Digger71 said:
But you both miss so many points. Our Church teaches us to treat everyone
with respect, calling it ‘SSA’ and calling SSA and affliction contradicts this.
Quite the opposite, unless of course one adheres to the belief (again in service of the gay agenda propoganda) that SSA is an unchangeable condition and therefore cannot be changed. Here is the Catholic position:
A number of researchers have sought to find a biological cause for same-sexual attraction. The media have promoted the idea that a “gay gene” has already been discovered (Burr 1996[3]), but in spite of several attempts, none of the much publicized studies (Hamer 1993[4]; LeVay 1991[5]) has been scientifically replicated. (Gadd 1998) A number of authors have carefully reviewed these studies and found that not only do the studies not prove a genetic basis for same-sex attraction; the reports do not even contain such claims. (Byne 1963[6]; Crewdson 1995[7]; Goldberg1992; Horgan 1995[8]; McGuire 1995[9]; Porter 1996; Rice 1999[10])
There are, however, ongoing attempts to convince the public that same-sex attraction is genetically based. (Marmor 1975[13]) Such attempts may be politically motivated because people are more likely to respond positively to demands for changes in laws and religious teaching when they believe sexual attraction to be genetically determined and unchangeable. (Ernulf 1989[14]; Piskur 1992[15]) Others have sought to prove a genetic basis for same-sex attraction so that they could appeal to the courts for rights based on the “immutability”. (Green 1988[16])
Catholics believe that sexuality was designed by God as a sign of the love of Christ, the bridegroom, for his Bride, the Church, and therefore sexual activity is appropriate only in marriage. Catholic teaching holds that: “Sexuality is ordered to the conjugal love of man and woman. In marriage the physical intimacy of the spouses becomes a sign and pledge of spiritual communion.E(CCC, n.2360) Healthy psycho-sexual development leads naturally to attraction in persons of each sex for the other sex.
Trauma, erroneous education, and sin can cause a deviation from this pattern.
Persons should not be identified with their emotional or developmental conflicts as though this were the essence of their identity. In the debate between essentialism and social constructionism, the believer in natural law would hold that human beings have an essential nature – either male or female – and that sinful inclinations (such as the desire to engage in homosexual acts) are constructed and can, therefore, be deconstructed.
It is, therefore, probably wise to avoid wherever possible using the words “homosexual” and “heterosexual” as nouns
since such usage implies a fixed state and an equivalence between the natural state of man and woman as created by God and persons experiencing same sex attractions or behaviors.
cathmed.org/publications/homosexuality.html
Deeper, **if disorder is a bad thing **
then our opposition to same-sex unions is hypocritical, for we make sure people who enjoy ‘SSA’ are deliberately destabalised. destabalisation is the opposite of ‘ordered’ and we become authors of that we oppose.
“Disorder” is neither a bad or good thing (it is a
moral disorder, but is not intrinsically good or bad), it is a medical or psychological condition. This is another tactic utilized by the gay activist camp to link the condition of SSA with morality in and of itself. The tactical reason of the gay activist is to then remove from the debate any organization or voice associated with religious foundation; and by way of stripping natural law from the debate, the gay activist claim SSA is normal (i.e., not a symptom of deviation or maladaptation) and ought to be treated as much.
, you cannot label someone with their knowledge without creating identity. With labels we create a community, a culture, and a movement…just as we identify with being Catholics, so communities by being called ‘disordered’ (something they do not feel) come in to existance.
Deeper still in the propoganda hogwash of gay activist indoctrination. Not creating an “identity” to discriminate or segregate with, but appropriately and accurately labeling a psychological condition. By your logic, anyone with religious foundations should be segregating and creating communities for anyone with a medical/mental disorder.
Gay people are not afflicted by with feelings, they are afflicted with us.
Again, you seek to blame those religious based folks who offer the only truly compassionate response.
)
