a characteristic set of symptoms and signs and whose etiology, pathology, and prognosis may be known or unknown. See also entries under syndrome.” SSA is such a beast. The normal function of sexual organs is to provide for the reproduction of the organism. That is classic Darwinism. SSA seeks a deviation from this function.

Fair. However, there is nothing wrong with the homosexual’s sexual organs. Their brain is just wired differently. Certainly you wouldn’t seek to characterize Monks and Nuns and those called to live a life of celibacy as having a disease? Though from a reproductive standpoint they are just as unable as a homosexual person.

I do not believe the primary issue for an individual is the SSA tendency. The primary issue for an individual is how they respond to it. An individual has control over their response. I accept that they have little or no control over the condition. It is only in making choices that may one choose between what is right and what is wrong and thereby be held accountable for it.

Except for original sin, right? Pesky Catholic doctrine…

But, yes, I agree with you, it is in the choices not the condition that we make and what we are held accountable for. That being said, I’m not of the opinion that a person is without hope even if they do choose a homosexual life style. While they are given that cross and choose not to bare it, they may not find the fullness of God’s plan, but Christ died for all, not just the straight people.

I’ve met too many nice gay people to think that they are all going to hell.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

Agreed to the first statement. Not so sure about the second. Characterizing SSA as a goodness certainly will lead people to the Truth and Love of Christ. Acceptance of SSA as a disease (or equivalently, disorder) is a necessary first step towards goodness.

Ouch! I left out a very important word.

Should be: Characterizing SSA as a goodness certainly will NOT lead people to the Truth and Love of Christ.

 

[Havard]

As I understand Catholic teachings, the act is a sin, but the tendency is blameless.

As an Orthodox leaning Protestant, I’m not really comfortable with the Catholic Church’s mingling in politics at times. So to answer the OP, I think that it is perfectly fine to support same-sex marriage as a citizen of a country. Free will, as I see it is a sacred matter, and we cannot force Christ on someone, they must choose Him. So as a matter of civil liberty I personally have no problem with it.

As it pertains to our Faith, same-sex partnership is not “marriage” as our faith dictates. I think there is a danger in doing what the Episcopal Church did in effectively amending the faith (we don’t get to just vote on God’s commandments) but, in my opinion, we should just let the heathens be heathens, as long as it is not affecting the common welfare.

I think you misunderstand the motivations of traditional marriage proponents.

Marriage laws grant special rights and benefits, and we’re saying that as a prudential matter, it makes sense to bundle those rights and benefits to promote stable families with heterosexuals, because it’s the one-man, one-woman relationship that makes babies. TLDR, they make babies, therefore they are inherently different than any other relationship.

 

[theCrow]

See, it’s not about whether you believe in whether it’s right or wrong to be gay. It doesn’t actually matter. What matters is when you begin to be okay with forcing someone else to follow your scripture, when it is not their scripture. When you sign into law something that forces those of the minority to follow a mandate of your religion, when it is not their religion. That is wrong. If you want to claim the freedom to choose your religion, to choose your opinions, you cannot do so while denying others that same right.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

As I understand Catholic teachings, the act is a sin, but the tendency is blameless.

Correct.

So to answer the OP, I think that it is perfectly fine to support same-sex marriage as a citizen of a country. Free will, as I see it is a sacred matter, and we cannot force Christ on someone, they must choose Him. So as a matter of civil liberty I personally have no problem with it. .

Free will applies to all choices. Murder, child abuse, pollution, stealing, drug dealing. If free will, being a sacred manner, cannot be interfered with by the State, then we have a serious problem.

in my opinion, we should just let the heathens be heathens, as long as it is not affecting the common welfare.

Ah, but it does affect the common welfare! That is the issue!

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

See, it’s not about whether you believe in whether it’s right or wrong to be gay. It doesn’t actually matter. What matters is when you begin to be okay with forcing someone else to follow your scripture, when it is not their scripture. When you sign into law something that forces those of the minority to follow a mandate of your religion, when it is not their religion. That is wrong. If you want to claim the freedom to choose your religion, to choose your opinions, you cannot do so while denying others that same right.

A serious issue today is that society (and therefore individuals) are being forced to accept that homosexual acts are OK. That would seem to suggest a “you have to believe what I believe” syndrome, not a “everyone should be allowed to believe what they want” argument. Forcing society to accepting ‘marriage equality’ (a misnomer) is NOT allowing everyone to believe and act on their beliefs. It’s not marriage! Don’t force me to accept that it is. That is tyranny.

 

[theCrow]

A serious issue today is that society (and therefore individuals) are being forced to accept that homosexual acts are OK. That would seem to suggest a “you have to believe what I believe” syndrome, not a “everyone should be allowed to believe what they want” argument. Forcing society to accepting ‘marriage equality’ (a misnomer) is NOT allowing everyone to believe and act on their beliefs. It’s not marriage! Don’t force me to accept that it is. That is tyranny.

Oh, you don’t have to accept it at all, and neither does the Catholic Church, but every state in the Union will indeed have to accept Gay Marriage just as every other Straight Marriage as legal and binding, with the same rights whether you are Gay or Straight.

 

[theCrow]

Well said:

"I think when Christians at large talk about gay marriage, they’re missing the point. The point is not that gay people want to take away other people’s right to get married. The whole struggle is really centered around the desire to be allowed in, to be able to participate in this ritualistic display of how much love the human heart can hold. It’s about the basic right to choose who you want to spend forever with, and to have that celebrated by the family and friends who love you both.

Freedom of religion is a great thing. In fact, I think it’s pretty dang awesome. But since when did our ability to choose how or what we worship translate into our ability to dictate to others that they must conform to our chosen lifestyle, that they must obey the tenets of our personal faith? It’s alarming to me just how many laws are drifting to the top of legislation, laws that propose the outright imposition of one section of one religion’s believers on the entirety of the population. What’s even more alarming to me is how many Christians seem completely okay with this blatant show of force. Since when did we become complacent enough to allow one religion to force people who have no allegiance to said religion to follow its mandates? Oh, I know. Since it was our beliefs that others had to follow."

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

Well said:

"I think when Christians at large talk about gay marriage, they’re missing the point. The point is not that gay people want to take away other people’s right to get married. The whole struggle is really centered around the desire to be allowed in, to be able to participate in this ritualistic display of how much love the human heart can hold. It’s about the basic right to choose who you want to spend forever with, and to have that celebrated by the family and friends who love you both.

Freedom of religion is a great thing. In fact, I think it’s pretty dang awesome. But since when did our ability to choose how or what we worship translate into our ability to dictate to others that they must conform to our chosen lifestyle, that they must obey the tenets of our personal faith? It’s alarming to me just how many laws are drifting to the top of legislation, laws that propose the outright imposition of one section of one religion’s believers on the entirety of the population. What’s even more alarming to me is how many Christians seem completely okay with this blatant show of force. Since when did we become complacent enough to allow one religion to force people who have no allegiance to said religion to follow its mandates? Oh, I know. Since it was our beliefs that others had to follow."

Love cannot be built upon abuse. Even if the abuse is consensual. Homosexual acts are an abuse of sexuality. Sexuality exists for a real and good purpose (you and I are here because of AUTHENTIC sexuality). Acts that don’t respect the purpose of sexuality are inherently selfish and abusive and therefore can never be considered loving. Societies never benefit when selfish abusive behavior is accepted or heaven forbid, encouraged.

 

[Rau]

Yes I do.

But you would have to agree that there are many homosexuals who freely admit that their
lifestyle is a voluntary preference.

Just as ours is a voluntary preference. We are not discussing actions in life, but sexual attractions.

The object (sex) of our attractions is not a choice. We embrace our OSA. Others may choose to embrace (accept) their SSA, or to struggle with it.

 

[Rau]

Hello Rau.

As Catholics we are given the fullness of the truth regarding this an many other matters. We see homosexuality as a grave sin and so those thoughts that precede acts are correctly seen as temptations and thusly their author is the devil who is the source of all temptations for as the Scriptures state: “no one is tempted by God.” That’s the truth about the where it came from.

Also, the sin against faith that some unknowingly commit when they incorrectly try to attribute SSA and homosexual actions as a non-chosen from-birth affliction that cannot be changed or challenged is to claim that God is the author of this disorientation. They are in fact, sinning against faith by stating that persons with homosexual behaviors are born that way and are helpless to change it and that it is a biological in origin. It is not. It is a sexual sin that is learned and it’s author is the devil. God created us male and female in His image. To say otherwise is also a sin against faith.

Glenda

I could not disagree more. You did not learn that from the Catholic Church! Surely you recognize that a heterosexual is not tempted to same sex acts and a homosexual is. This temptation afflicts those with a predisposition. It is not like the temptation to lie, or to cheat or to drive too fast. The predisposition (the presence of SSA and an absence of OSA) is not a choice, but it gives rise to temptations. It is not itself temptation.

The Acts themselves (and willfully entertained thoughts ) are choices.

The question is: “Why do some people experience sexual attractions inconsistent with their body?”

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I’m not a doctor, so I can’t speak to everything you purported, but the “general consensus” within the medical community is that homosexual tendencies are a natural variation of human physiology. Of course, you can reject that, medical professionals aren’t infallible, but if you do, you should have some reason for it from current medical science. The fact that medical professionals were wrong in the past is not an argument to suggest that they are wrong now.

Consensus is fine in politics, but it has no place in science. Medical or otherwise.

“…for in the sciences the authority of thousands of opinions is not worth as much as one tiny spark of reason in an individual man.”—Galileo

It is the gay community that is claiming that homosexuality is innate…the burden is on them to come up with scientific proof.

As for activists, again, there is no reason to believe that they at all wrongly influenced the consensus. Moreover they did want to be treated like animals, but human beings. And most reparative therapies did treat them like that, animals, wherewith enough reward and punishment the behavior could be “trained” out of them. They never produced consistent or definitive results and therefore are not scientifically verified.

I am not promoting reparative therapies. Although there is of evidence that they are successful. My point is that the goal of gay activists is the acceptance of homosexual behavior as normal.

As for a “cure”, I am not sure that what gay activists oppose is the notion of someone “switching teams” so to speak, but at the thought pattern that such a thing is even possible. People flock around them trying to figure out what’s wrong with them, and I think that’s what upsets them. It’s fine to be gay, but if you want to be a Christian also, you must learn to be chaste as all of us do.

The idea of “switching teams” is of vital importance to gay activists.

“The truth is, numbers matter, and political influence matters,” said Scout, director of the nonprofit CenterLink’s Network of LGBT Health Equity,

I believe there is also a “cure” for fornication, but I’m guessing you probably wouldn’t want to take it.

If you mean opposite sex fornication…well that is simply naturally incurable.

For many years society did not condone heterosexual sexual involvement outside of marriage. As far as we know, this did not force the people so inclined into greater sexual promiscuity, higher rates of alcoholism, suicide and disease.

 

[Rau]

The APA and AMA and just about every medical association concludes that homosexual tendencies are a natural variation in human behavior.

. That is a bit like stating the obvious! Yes, we know homosexuality happens.

Yet the mechanisms that govern sexual orientation are unknown. Sexual orientation cannot be casually compared to the variations in hair colour. SSA is, in a sense, debilitating because it goes against the fundamental drive to propagate oneself to offspring. The sexual acts one is drawn to are “broken” - engaging reproductive organs in ways than can never serve their ultimate purpose!

It makes sense to want to understand the mechanisms that give rise to sexual preferences and what influences, be they genetic or environmental from the moment of conception, can alter the expected course.

 

[LaLaLa49]

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes. Increase spread of disease

For 1&2 : have you met a single person that was TRULY homosexual (truly unable to be attracted by the opposite sex) and “cured” with prayers? I’m not talking about some people who just choose to marry/date someone of opposite sex, because those people are still homosexuals, no matter how much they try to hide that! Oh, there is also another cateogory , that is bisexuality. In case you were wondering, for those people , well, the situation is VERY different. They are able to choose between the two sexes, therefore no divine intervention. But, again, they can’t choose their sexuality, they can’t choose who they fall in love with, they can’t! Many homosexuals feel opressed by this mentality, and I think you should stop (but it’s your choice after all). I understand defending your faith, but it’s also about being human! This is not tolerant behaviour! Perhaps you just had the luck to be “normal” (define that, please). Does that mean that you’re allowed to bash them? Even if you think something about ANOTHER person is wrong, as long as they’re not directly harming you, why do you do so? I hope you won’t get angry , really, but if a homosexual person wants to be christian, or any religion that puts homosexuality as a sin, then, only then, you can “help” this person to overcome the “disease”. If that person doesn’t and prefers our “secular” world, then so be it. Now, do you realise that their “sinful” relationships are that way only in your eyes (well, and in the eyes of others who think the same way)? We are ~7 billions people on Earth. Do you really, really think every single person shares your ideas? That goes the same for me , but you’re motivating violence towards them, really! Some people , when they find out that someone is gay, they go after him/her and kill him/her (yep, that’s extreme , but happened)! Of course, this doesn’t happen everywhere , much more predominant is this thing called bullying. OF COURSE, OF COURSE, I’M NOT SAYING THAT YOU’RE AT FAULT FOR THAT! But your point of view is. This is just like saying black people are impure and they must be purified (because of their skin color). KKK , anti-gay version, or what? Or being mean towards jews because…they’re jews? You see, during nazism many people agreed with that. What I’m trying to say is that if you want to express your point of view, you can do it in a nice way. Maybe I’m just being sensitive to what you’re saying, but if I shared your ideas, I would say something like this: " I don’t agree with it, but you’re free to do whatever you wish with that. " And probably explain why I view it that way. But nothing more. Not saying they have a disease, not saying they’re evil, nothing like that! Why would you do that? People can be evil or good, whether they’re straight or gay! But it’s also about perspective. You said that they’re evil for spreading disease (that is number #3). Okay, I understand that, ANYONE should refrain from such acts in that situation. But the homosexual community is way WAY smaller than the heterosexual one. Do you know what that means , right? That means that mostly straight people spread disease. Therefore…you cannot accuse homosexuals of something like that. How about prostitution? Isn’t that mostly straight sex? Do you consider their acts evil? Many people involved in that get AIDs or many others. This is just about responsibility. Just about that. It’s about humans, it’s about their maturity level. It’s about how wise they are. But our society it’s really … I shouldn’t say anything more about that. Just, very very very corrupted. Therefore evil is at any step. You should see the whole picture. The only remedy is to help, support and understand each other, and if we can’t do that, just keeping distance must be satisfying enough. Love and acceptance, how about that?
I saw that you are debating with other people. I didn’t read other replies, so I hope I didn’t say something untrue about you or if you did mention anything about what I’ve written, I’m sorry, I didn’t see it. I don’t mean to offend you, I don’t mean to say you’re bad and I tried to put my thoughts into the nicest words. And I’m saying this because I don’t want a fight. Just a nice dialogue. I may sound a little grumpy because I keep hearing these things and I’m getting kinda angry. I hope you understand and provide me enlightment over those things I also talked about other points because, I’m guessing that you may have referred to them. Just wanted to cover it all.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Just as ours is a voluntary preference. We are not discussing actions in life, but sexual attractions.

The object (sex) of our attractions is not a choice. We embrace our OSA. Others may choose to embrace (accept) their SSA, or to struggle with it.

And what is the purpose of sexual attractions if not sexual “action”?? God made men and women “attractive” to each other for a purpose. That purpose is not personal gratification (pleasure). God included the “fun” to insure the purpose.

I have agreed with you on this before. I know some homosexuals struggle with their disorder. Some have stopped at the point of comfort with their own gender and freedom from same-sex desires. Some have overcome the desires. But…the overwhelming majority of homosexuals have no desire to “struggle”. In fact they want to “promote”. They despise the Catholic teaching on homosexuality and hold our Church in contempt. Anyone who does not accept them and their behavior is a “homophobe”.

 

[Rau]

And what is the purpose of sexual attractions if not sexual “action”?? God made men and women “attractive” to each other for a purpose. That purpose is not personal gratification (pleasure). God included the “fun” to insure the purpose.

I have agreed with you on this before. I know some homosexuals struggle with their disorder. Some have stopped at the point of comfort with their own gender and freedom from same-sex desires. Some have overcome the desires. But…the overwhelming majority of homosexuals have no desire to “struggle”. In fact they want to “promote”. They despise the Catholic teaching on homosexuality and hold our Church in contempt. Anyone who does not accept them and their behavior is a “homophobe”.

The crux of the debate (for me) is not about those who are OK with homosexual acts. Plainly they exist in large numbers. There are also good folk who suffer with their SSA.

The argument I take up with you and others is when you slip into the idea that SSA is itself a sinful choice. It’s a condition that is real, and of cause unknown. Pray your children are not afflicted, as I pray for mine.

 

[Godspells]

Free will applies to all choices. Murder, child abuse, pollution, stealing, drug dealing. If free will, being a sacred manner, cannot be interfered with by the State, then we have a serious problem.

None of these are acceptable comparisons because they deal specifically with matters that harm other people and as a matter of social policy cannot be tolerated for specifically that reason.

Homosexuality, as it pertains to social policy, does not have the same or even similar effects as any of the items you cited. A better comparison is whether or not it should be illegal to fornicate, speak blasphemy, or promote non-Christian religion, as all of these things are religious matters that do not innately affect common welfare.

Ah, but it does affect the common welfare! That is the issue!

At least as it pertains to the US, the law states that the government has no legitimate interest in regulating what consenting adults choose to do in the privacy of their home.

As it pertains to marriage equality, as I said before, they is no such thing as a same-sex marriage religiously speaking, however as far as the state is concerned the allowance of same-sex partnerships, civil unions as they are sometimes known, has no affect on me whatsoever, so it is not my place to judge.