Loving homosexuals, transgenders means telling them the dangers of LGBT behavior

  • Thread starter Thread starter JohnR77
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
He’s not in the closet he’s has a long term relationship.He doesn’t agree that gays should be married and he really detests the outlandish fringe element of the gay community.
 
Nothing wrong with any of that. At the same time, I think it is a good thing that the gay movement exists, just as the women’s movement and the Black movement exist. Can they sometimes go overboard in their vociferous activity? You bet they can. But my point is that sometimes excess is needed for change, for equality, for giving people opportunities that have previously been denied them. The man you speak about, whether he knows it or not, has also benefited by the actions of those who stood up to the status quo of the establishment.
 
Last edited:
meltzerboy2 said:
You’re assuming there is only ONE Catholic answer. Judging by the responses, that is not the case.
Click to expand...
Not only judging by the responses on here, but judging by the myriad ways that Catholic bishops, clergy and religious order members have approached this issue, there’s not one answer to how to best reach out to LGBTQ people.

There is one answer regarding God’s commandments. There is not one answer as to how to go about loving your neighbor or even evangelizing them.
 
Agreed. Even the commandments are open to further clarification (in Judaism), which the Law (Torah) provides for the Ten Commandments. And the Law, in turn, is open to reasonable interpretation by the Talmud. And the latter as well…
 
Last edited:
meltzerboy2 said:
One might think they are hurting their own cause. But, as I stated in my previous post, in the long run, they may be helping more than hurting. Your daughter’s friend has every right to feel the way he does and to lead a quiet lifestyle apart from the radical fringe. No one has a right to fault him for that. However, if every gay person behaved that way, then many more gay people would still be leading a life of quiet desperation in the closet, in which they were afraid that someone might find them out, a family member, a friend, an employer, and disclose their painful secret. They would still have feelings of self-loathing, feelings of being abnormal, immoral, criminal. Some still do, but the change in attitudes among many in the straight world have served to alleviate the pain and suffering of many gay people, apart from enabling them to benefit from the rights and privileges of society that were not available to them before. These gay people do not want to go backwards, return to the closet, resume their self-hatred as well as the contempt that society held for them before the radical fringe fought against the mainstream by demanding their civil and human rights. Society needs the radical fringe at times. Without it, nothing in the world would ever change.
Click to expand...
I completely agree with this. I’ve never been an activist. I didn’t take part in any marches or demonstrations. But I’m still grateful for those who did because things are so much better now for LGBT people than what they were 30 or 40 years ago. Back then, I spent most of my time in the closet, whereas now I’m out to most of my friends and acquaintances, to the people at the Lutheran church my partner and I attend, to most of my relatives, etc. I certainly wouldn’t want to go back to the way things used to be.
 
Last edited:
But you have on occasion questioned th DSM’s removal of homosexuality, which leads me to the conclusion that you believe homosexuality is a mental illness.
 
If the only danger were dying in unrepentent mortal sin, seems to me that’s danger enough.
 
Interesting assumption. What I would like to know is the exact circumstances for reclassifying homosexuality in 1973. I know a vote was taken. I know that before that, Frank Kameny and other gay activists, forged credentials to get into the APA’s annual meeting where he declared war on them. Not scientific.
 
Mental illness is defined as behavior that presents a significant obstacle to someone being able to function. Since, other than social censure, most homosexuals seem quite capable of holding down jobs, paying their bills, having normal relationships and so forth, it isn’t a mental illness.

But if you think that homosexuality is equivalent of bipolar disorder, OCDs, social anxiety disorder and the like, don’t be shy and just come out and say so. If you think homosexuals should be under psychiatric care, medicated and/or put in treatment , don’t be coy about it and don’t lean on conspiracy theories.
 
edwest211 said:
Interesting assumption. What I would like to know is the exact circumstances for reclassifying homosexuality in 1973. I know a vote was taken. I know that before that, Frank Kameny and other gay activists, forged credentials to get into the APA’s annual meeting where he declared war on them. Not scientific.
Click to expand...
That’s what activists and demonstrators do. If it weren’t for the the Selma to Montgomery marches in 1965 in which the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King took part, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 might not have passed in Congress. And the demonstrations by Kameny and other gay activists got the attention of the APA and brought about needed change. Here’s what one article says:
Gay activist protests succeeded in getting APA’s attention and led to unprecedented educational panels at the group’s next two annual meetings. A 1971 panel, entitled “Gay is Good,” featured gay activists Frank Kameny and Barbara Gittings explaining to psychiatrists, many who were hearing this for the first time, the stigma caused by the “homosexuality” diagnosis…

While protests and panels took place, APA engaged in an internal deliberative process of considering the question of whether homosexuality should remain a psychiatric diagnosis. This included a symposium at the 1973 APA annual meeting in which participants favoring and opposing removal debated the question, “Should Homosexuality be in the APA Nomenclature?” The Nomenclature Committee, APA’s scientific body addressing this issue also wrestled with the question of what constitutes a mental disorder. Robert Spitzer, who chaired a subcommittee looking into the issue, “reviewed the characteristics of the various mental disorders and concluded that, with the exception of homosexuality and perhaps some of the other ‘sexual deviations’, they all regularly caused subjective distress or were associated with generalized impairment in social effectiveness of functioning.” Having arrived at this novel definition of mental disorder, the Nomenclature Committee agreed that homosexuality per se was not one. Several other APA committees and deliberative bodies then reviewed and accepted their work and recommendations. As a result, in December 1973, APA’s Board of Trustees (BOT) voted to remove homosexuality from the DSM.
Click to expand...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Out of DSM: Depathologizing Homosexuality

In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) removed the diagnosis of “homosexuality” from the second edition of its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM). This resulted after comparing competing theories, those that pathologized ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
 
Last edited:
Religious or moral quandary differences are not grounds for classification of a psychological schema as a mental illness.

The Church teaches that homosexual activity is wrong but this shouldn’t and can’t effect how medical and mental health practitioners approach homosexual patients/clients.
 
JohnR77 said:
Hi.
I hope you like this.

Loving homosexuals, transgenders means telling them the dangers of LGBT behavior.
Click to expand...
I don’t think lecturing them is the way to conversion.
Their sins are little different than promiscuous heterosexuals, and lecturing them hasn’t shown to change hearts and minds.
 
Usually people are ready to change when they hit rock bottom, or find they’ve reached a dead end.
 
Happy to ignore their lifestyle choice. That is, until they start trying to subvert church teachings, indoctrinate children, and force everyone to acknowledge the abomination of homosexual intercourse as some kind of natural, normal, virtuous “form of loving expression.”
 
Last edited:
Did you not say that homosexuals are “trying to subvert Church teaching,” and is this not immoral? Did you also say that “homosexual intercourse” is not “natural” or “normal,” and doesn’t that mean it is sick? Finally, did you say gay people are trying to “indoctrinate children,” and would that not be criminal? I rest my case. Guilty as charged. Next case.
 
Last edited:
meltzerboy2 said:
Did you not say that homosexuals are “trying to subvert Church teaching,” and is this not immoral? Did you also say that “homosexual intercourse” is not “natural” or “normal,” and doesn’t that mean it is sick? Finally, did you say gay people are trying to “indoctrinate children,” and would that not be criminal? I rest my case. Guilty as charged. Next case.
Click to expand...
They could alternatively say nothing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top