Lost the cultural debate on homosexuality

[blessedtoo]

let’s not diminish the sacrifice of the celibate, who gives up the goods of family, to one with same-sex attraction desperately trying to suppress one’s sexuality. The same-sex attracted, having no attraction to family in any normative sense, cannot legitimately give up that good. There is no sacrifice for him and so, whatever it is that he may be doing, it is certainly not celibacy.

You are placing value judgements on the level of sacrifice involved for each of these groups. While I agree that the sacrifice for them is different, I would not want to judge how great the weight of that sacrifice is, for that is not mine to judge, but God’s. While the celibate heterosexual is most certainly offering marriage and family to God, the celibate homosexual may be as well, since such gifts are completely unavailable to him. While the desire they have for partnerships and families is not “normative” in that they are desiring these things within the context of a disordered relationship, the drive itself and the attraction for these things may be completely normative. Again, that is not for me to judge.

Once again I will reiterate that a chaste homosexual person can most certainly achieve the level of chastity that far surpasses mere “desperate supression”. This line of reasoning you keep using could certainly be applied to heterosexuals as well. Why am I, as a celibate woman, not “desperately supressing” my sexual inclinations? Or, for that matter, virtually any other person on these threads? As I said before, and the Catechism clearly states, with the practice of right behavior, along with all the other gifts from the Church, a person of any sexuality can achieve chastity.

Whether or not I have ever availed myself of therapy is not the point.

I am not saying this to take a shot at you, but I find it interesting that someone who stated they did not actually know any homosexuals and who now will not answer a question about his own personal experience with therapy should be such a indefatigable poster on this issue.

A genuine desire to conform oneself to God’s will, in the face of same-sex attractions, will therefore mandate the healing of the sexuality.

I would agree that a healing is required. However, I still disagree with your definition of what that healing is. I do not believe, nor does the Church, that an SSA individual must somehow undergo a transformation (through intensive psychotherapy, as you suggest) into an opposite-sex attracted person. Eric, let me ask you, how would ever even know if such a therapy worked? Really, if someone wanted to convince themselves and the therapist such treatment were successful, couldn’t they do just that regardless of the reality? And how would any one of us ever know the truth? Isn’t that really God’s place?

I advocate for reparative therapy because it has produced verifiable results.

And these verifiable results are based on what the patient discloses, right? What other tests or proofs would provide a definitive answer? It is no different than a SSA individual, following the guidelines of the Church with her many available supports saying they no longer experience this impulse. Is it simply because there is a professional involved that you have such faith in this approach?

To go off by one’s self and attempt to heal oneself on one’s own, using the Sacraments both blasphemes them by using them as magic talismans and lends itself to a perverse individualism that is at odds with the Christian communion.

Sorry to keep coming back to this, but as a lapsed Catholic I fail to see how you can pontificate on the purpose of the Sacraments, seeing as how most lapsed Catholics do not participate in them. And one does not “go off by one’s self.” One goes to Christ, to the Blessed Mother, to the priest, to the other Catholics in the pews. Oh, I guess they don’t have as much to offer as a psychotherapist.

These deficiencies remain in those people and because the Church chose to make that particular document public, it is obvious that she wished the lay faithful to recognize those deficiencies and incorporate them into their prudential judgments regarding individuals with same-sex attractions.

No, Eric, it is definately NOT obvious. Perhaps to you it is because you are desperately seeking some offical support for your skewed ideas. Make no mistake, they are your ideas, not Church teaching.

 

[RyanL]

OE,

I stand by my statements that your analogies are bad, for the reasons already given. I don’t want to digress further on this point.

Faith in the healing power of the Sacraments does not equal imputing talismanic properties. Get real. And I disparaged your faith because you claim to be “Lapsed”. When that stops, I’ll quit disparaging your faith. Again, I don’t really want to digress further on this point.

Now…

My purpose here is merely to find the truth. That ought to be our common goal.

With that in mind, I’m posting what I could find on the Vatican’s website on point:

1. A particular problem that can appear during the process of sexual maturation is *homosexuality…*Young people need to be helped to distinguish between the concepts of what is normal and abnormal, between subjective guilt and objective disorder, avoiding what would arouse hostility…“Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained”. A distinction must be made between a tendency that can be innate and acts of homosexuality that “are intrinsically disordered” and contrary to Natural Law.

Especially when the practice of homosexual acts has not become a habit, many cases can benefit from appropriate therapy. In any case, persons in this situation must be accepted with respect, dignity and delicacy, and all forms of unjust discrimination must be avoided. If parents notice the appearance of this tendency or of related behaviour in their children, during childhood or adolescence, they should seek help from expert qualified persons in order to obtain all possible assistance. Source.

Can and should are words which are not to be confused with “must.” Clearly, however, the Magisterium is imploring some to seek psychological assistance.

Oh, and “unexplained” does not = idolatry.

Next:

"Pastorally, these homosexuals must be received with understanding and supported in the hope of overcoming their personal difficulties and their social mal-adaption…

1. It will be the duty of the family and the teacher to seek first of all to identify the factors which drive towards homosexuality: to see if it is a question of physiological or psycho logical factors; if it be the result of a false education or of the lack of normal sexual evolution; if it comes from a contracted habit or from bad example; or from other factors…
   One must, in fact, investigate elements of diverse order: lack of affection, immaturity, obsessive impulses, seduction, social isolation and other types of frustration, depravation in dress, license in shows and publications…

1. The causes having been sought and understood, the family and the teacher will offer an efficacious help…suggesting - if necessary - medical-psychological assistance from persons attentive to and respectful of the teaching of the Church. Source.

Duty. That’s quite a word. Must. That’s another. Both imply a definite obligation. However, “suggesting” and “if necessary” imply that there is (1) an option and (2) a normative case which therapy falls outside of. Truly frustrating.

Stupid Catholish wording.

Earlier, in the same document, the following is stated:

1. Beyond the normal topics and pathological cases, there is a whole range of individuals with problems more or less acute and persistent, which risk being little cured, yet are truly in need of help. In these cases, in addition to therapy at the medical level, constant support and guidance on the part of teachers is needed.

I’m not quite sure what to make of this.

…cont’d…

 

[RyanL]

…cont’d…

I intend to think through this a bit more, but the following things seem clear to me:

1. Homosexual acts (and SSA) are inherently disordered.
2. We are to strive to be perfect, and this requires a constant attempt to eradicate disorder (and sin) from our lives.
3. SSA is not in itself sinful in any culpable sense of the word; i.e., no one will go to Hell simply for having SSA.
4. Therapy can be helpful, and those afflicted with SSA should pursue it if they have the means. I haven’t determined yet whether it’s a “last resort” kind of thing or a fundamental and primary step.
5. The Sacraments and prayer are effecacious, and should be used as a first step for all of us.

Oh, and from the USCCB:

The Church seeks to enable every person to live out the universal call to holiness. Persons with a homosexual inclination ought to receive every aid and encouragement to embrace this call personally and fully. This will unavoidably involve much struggle and self-mastery, for following Jesus always means following the way of the Cross. “There is no holiness without renunciation and spiritual battle.”

The Sacraments of the Eucharist and of Penance are essential
sources of consolation and aid on this path. Source.

The USCCB thinks that the Sacraments are essential. OE - will you accuse them of believing the Sacraments to be talismans?

You can help a homosexual person in two general ways. First, encourage him or her to cooperate with God’s grace to live a chaste life. Second, concentrate on the person, not on the homosexual orientation itself. This implies respecting a person’s freedom to choose or refuse therapy directed toward changing a homosexual orientation. Given the present state of medical and psychological knowledge, there is no guarantee that such therapy will succeed. Thus, there may be no obligation to undertake it, though some may find it helpful. Source.

In a somewhat different context (sex abuse), the USCCB made the following statement:

More recently, some Church leaders viewed sexual abuse as a psychological problem only and placed undue reliance on therapy as a solution. Source.

This is simply to show that there can be such a thing.

In any case, I just wanted to put some more material out here for now. I’ll keep thinking about it and I’ll watch where the discussion goes.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[RobbyS]

Our compassion for Other Eric is our compassion for man, we all have imperfections, we all sin, we all strive to improve. We can improve our habits, works, and practices. We can not improve our height, attractions, and desires.

I’m with you up to the last one. By and large we cannot desire a food we have never tasted. We can learn to do without food that we know is bad for us. But the culture we live in can teach us to eat bad food, r too much of it. I mention food, because America is suffering from a plague of obesity and other food disorders. Homosexuality is like Bulemia, except that
people recognize the latter for what it is. Part of the problem about recognition it is that many “heterosexual” couples practice gay forms of sex. Their intentions are in most cases no different from those of homosexuals. So they cannot condemn the homosexual. And as I suggested, they have no clue about the physical , psychological, and therefore spiritual harm that it does to the people afflicted by it. The death toll is enormous, but a conspiracy of denial has gripped the opinion leaders, even the bishops of the Church because so many priests are homosexual.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

I am watching CNN and basketball player Tim Hardaway made some anti-gay comments about the a gay player. Now, I don’t think his comments were wise. He basically said, “Yes, I am homophobic. I don’t like gays” to an accusation of bigotry.

I don’t think the way he responded was loving, but I am amazed by how it seems univerally accepted that homosexuality is normal, and anyone who suggests otherwise is a bigotted fool.

After the intreview, a panel of sports commentors got together to condemn him. One said, it doesn’t make sense to him that that a black man would want to exclude someone. I guess they are now the same thing.

Anyway, all of this is concerning me. Nations are passing laws that restrict what people can say about homosexuality, catholic charities are being forced to accept gay adoption, and the majority of catholics I know are in favor of gay marriage.

Have we lost the culture war? What are we to do?

Kendy

Dear Kendy,
What you need to understand is that sexuality is not a simple matter of ‘black’ and ‘white’.
While black and white form the majority of this highly bi-modal distribution, there do exist various shades of gray, lost in the mid-space.

Though sexuality is linked closely to XX and XY chromosome allocation, the chromosomes do not actually code for gender, only for the enzymes which predelict for gender. Thus it is possible for an XX to develop as male, and vice versa.
There are also genetic errors which produce XXY, and XYY varients, which totally mess up the predeliction.

Thus, though ‘normal’ sexuality is the majority case, ‘abnormal’ sexuality is just a normal variant in an overlapping bi-modal distribution. Thus these ‘abnormalities’ are in there own way quite normal, and to be expected, and accommodated, as part of the Grand Design.

Yes, the attitude of Mother Church to these variants might be an ideal, but just like Our Lord said to Peter, concerning chastity, there are some who cannot meet this ideal.

If only for the reason of not spreading STDs, then, homosexual relationships based on a one to one, closed relationship, mirroring marriage, are to be preferred to casual relationships, which are both a medical, and cultural hazard.

Now if this is losing the cultural debate, then maybe culture needs to be closely examined. Maybe we are treasuring something worse than worthless, and casting aside pearls.

 

[CentralFLJames]

If only for the reason of not spreading STDs, then, homosexual relationships based on a one to one, closed relationship, mirroring marriage, are to be preferred to casual relationships, which are both a medical, and cultural hazard.

This is preposterous. Christians do not prefer a lessor of evils as a compromise to perversion. This kind of thinking is deadly to both the health of rational thought as well as spiritual health.

Before putting together off combinations of genetic alphabets first learn the ABC’s of Catholic Catholicism. Love the person not the behavior.

James

 

[Elric]

Michael,
Let me also be clear on this: I fully support repartive therapy for those who want and think they need it. I am myself a member of a Catholic organization for folks with SSA that advocates such therapies for those who desire them. I am also a Catholic who is “walking the walk” without the benefit of professional “expertise” and I am surrounded by others just like myself.

I would be very careful with supporting repartive therapy.

What ever your beliefs about homosexuality, repartive therapy can do more harm than good. There are no studies to show how effective it is (although some say that it worked for them), but there are studies that show it can be dangerous and even fatal.

If it is your opinion that homosexual acts are wrong, it probably would be better to advise a person living a celebant life rather than advising them of repartive therapy.

This is without even going into the debate of homosexuality being a mental illness or not, or that the church seems to be fine with celebant homosexuals.

 

[blessedtoo]

I would be very careful with supporting repartive therapy.

What ever your beliefs about homosexuality, repartive therapy can do more harm than good. There are no studies to show how effective it is (although some say that it worked for them), but there are studies that show it can be dangerous and even fatal.

If it is your opinion that homosexual acts are wrong, it probably would be better to advise a person living a celebant life rather than advising them of repartive therapy.

This is without even going into the debate of homosexuality being a mental illness or not, or that the church seems to be fine with celebant homosexuals.

I am convinced that people really don’t read the posts but rather, read “into them” what they wish to argue against.

I believe it’s pretty clear that I was not “advising” anything. I specifically stated that the therapy exists for those who “want and think they need” it. I don’t believe folks should be DISCOURAGED from pursuing this as an option if it is something they are drawn and called to. I have confidence that those who find it unhelpful, or even “harmful” (as some allege), can make their own decision to abandon such approaches.

As to the assertion that such therapies can “do harm”, I would remind those quick to point this out that ALL psychiatric therapies have the potential to do harm. As someone who has availed themselves of all forms of therapy for years, I can testify that I have been “harmed” countless times by secular psychologies that purport to affirm good mental health. Whenever one chooses to allow a “professional” into their head, heart, and psyche, they take a risk. Most people understand this when they embark on such a course.

 

[Kolbe300]

Similarly, people with psychological issues may attend the Sacrament of Reconciliation, but to attempt to use the Sacrament as in order to achieve therapeutic healing is misguided in the same way, since that is not what the Sacrament of Reconciliation is for.

I’d first like to truly thank Blessedtoo (and others) for making a valiant effort to bring about a clearer understanding on this “therapy” discussion. I believe much of the back-and-forth is occuring because of a vast and wide difference in just exactly what constitues a “healing”. Other Eric, you seem convinced that “healing” is none other than a complete 180 degree transformation of one’s sexuality. I would agree with you that an instance of this kind of transformation would be a wonderful healing. What I’m not seeing you address is the fact the a large majority of those who seek treatment (as well as those who don’t) never experience that type of complete transformation. What do you recommend then? Is there no hope for those who just can’t seem to get “straight” to live an authentic, chaste Christian life?

I’m trying to figure out what you believe is the necessary factor here: is it that one undergoes therapy or is that the undergone therapy must actually work? If therapy is mandatory, wouldn’t that imply that the success of such therapy is no less mandatory?

The purpose of the Sacrament is reconciliation with God, not therapy. (2) There is no bad analogy here, since in both cases there is an attempt to use the sacrament for something other than what its purpose is.

Are you implying that the Eucharist doesn’t heal?

I point out that the Church does not, in any instance, authoritatively validate any form of medical or therapeutic treatment.

Nor does it authoritatively require any form of medical or therapeutic treatment. Much like Blessedtoo, I’m not at all against someone seeking therapy for this issue. I am, however, very against anyone telling me that I must seek therapy if I’m ever going to live a chaste Christian life. I am experiencing wonderful healing through the sacraments, through spiritual guidance, and through my relationship with God. My idea of healing and your idea of healing are very different.

and the sin leading to the condition of homosexuality is infallibly declared, there is no bad analogy.

It is? The Catechism tells us that the “psychological genesis remains largely unexplained.” How can that be if we’ve discovered the sin that causes homosexuality? What sin has lead to the young people (much younger than you’d like to admit) who are experiencing a deep struggle with SSA? I’d love to know what sin I committed in 4th grade that made all of this possible.

In the first place, let’s not diminish the sacrifice of the celibate, who gives up the goods of family, to one with same-sex attraction desperately trying to suppress one’s sexuality.

What about the person with SSA who isn’t trying to suppress their sexuality at all?

The same-sex attracted, having no attraction to family in any normative sense, cannot legitimately give up that good.

Can you possibly be serious? My greatest desire was to experience a family of my own, to experience God’s gift of bringing new life into this world. I was blessed with such a beautiful family to grow up in. I’ve always known what a blessing the Christian family can be. For you to say that I (and others) are not legitimately giving up that good is maddenning.

There is no sacrifice for him and so, whatever it is that he may be doing, it is certainly not celibacy.

You seem to have an amazing “gift” for knowing the impossible to know. The personal sacrifices being made by every human being on this planet is for them alone to know. You shouldn’t assume a knowledge of anyone’s sacrifice.

I hope everyone has a wonderful Sunday. God bless.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

This is preposterous. Christians do not prefer a lessor of evils as a compromise to perversion. This kind of thinking is deadly to both the health of rational thought as well as spiritual health.

Before putting together off combinations of genetic alphabets first learn the ABC’s of Catholic Catholicism. Love the person not the behavior.

James

James, shame!
Do you assert that mitigation of evil is not good.
I did not say it was best.
Just that mitigated evil is better than unmitigated evil.
If you cannot see that then your ivory tower is too high.

 

[Hallelujahhh]

I feel like people expect me to furnish them with a list of 10 scientific studies that prove that gay marriage will harm children. How often do we hear, there’s no scientific proof that children are negatively affected by having two moms. And maybe there aren’t but I am still amazed by how quickly we got put on the defense.*

There are so, so many studies on the necessity of raising a child in a mother/father home. Without a father present, we see sons entering gangs, and all of the other problems kids and teens face. Girls entering relationships with guys too early - anyway - it seems like obvious logic: if these studies show us the necessity of raising a child in mother/father home, it’s obvious a mother/mother or father/father home will deny the child the necessary environment in which to grow up. I’m sure some children of mother/mother or father/father homes will claim they are “fine,” but we can’t see every aspect of their life, relationships with other people, etc. etc.

 

[Daddums]

There are no studies to show how effective it is .

Not true.

**Furor Erupts Over Study On Sexual Orientation **

Ken Hausman

A psychiatrist who played a major role in removing homosexuality as a mental disorder from DSM nearly 30 years ago ignites controversy and media frenzy when he claims that conversion therapies can in fact work for some people.

In 1973, when Columbia University psychiatry professor Robert Spitzer, M.D., chaired the committee that oversaw the revision of the first edition of APA’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM), he brought to the APA Board of Trustees the controversial proposal that homosexuality should be dropped as a psychiatric diagnosis.

Spitzer stressed that there were no valid data linking sexual orientation to mental illness and that studies showed that homosexuals functioned just as well as heterosexuals.

The Board overwhelmingly agreed with Spitzer, and when DSM-II appeared, only the concept of ego-dystonic homosexuality remained as a way to categorize those who were unhappy with their sexual orientation. That diagnosis, whose inclusion was also proposed by Spitzer, was deleted from the next edition of the diagnostic manual.

Now 28 years later, Spitzer has ignited a controversy involving the same topic, and it has become the focus of media attention throughout the country.

Speaking at APA’s 2001 annual meeting in New Orleans in May, Spitzer maintained that so-called reparative psychotherapies can and have successfully changed homosexuals into heterosexuals and that he has the data to prove it.

pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/36/13/20

Daddums

 

[Elric]

I am convinced that people really don’t read the posts but rather, read “into them” what they wish to argue against.

Pot and kettle I think.

I believe it’s pretty clear that I was not “advising” anything. I specifically stated that the therapy exists for those who “want and think they need” it. I don’t believe folks should be DISCOURAGED from pursuing this as an option if it is something they are drawn and called to. I have confidence that those who find it unhelpful, or even “harmful” (as some allege), can make their own decision to abandon such approaches.

Actually I said “supporting” and you said “I fully support repartive therapy for those who want and think they need it.”

Now I dont actually see what is wrong with suggesting that you be very careful with supporting repartive therapy after you have made the statement that you did, I even advised why you should be careful.

As to the assertion that such therapies can “do harm”, I would remind those quick to point this out that ALL psychiatric therapies have the potential to do harm.

They are more than merely assertions, it has been shown that they are dangerous.

Most psychatric therapies do have the potential to do harm and they dont work for everyone.

But the thing that you have to look at is if it helps more people than it doesnt help or (especally) harms, its something that you have to look at with any form of treatment. Apparently there is nearly a 100% failure rate with repartive therapy (according to the head of NARTH) and it leaves some that are treated in states of depression (amongst other things) and worse, sucidal (with people acting on these urges).

On the whole it doesnt seem very helpful but seems dangerous.

As someone who has availed themselves of all forms of therapy for years, I can testify that I have been “harmed” countless times by secular psychologies that purport to affirm good mental health.

Mate, you are not the only one. But I dont get the “secular psychologies” part.

Whenever one chooses to allow a “professional” into their head, heart, and psyche, they take a risk. Most people understand this when they embark on such a course.

Not all the time, but many people do. That doesnt mean that every “therapy” should be practiced, Some are better left alone.

 

[CentralFLJames]

James, shame!
Do you assert that mitigation of evil is not good.
I did not say it was best.
Just that mitigated evil is better than unmitigated evil.
If you cannot see that then your ivory tower is too high.

Mitigation is a losing strategy. Society has no compelling need to recognize homosexual unions. Concession and capitulation to illicit behavior is never appropriate.

From scripture we know that God brings man and woman together through marriage and gives His blessing. But God will never bring together nor bless a union of man-with-man nor woman-with-woman. For humanity to sanction this is to blaspheme God’s very image and to further soil the nobility of the human race. Given that Jesus is human-divine, God will never permit humanity to efface itself to the complete disfigurement of Christ’s own humanity.

We may not be able to stop the illicit behaviors. But we certainly don’t need to delude ourselves into thinking that there is any honor or virtue to be won in God’s eyes by accommodating it under a false pretense of “understanding” and “sensitivity”.

Taboos exist for a reason just as the rise of illicit behaviors exist to signal to both man and God the level of moral decay and poor health of a society. God said ‘love the sinner’. But He still abhors illicit and disordered behaviors that defy nature.

There is more here at stake than simple civil order and a faux morality of accommodation of a minority class. If society does not push back against immoral behaviors (of all kinds) at some point God will step in with a severe chastisement that will effect everyone. Scriptural history shows this clearly. So it is self defeating to accommodate behavior that we know is abhorrent to God and invites His wrath.

It would be ironic if all this social accommodation and benevolence had unintended consequences would it not? And I imagine there are probably zealous Machiavellians among the tinfoil-hat league who under a ruse of benevolent accommodation are really hoping to provoke God’s wrath to purge the planet of all homosexuality. Of course all logical outcomes would ultimately be self defeating in the long run since when God looses His wrath He does not distinguish a heterosexual sinner from a homosexual sinner and everyone suffers.

I think a better solution is to seek less to accommodate illicit behavior and unions and seek more to appease God while at the same time helping and encouraging all sinners, homosexual and heterosexual alike to change their illicit behaviors. That builds up God’s Kingdom - it does not cooperate to put it under siege.

Bottom Line:
Accommodating moral evil invites God’s wrath. I’d rather society teach the homosexuals how to exercise the same self restraint that every other person on the planet should have to conform to. Why do homosexuals think they are the only people on the planet with sexual urges? There are millions of single heterosexual males and females in the nation who mostly seem to integrate quite productively in society. Why are homosexuals needing to become a protected class requiring special accommodation?

The best solution for both homosexuals and heterosexuals is to learn basic self-control, self-respect and abstinence. No man or woman need be a slave to their own passions anymore so than any man or woman need openly accommodate somone else’s vices and weakness.

James

 

[Kolbe300]

Why do homosexuals think they are the only people on the planet with sexual urges?

Hi CentralFLJames. I am a firm believer that those dealing with homosexuality (or anything that goes against Church teaching, such as ABC) can be powerfully drawn to the truth when those who embrace the truth can show true empathy. It may be a difficult thing for some to do, but I honestly believe it is the key.

I don’t think homosexuals think they are the only people on the planet with sexual urges. I think that many homosexuals, even those who may have heard the truth, are struggling with embracing that truth because it goes against the very core, the very real desire of their hearts for love. We may understand their desire to not be ordered towards that which will draw them to God, but that makes the desires of their heart no less real to them. I think a very large number of homosexuals do not truly believe their actions are sinful. We may not like that, it may even be irritating to us. However, by being empathetic to their viewpoint we may be able to see that pointing at their sinfulness, no matter how loudly we do it, won’t be the answer.

Why are homosexuals needing to become a protected class requiring special accommodation?

I don’t think they are necessarily seeking to become a “protected class”, but rather an equal class. They want to be able to get married, just like everyone else. I don’t agree with same sex marriage at all. That being said, I completely understand why they seek it. If I’m going to minister to a gay couple, I have one of two choices: either point out the sinfulness of their actions and desires, something they’ve probably heard ad nauseum, or to show them the life God is offering, one that will bring them to true fulfillment and true love. Instead of going on and on about why gay marriage is wrong, I can go on and on about why the sacrament of marriage is so right. And I can go on and on about how God is calling so many to live chaste lives for the Kingdom, how God is offering a very special opportunity to find the deepest of all loves.

I think if we could begin with, “I can understand…” it would move mountains. And we should remember, empathy is not equivalent to sympathy.

The best solution for both homosexuals and heterosexuals is to learn basic self-control, self-respect and abstinence.

I could not agree with you more! And one will only achieve those goals when they open their hearts to the possibilities of grace. Thanks for your post and please know that I agreed with your post, I just wanted to make some points.

Peace!

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Mitigation is a losing strategy. Society has no compelling need to recognize homosexual unions. Concession and capitulation to illicit behavior is never appropriate.

From scripture we know that God brings man and woman together through marriage and gives His blessing. But God will never bring together nor bless a union of man-with-man nor woman-with-woman. For humanity to sanction this is to blaspheme God’s very image and to further soil the nobility of the human race. Given that Jesus is human-divine, God will never permit humanity to efface itself to the complete disfigurement of Christ’s own humanity.

We may not be able to stop the illicit behaviors. But we certainly don’t need to delude ourselves into thinking that there is any honor or virtue to be won in God’s eyes by accommodating it under a false pretense of “understanding” and “sensitivity”.

Taboos exist for a reason just as the rise of illicit behaviors exist to signal to both man and God the level of moral decay and poor health of a society. God said ‘love the sinner’. But He still abhors illicit and disordered behaviors that defy nature.

There is more here at stake than simple civil order and a faux morality of accommodation of a minority class. If society does not push back against immoral behaviors (of all kinds) at some point God will step in with a severe chastisement that will effect everyone. Scriptural history shows this clearly. So it is self defeating to accommodate behavior that we know is abhorrent to God and invites His wrath.

It would be ironic if all this social accommodation and benevolence had unintended consequences would it not? And I imagine there are probably zealous Machiavellians among the tinfoil-hat league who under a ruse of benevolent accommodation are really hoping to provoke God’s wrath to purge the planet of all homosexuality. Of course all logical outcomes would ultimately be self defeating in the long run since when God looses His wrath He does not distinguish a heterosexual sinner from a homosexual sinner and everyone suffers.

I think a better solution is to seek less to accommodate illicit behavior and unions and seek more to appease God while at the same time helping and encouraging all sinners, homosexual and heterosexual alike to change their illicit behaviors. That builds up God’s Kingdom - it does not cooperate to put it under siege.

Bottom Line:
Accommodating moral evil invites God’s wrath. I’d rather society teach the homosexuals how to exercise the same self restraint that every other person on the planet should have to conform to. Why do homosexuals think they are the only people on the planet with sexual urges? There are millions of single heterosexual males and females in the nation who mostly seem to integrate quite productively in society. Why are homosexuals needing to become a protected class requiring special accommodation?

The best solution for both homosexuals and heterosexuals is to learn basic self-control, self-respect and abstinence. No man or woman need be a slave to their own passions anymore so than any man or woman need openly accommodate somone else’s vices and weakness.

James

You miss the point entirely, and your purblindness deafens the ears of those to whom you would preach.
When a man is bleeding to death, the first thing you must do, is stop the bleeding.
Finding the root cause of that bleeding is a poor secondary.
If you cannot stop the bleeding, the cause is LOST.
Ever attempt at goodness MUST start with mitigation of evil.
When you rescue a cat from a tree, you wear protective clothing, even though that would intimidate the cat.
I never said that mitigation was an end in itself.
It is a necessary first step.
If you cannot mitigate, then your cause is lost.
You will preach empty words to the converted alone.
That will be a recipe for separation, and division, which will drive your target from you.
You need to embrace the lepers as did Our Lord.

 

[CentralFLJames]

You need to embrace the lepers as did Our Lord.

I embrace what I can - including the truth. There is no concept of spiritual triage to be found anywhere in scripture or in Church Teaching that I am aware of. Healing is a “process” that takes time - that we can agree on. But healing also requires active participation and the will to cooperate as well as the recognition by the afflicted that they are sick. Many or most homosexuals do not want to change and have been taught to embrace their condition as “unique” and even superior and more enlightened (and in so doing admit that it is a mental condition) than being merely “straight”. It does no one any good to pander to the notion that homosexuality is not disordered and is “normal” since that anneals the will against the recognition of the depravity and leaves no compelling desire to change. Anxiety is a key component in human growth through stress adaptation. Sometimes a tough love is a better love than an accepting sort of love. The prior kind offers the hope for liberation while the latter enslaves the afflicted through the false compassion of acceptance.

I find it ironic how you used the leper analogy. I almost did too but did not want to make the direct comparison since it might have have been seen as offensive. But now that you have let me say that I have always though that God used Leprosy as a means of vividly demonstrating the corrupting and degrading effect of sin on the human condition. I feel God gave us Leprosy as a means to give a glimpse into the spiritual disfigurement that He sees in those who suffer in sin.

What I was going to say about lepers is that they always knew that they could not stay in the same place as “normal” healthy human beings and would not dare risk infecting other loved ones in their household and community. Lepers recognized their own illness and depravity and knew how offensive they were to their fellow man and how they could infect others. So lepers themselves usually covered up and seperated themselves out of compassion for their family and fellowman. But the community, while at times being very fearful of becoming infected always had compassion for lepers and brought them food and clothing.

So if you want to use the leper analogy then you should go the whole circuit and mention that the afflicted through no personal fault of their own had the common decency and compassion to cloister themselves away from the rest of society as a necessity of life. That sense of self denial is the part that is missing in the homosexual attitude. Most homosexuals are trying to force society to accept them as “normal” rather than trying to learn how to live with their condition and even change.

No one here is saying homosexuals have to go into the closet in the literal sense. But I don’t think Jesus was kidding when he said in Luke 9:23 : **And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me. **

James

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Dear Kendy,
What you need to understand is that sexuality is not a simple matter of ‘black’ and ‘white’.
While black and white form the majority of this highly bi-modal distribution, there do exist various shades of gray, lost in the mid-space.

Though sexuality is linked closely to XX and XY chromosome allocation, the chromosomes do not actually code for gender, only for the enzymes which predelict for gender. Thus it is possible for an XX to develop as male, and vice versa.
There are also genetic errors which produce XXY, and XYY varients, which totally mess up the predeliction.

Thus, though ‘normal’ sexuality is the majority case, ‘abnormal’ sexuality is just a normal variant in an overlapping bi-modal distribution. Thus these ‘abnormalities’ are in there own way quite normal, and to be expected, and accommodated, as part of the Grand Design.

Yes, the attitude of Mother Church to these variants might be an ideal, but just like Our Lord said to Peter, concerning chastity, there are some who cannot meet this ideal.

If only for the reason of not spreading STDs, then, homosexual relationships based on a one to one, closed relationship, mirroring marriage, are to be preferred to casual relationships, which are both a medical, and cultural hazard.

Now if this is losing the cultural debate, then maybe culture needs to be closely examined. Maybe we are treasuring something worse than worthless, and casting aside pearls.

The issue at hand is not about science but one of self discipline and self control. Most people desire many sins whether SSA or hetero does not exclude the condition. If a hetero plays around he commits the same sins as a partner in a gay marriage. To restate it is not the desire it is the need to control the desire at issue.

btw something which appears and insult however is becoming a systematic issue in gay marriage is what appears to be an inability of most participates to form unity. Interesting because the Church teaches the act is “disordered” meaning a fundamental misunderstanding. The Church teaches “unity” and “procreation” are requirements* of marriage. To date studies show gay marriage typically achieve neither.

‘*Procreation actions are required not procreation success

 

[East_and_West]

Just because gay people want some equality in terms of adoption and civil marriage doesn’t mean they want to restrict your freedom of speech. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

Which nations are passing such laws? Certainly not the U.S.

Why are you so obsessed with anal sex? It’s as if you think homosexuality is defined by anal sex. But it’s not. Most of the gay men I know don’t practice it. Of course, all gay women don’t practice it.

I lived a homosexual life style for two years. MOST of the gay men I knew DID in fact practice sodomy. And, yes it is bad for your body.

 

[East_and_West]

I think that anyone who condemns what appears to be homosexuality are incredibly naive as they simply do not know the facts. They are condemning without knoweldge. That is not justice but lynching.

I advocate tolerance, inclusivity and not making judgments of others, this forbidden by Christ Mk 11: 25, you might also want to check out Mt 7:1-2.

I am XX genotype. But I have a male body, 1 in every 600 live births this anomaly occurs, but only 1 in 30,000 gets detected medically and treated.

We are offered the alternatives of a physical sex change or to receive male hormone to make us appear more ‘man-like’. Of course we are sterile as we do not have viable testicles, but it does raise a very serious question that 'if we engage in a relationship with a male, am I homosexual, or relationship with a woman am I lesbian?

To prevent you insulting me as has already happened elsewhere, we are not transvestites!!!

You see there is no clear answers. So people should not judge if they see two apparent men together as they just do not know whether one of them is in fact a woman.

Your situation is much more complex than the average homosexual’s. You are comparing apple’s and oranges.