Question Regarding Homosexuality

[Kevin42]

Brian, as someone who also struggles with SSA, I just wanted to give you my thoughts on this since you have probably heard all of the teachings on it. Ok, you might have SSA, but you can overcome it! With God, nothing at all is impossible. SSA is something that you have to actively fight against, and its not an easy thing, especially at first. However, abstaining from same-sex acts will give you a much more rewarding and fulfilling life in God, which is more than anyone who advocates those homosexual acts are ok can give you. Don’t give into temporary pleasure that some would like to see you do, but follow the true teachings of the Church and you will much more happiness than the gay lifestyle could ever provide you. It’s hard, and it in someways is a martyrdom, but with hard work, you can eventually get past it. And even if you maybe never completly overcome it, God will see that throughout your life you continually followed him, and even when you fell, you got back up and continued to follow Jesus.

There is nothing but emptiness in a gay lifetsyle, and I can’t urge you enough to rebuke it right now, and ask God to come to you in your time of need and give you the strength to overcome this. Christ died on the Cross. With God NOTHING is impossible. I know it’s tough sometimes, but don’t ever give the devil power over you, and keep your eyes on Jesus, crucified and given up for you.

 

[blessedtoo]

Brian, as someone who also struggles with SSA, I just wanted to give you my thoughts on this since you have probably heard all of the teachings on it. Ok, you might have SSA, but you can overcome it! With God, nothing at all is impossible. SSA is something that you have to actively fight against, and its not an easy thing, especially at first. However, abstaining from same-sex acts will give you a much more rewarding and fulfilling life in God, which is more than anyone who advocates those homosexual acts are ok can give you. Don’t give into temporary pleasure that some would like to see you do, but follow the true teachings of the Church and you will much more happiness than the gay lifestyle could ever provide you. It’s hard, and it in someways is a martyrdom, but with hard work, you can eventually get past it. And even if you maybe never completly overcome it, God will see that throughout your life you continually followed him, and even when you fell, you got back up and continued to follow Jesus.

There is nothing but emptiness in a gay lifetsyle, and I can’t urge you enough to rebuke it right now, and ask God to come to you in your time of need and give you the strength to overcome this. Christ died on the Cross. With God NOTHING is impossible. I know it’s tough sometimes, but don’t ever give the devil power over you, and keep your eyes on Jesus, crucified and given up for you.

God bless you for speaking the truth!

Kevin and Brian,
I think a Christian who struggles with SSA and succeeds is spiritually heroic. It is such a huge cross to bear and I believe that a triumph can only gain you greater access to Heaven since you have suffered and paid so dearly here on earth.

 

[Exalt]

Brian, as someone who also struggles with SSA, I just wanted to give you my thoughts on this since you have probably heard all of the teachings on it. Ok, you might have SSA, but you can overcome it! With God, nothing at all is impossible.

But very unlikely. It’s rather something of a small miracle.

Don’t give into temporary pleasure that some would like to see you do, but follow the true teachings of the Church

1. “Giving into” homosexuality is more than just mindless pleasure. It’s about love, committment, work, and true joy in the context of a lasting commitment. And if you are just using other men to get what you want out of it? Of course there are problems with that.
2. You ought to seriously consider the teaching of the Church before you sign your life to celibacy. Wiegh the options. Find out what’s really true.

and you will much more happiness than the gay lifestyle could ever provide you.

A forced celibate lifestyle that is “in some ways a martyrdom” and “is such a huge cross to bear” that “you suffer and pay for dearly” (Blessedtoo’s comments) will bring more happiness than a committed, loving, lasting relationship? Life-long celibacy is *not *for everyone. Don’t throw the term around like **everyone **would be happy living that sort of lifestyle.

There is nothing but emptiness in a gay lifetsyle

sigh

Can you prove it? I suppose all those happy gay couples are just empty shells, right? You don’t see through their charade for a second, right?

 

[blessedtoo]

But very unlikely. It’s rather something of a small miracle.

While I appreciate your level-headed approach and tone, you are clearly coming to this issue without a Christian belief in God. If you had this, you would understand that small miracles happen all the time. One need only be open to them. In addition, the Church does not insist or even encourage those with SSA to try to “change” into heterosexuals.

1. “Giving into” homosexuality is more than just mindless pleasure. It’s about love, committment, work, and true joy in the context of a lasting commitment. And if you are just using other men to get what you want out of it? Of course there are problems with that.

As I stated on another thread, as one who has lived this lifestyle, I can say without equivocation that if such a relationship exists (“It’s about love, committment, work, and true joy in the context of a lasting commitment.”), it is the exception, not the rule. Every homosexual “relationship” I have known is not only incapable of monogamy, but actively opposed to it. You have a utopian view of the true homosexual objective.

1. You ought to seriously consider the teaching of the Church before you sign your life to celibacy. Wiegh the options. Find out what’s really true.

Everyone of us is expected to practice celibacy UNTIL we discern our vocation (marriage, single-life, priesthood). Homosexuals are not singled out. As a heterosexual woman without a husband, I too am called to celibacy. Does this too require a small miracle? If so, then miracles are occurring on a regular basis because there are many, many folks who manage celibacy quite fine.

A forced celibate lifestyle that is “in some ways a martyrdom” and “is such a huge cross to bear” that “you suffer and pay for dearly” (Blessedtoo’s comments) will bring more happiness than a committed, loving, lasting relationship? Life-long celibacy is *not *for everyone. Don’t throw the term around like **everyone **would be happy living that sort of lifestyle.

There is no “forced” celibacy. It is a choice. Anytime we make a choice to walk with Christ and live our faith, we take up our crosses and often suffer. Again, your idea of “happiness” is based on the temporal, the passing “pleasures” of this earthly existence. Christians are looking toward the finish line, where we hope to experience eternal joy. This life, and especially a lifestyle saturated with lust and sexual pleasure, can offer nothing but heartache, no matter how much you hallmark-card it up.

Can you prove it? I suppose all those happy gay couples are just empty shells, right? You don’t see through their charade for a second, right?

Prove it? You need only google stats for the number of partners homosexual men have to see that the nature of their relationships is not based on this idea of “comittment” that you want to glorify. One of my dearest friends, who is homosexual, has been in one of these “relationships” you keep talking of. He has been with his partner for 10 years. No one knows that twice a week they are online “cruising” for third party additions to their “committed” relationship. No one knows that they have actually had run-in’s with the law because of their sordid dealings with nefarious characters. And they are not the exception. You are either being dishonest or naive. Either way, I suggest you not misrepresent what the homosexual community is really all about.

 

[setter]

There is no good reason that homosexual acts should be considered immoral simply because they are homosexual.

Not a very convincing argument.

Natural Law theory is too simplistic for the modern world in which we live in today.

The supposition being that simple truths are no longer applicable to Modern man. What exactly has changed about the nature of man with the ushering in of “the modern world in which we live in today” that Natural law is “too smplistic”?

From a strictly secular point of view, the Bible is not a reliable source for solid moral teachings.

Obvious enough.

The Church is right about a given moral statement because that moral statement can be objectively proven true, not because the Church said that it’s true.

Based on your relativistic criteria of course.

Changing one’s sexual orientation is possible, but unneccessary.

Are we to suppose that you are speaking on behalf of all those individuals afflicted with the disorder of SSA?

“The most important fact about ‘reparative therapy,’ also sometimes known as ‘conversion’ therapy, is that it is based on an understanding of homosexuality that has been rejected by all the major health and mental health professions. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the National Association of Social Workers, together representing more than 477,000 health and mental health professionals, have all taken the position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and thus there is no need for a ‘cure.’ …health and mental health professional organizations do not support efforts to change young people’s sexual orientation through ‘reparative therapy’ and have raised serious concerns about its potential to do harm.” (American Psychological Association, 2006)

Here is an article excerpt and link that provides a more serious understanding of the political decision by the APA to remove homosexuality from the DSM and the ill effects that this has had on those affclited with SSA and seeking professional help and relief from the disorder of SSA:

The Removal of Homosexuality from the
Psychiatric Manual - by Joseph Nicolosi
National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality

All three great pioneers of psychiatry–Freud, Jung and Adler–saw homosexuality as disordered. Yet today, homosexuality is not to be found in the psychiatric manual of mental disorders.

In his scholarly analysis of the American Psychiatric Association’s reversal of the diagnostic classification of homosexuality, Ronald Bayer (1981) states: “the result was not a conclusion based upon an approximation of the scientific truth as dictated by reason, but was instead an action demanded by the ideological temper of the times” (p. 3-4).

Failure by the psychiatric profession to recognize homosexuality as an unwanted condition for some, serves to discourage members of the mental health profession from offering treatment. Most harmfully, the client himself is disheartened, since the very profession to which he turns for help tells him that it is not a problem and he must accept it.

It is extremely demoralizing for a client to persist in attempting to overcome homosexuality when the psychological profession–which would administer treatment–insists he does not have a problem.

catholicsocialscientists.org/Symposium2–Nicolosi–mss.htm

 

[ReflectiveDove]

I am glad to be in a place of where people are of equal education as I…

Just one issue, I know in my heart it is wrong… and in my spirit is very disgusting.

Being reared in the Pentecostal Church I do not doubt it one bit that it is in agreement with the Holy Scriptures to allow it to overtake me.

The more I struggle the more I want to let go, but something keeps me holding on. That substance that does so, is only from our Father in Heaven.

SSA to me is not something that I feel I should take lightly, because I can look back on my past and see why I’ve developed it, and for those that can’t, there is reasons… Especially because those who live by faith must understand that God is not confusion, but peace.

To those that tell me to relax and just be my lil’ ol’ homosexual self, I would love to do that… but then I’d be letting Satan have more laughs and I’ve had enough of that in my life. Proof that homosexuality is a sin or is deceptive? No greater proof than to have been there and going through it myself… There’s no doubt God’s calling me into a place of rest… Look at Israel 40 years for a 4 day journey in the desert… come on… why give up now? I’ve made the mistake, as did they, to let small things beset them… Yes, more prayer in my life and more surroundings by devout Christians and those who are living the best they can according to the Word of God, salvation through the Son (Jesus Christ), and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and the examples set by those who have followed in the path of righteousness before us, would just be more helpful, but we’re in a sinful world.

Honestly, giving up would be good and temporary pleasure and exciting, but letting go and moving on into the blessings of the Father would be the greatest gift in the world… And that’s what God intends for us, the best and the greatest, nothing less, only more.

Peace be with you,
Brian

 

[Exalt]

Prove it? You need only google stats for the number of partners homosexual men have to see that the nature of their relationships is not based on this idea of “comittment” that you want to glorify … Either way, I suggest you not misrepresent what the homosexual community is really all about.

Find the statistics. Read them. Reference them. Bring them here. You will find that the “studies” you are talking about are not empirical or peer-reveiwed research and are no better than prejudiced propaganda.

As I stated on another thread, as one who has lived this lifestyle, I can say without equivocation that if such a relationship exists (“It’s about love, committment, work, and true joy in the context of a lasting commitment.”), it is the exception, not the rule.

And I can say without equivocation, as one who is living this lifestyle, that such relationships do, indeed, exist, and are confirmed by a good number of research and phenominological studies.

A study of 43 homosexual induviduals married already or soon-to-be-married looked into the experience of gay and lesbians in a committed relationship. I read it, and it’s pretty interesting. Yeah, they have a few problems, but it doesn’t mean they aren’t committed or loving:

Alderson, Kevin G., “A phenomenological investigation of same-sex marriage.” Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, Vol 13(2), Sum 2004. pp. 107-122.

The following quotes are from that study. The participants were asked to discuss their own relationships - good and bad, struggles and successes. These participants were from a wide variety of backgrounds in a number of different countries. Look the research up yourself if you’d like to read it yourself. It’s on the PsychINFO research database.

You can’t represent the essence of it and
that’s the spirituality part that I’m talking
about—that indescribable experience of being
a family. And now that we’re being
recognized by the outside state as a family.
It’s very powerful to be recognized (Dorothy,
age 41).

And we were very certain about this case,
that we wanted to stay together and we were
very certain about us two understanding each
other and we just wanted to get married to
give our relationship some more depth
(Martin, age 45).

I know that there’s a bond there and it’s—
it’s an agreement between two people and
it’s something that means a lot to me, to know
that that person has said, “For richer, for
poorer, and through sickness and in health,”
I know that person is going to be there for
me (Wayne, age 34).

Love is love, you know. It is between a man
and woman or two men it is about the same
thing, the same feelings. It is something you
feel, you know. It makes no difference if you
are gay or straight, it is the same feeling for
me anyway. I don’t think it is different (Clark,
age 48).

Yeah. Because for us, being married is a lot
about being 100% in this relationship and not
99.9% or 98% or just really, you know,
standing in it and saying, “This is it. We’ll
give it everything we have” (Meagin, age 44).

There’s ways in which we just click and get
along and ways in which we clash, and all of
that’s okay. I mean, all of that is exactly what
happens in a marriage and there’s nothing
about her that needs to change—I mean,
that’s what I married and it’s still here and
it’s—well, I’m going to encounter, you know,
whatever. You know, the things that irritate
her about me, I mean, she married that. That’s
what’s going to be there and it’s not—you
know, it’s not about, kind of, having
reservations and doubts. It’s saying, “Okay.
Those things are there and I accept them,
and I even love them, and that’s the way it
is,” and by marrying, you’re saying that we’re
going to put everything that we have into
making this work (Janice, age 48).

Now, do these sound like hedonistic sexual deviants who only want one thing from life? Nope.

Of course, you’ll just say that “they’re not the norm,” but at least I’ve proven to you that they exist.

 

[estesbob]

IHonestly, giving up would be good and temporary pleasure and exciting, but letting go and moving on into the blessings of the Father would be the greatest gift in the world… And that’s what God intends for us, the best and the greatest, nothing less, only more.

Peace be with you,
Brian

Brian:

You ROCK! I will continue to pray for you.

 

[Exalt]

Not a very convincing argument.

That, my friend, is what we call “a conclusion.” It’s not supposed to be a self-contained argument. What I’m saying is that a given homosexual might be unethical because one of the partners is married and they’re committing adultery, or one of the partners is under 18, or other problems. But Catholicism says that all homosexual acts are wrong because they are homosexual. I’m saying that’s short-sighted for a number of reasons. I discuss them in my very first post in this thread.

The supposition being that simple truths are no longer applicable to Modern man. What exactly has changed about the nature of man with the ushering in of “the modern world in which we live in today” that Natural law is “too smplistic”?

Did you even read my post? Natural Law theory is too simplistic because we, as human beings, have created technology that transcends our original design. As has been clearly illustrated by everyone who has tackled my critique of natural law, what matters in determining the morality of a given situation is the ends caused, not if if it’s “natural” or not. Wearing glasses on one’s nose is not the original design of the nose; but wearing glasses is a postive thing (it helps you see), so the original design of the nose is either irrelevant or unimportant to the morality of the ends caused.

Based on your relativistic criteria of course.

Why do people keep accusing me of being a relativist? Homosexuality is OBJECTIVELY okay.

Are we to suppose that you are speaking on behalf of all those individuals afflicted with the disorder of SSA?

Those individuals “afflicted” with the “disorder” of same sex attraction have opinions about homosexuality that are incorrect.

Here is an article excerpt and link that provides a more serious understanding of the political decision by the APA to remove homosexuality from the DSM and the ill effects that this has had on those affclited with SSA and seeking professional help and relief from the disorder of SSA:

catholicsocialscientists.org/Symposium2–Nicolosi–mss.htm

1: I think you’ll note that it’s not** just** the APA that found tha homosexuality was not psychiatric disorder. What about the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the National Association of Social Workers?

1. Find, then, reasons that homosexuality *should *be in the DSM. As I’ve demonstrated in this thread, while there is some association between homosexuality in certain genders and certain types of psychiatric disorders, the association rates are very small (that is, the percentage of differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals on these disorders is small - usually under 5%. For example, Of those 74 “Same Sex Partner” men, %15 of them reported some anxiety disorder of some kind. Of the 2310 men in the “Opposite-Sex Partners Only” group, %11.6 of men reported some sort of anxiety disorder. That’s a difference of only 3.4%.). Furthermore, these studies suggest a number of causes for this association, but *none of them **ever ***suggest that it simply *because *they are homosexual. Ever. Because there is **no convincing reason Homosexuality should be in the DSM, there is no reason for it to be there.
2. Accusations of the APA being too politically involved seem silly considering the religious context that Joseph Nicolosi comes from.

 

[blessedtoo]

Find the statistics. Read them. Reference them. Bring them here. You will find that the “studies” you are talking about are not empirical or peer-reveiwed research and are no better than prejudiced propaganda.

If I told you how many times I have posted these stats on these forums you would understand why I have suggested you do it yourself. Regardless, we could stat eachother silly with what you term “propaganda”. I am sure you could find slanted stats from most LGBT sites that claim homosexual bliss.

And I can say without equivocation, as one who is living this lifestyle, that such relationships do, indeed, exist, and are confirmed by a good number of research and phenominological studies.

And I said that you would claim this. Fine. There are exceptions to every rule, as I stated in my above post.

A study of 43 homosexual induviduals married already or soon-to-be-married looked into the experience of gay and lesbians in a committed relationship. I read it, and it’s pretty interesting. Yeah, they have a few problems, but it doesn’t mean they aren’t committed or loving:

Wow! 43 homosexual couples! Hardly a study. I have that many homosexual friends and aquaintances and I have done my own study and given you stats, but you refuse to admit the truth.

Now, do these sound like hedonistic sexual deviants who only want one thing from life? Nope.

Do you think these sentimental ramblings prove anything? My friend that I mentioned above, who cruises the internet with his partner twice a week, would also make claims like those you cited above. How about my former employer and friend who has been “married” for 27 years to his partner but engages in things too gruesome to mention here behind his “spouses” back? He too waxes poetic about their great love. Big deal. I guess the question is can homosexuals truly understand the nature of the marital relationship when everything they are pursuing is against God?

Of course, you’ll just say that “they’re not the norm,” but at least I’ve proven to you that they exist

I never said they didn’t exist. In fact, I think I may have met one in my 48 years.

 

[setter]

I am glad to be in a place of where people are of equal education as I…

Just one issue, I know in my heart it is wrong… and in my spirit is very disgusting.

Being reared in the Pentecostal Church I do not doubt it one bit that it is in agreement with the Holy Scriptures to allow it to overtake me.

The more I struggle the more I want to let go, but something keeps me holding on. That substance that does so, is only from our Father in Heaven.

SSA to me is not something that I feel I should take lightly, because I can look back on my past and see why I’ve developed it, and for those that can’t, there is reasons… Especially because those who live by faith must understand that God is not confusion, but peace.

To those that tell me to relax and just be my lil’ ol’ homosexual self, I would love to do that… but then I’d be letting Satan have more laughs and I’ve had enough of that in my life. Proof that homosexuality is a sin or is deceptive? No greater proof than to have been there and going through it myself… There’s no doubt God’s calling me into a place of rest… Look at Israel 40 years for a 4 day journey in the desert… come on… why give up now? I’ve made the mistake, as did they, to let small things beset them… Yes, more prayer in my life and more surroundings by devout Christians and those who are living the best they can according to the Word of God, salvation through the Son (Jesus Christ), and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and the examples set by those who have followed in the path of righteousness before us, would just be more helpful, but we’re in a sinful world.

Honestly, giving up would be good and temporary pleasure and exciting, but letting go and moving on into the blessings of the Father would be the greatest gift in the world… And that’s what God intends for us, the best and the greatest, nothing less, only more.

Peace be with you,
Brian

Are you listening dapper and Exalt to this contra-testimony?

 

[setter]

That, my friend, is what we call “a conclusion.” It’s not supposed to be a self-contained argument.

Then your “conclusion” is not very convincing:

Originally Posted by Exalt
There is no good reason that homosexual acts should be considered immoral simply because they are homosexual. …it doesn’t neccessarily mean that alterations to one’s “natural” disposition, transcendence beyond “normal” traits, or different uses for those body parts are immoral or wrong.

Your “altercations”, “transcendence” and “different” are accurately called “deviations” and “aberrations” from the norm of natural law design and corollary function, i.e., does the plumbing have a complementary fit or not? Fact: One cannot “transcend” their innate human nature or they fail to be who they are created to be. Arbitrarily changing a function/use does not some how mutate or transform what is in man’s nature.

What I’m saying is that a given homosexual might be unethical because one of the partners is married and they’re committing adultery, or one of the partners is under 18, or other problems. But Catholicism says that all homosexual acts are wrong because they are homosexual. I’m saying that’s short-sighted for a number of reasons. I discuss them in my very first post in this thread.

Who are you and what basis do you have to call certain acts of sexual acting out as “unethical”? This is the quandary of secular humanist who reject that there exists an absolute basis, i.e., God, for what is right and wrong.

Did you even read my post? Natural Law theory is too simplistic because we, as human beings, have created technology that transcends our original design.

I am left wondering how much you have thought about what you are posting and proposing? I suggest that you give this some thought: Technology, a product of man, who is himself a created being, can never “transcend” its maker. Unless of course one believes in “Hal” from the outdated “2001 Space Odyssey” movie.

1958 The natural law is immutable and permanent throughout the variations of history;it subsists under the flux of ideas and customs and supports their progress. The rules that express it remain substantially valid. Even when it is rejected in its very principles, it cannot be destroyed or removed from the heart of man. It always rises again in the life of individuals and societies:

Theft is surely punished by your law, O Lord, and by the law that is written in the human heart, the law that iniquity itself does not efface. (CCC)

As has been clearly illustrated by everyone who has tackled my critique of natural law, what matters in determining the morality of a given situation is the ends caused, not if if it’s “natural” or not. Wearing glasses on one’s nose is not the original design of the nose; but wearing glasses is a postive thing (it helps you see), so the original design of the nose is either irrelevant or unimportant to the morality of the ends caused.

You evidence an highly erroneous understanding of natural law. Natural law is called “natural” because it refers to the natural nature of man as a rational being.

**1955 **The “divine and natural” law shows man the way to follow so as to practice the good and attain his end. The natural law states the first and essential precepts which govern the moral life. It hinges upon the desire for God and submission to him, who is the source and judge of all that is good, as well as upon the sense that the other is one’s equal. Its principal precepts are expressed in the Decalogue. This law is called “natural,” not in reference to the nature of irrational beings, but because reason which decrees it properly belongs to human nature:

Where then are these rules written, if not in the book of that light we call the truth? In it is written every just law; from it the law passes into the heart of the man who does justice, not that it migrates into it, but that it places its imprint on it, like a seal on a ring that passes onto wax, without leaving the ring. The natural law is nothing other than the light of understanding placed in us by God; through it we know what we must do and what we must avoid. God has given this light or law at the creation. (CCC)

 

[setter]

Why do people keep accusing me of being a relativist? Homosexuality is OBJECTIVELY okay.

This is simply and nothing more than your personal opinion, void of any reference to objectives norms for right and wrong, i.e., moral relativists.

Definition: In philosophy, moral relativism takes the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect absolute and universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances. Moral relativists hold that no universal standard exists by which to assess an ethical proposition’s truth. 72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:qfE3p_n8uiAJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism+moral+relativism+definition&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1

Those individuals “afflicted” with the “disorder” of same sex attraction have opinions about homosexuality that are incorrect.

Because you say so?

1: I think you’ll note that it’s not** just** the APA that found tha homosexuality was not psychiatric disorder. What about the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the National Association of Social Workers?

Several high profile mental health professionals have come out against statments by the APA, and other mental health organisations, like past APA president Dr. Robert Perloff, who is incidentally, while heterosexual, a fellow in the Gay & Lesbian APA division. More detailed accounts of the political clash on this issue are documented in a book edited by 2 APA heavyweights, past APA president Nicholas A. Cummings, Ph.D., Sc.D. and Rogers H. Wright, Ph.D., Litt.D., titled Destructive Trends in Mental Health [3]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Nicolosi

1. Find, then, reasons that homosexuality *should *be in the DSM. As I’ve demonstrated in this thread, while there is some association between homosexuality in certain genders and certain types of psychiatric disorders, the association rates are very small (that is, the percentage of differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals on these disorders is small - usually under 5%. For example, Of those 74 “Same Sex Partner” men, %15 of them reported some anxiety disorder of some kind. Of the 2310 men in the “Opposite-Sex Partners Only” group, %11.6 of men reported some sort of anxiety disorder. That’s a difference of only 3.4%.). Furthermore, these studies suggest a number of causes for this association, but *none of them **ever ***suggest that it simply *because *they are homosexual. Ever. Because there is **no convincing reason Homosexuality *should ***be in the DSM, there is no reason for it to be there.
2. Accusations of the APA being too politically involved seem silly considering the religious context that Joseph Nicolosi comes from.

The condescending reference (“silly”) reveals your inherent bias against anyone coming from a faith perspective (“religious context”) and hardly gives you a credible objective leg to stand on in your dismissal of this astute and accomplished mental health professional. Secular humanist are notorious for their oxymorphic intolerance of those holding a faith perspective, i.e., “religious need not apply”, in order to further their own agenda and failed argument unabated.

Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D. is a clinical psychologist, founder and director of the Thomas Aquinas Clinic, in Encino, California, and the President of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH). For the last 15 years, his professional focus has been reparative therapy, a controversial psychotherapy that considers homosexuality a disorder that can be cured. His Ph.D. is from the California School of Professional Psychology

.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Nicolosi

 

[Exalt]

You evidence an highly erroneous understanding of natural law. Natural law is called “natural” because it refers to the natural nature of man as a rational being.

**1955 **The “divine and natural” law shows man the way to follow so as to practice the good and attain his end. The natural law states the first and essential precepts which govern the moral life. It hinges upon the desire for God and submission to him, who is the source and judge of all that is good, as well as upon the sense that the other is one’s equal. Its principal precepts are expressed in the Decalogue. This law is called “natural,” not in reference to the nature of irrational beings, but because reason which decrees it properly belongs to human nature:

Where then are these rules written, if not in the book of that light we call the truth? In it is written every just law; from it the law passes into the heart of the man who does justice, not that it migrates into it, but that it places its imprint on it, like a seal on a ring that passes onto wax, without leaving the ring. The natural law is nothing other than the light of understanding placed in us by God; through it we know what we must do and what we must avoid. God has given this light or law at the creation.

Then, it seems that Natural Law is the same as the Divine Law, which Catholicism says is in “the heart of man.” In other words, every man, deep down, knows right or wrong. It seems to be something like the typical understanding of conscience.

In a sense, I agree with one aspect of Catholicism here: what is right or wrong is objectively true. It’s not just relative to a particular culture, time, person, or place. See, then, that I am distancing myself from the different forms of relativism - theories that say that what is right or wrong is dependant on one’s point of view or one’s culture. When one is formulating Ethical and Moral theory, then, one is “discovering” what is true, not inventing truth.

So: how do we know, then, that homosexuality is objectively immoral?

Here’s my summary of the arguements against homosexuality:

1. Homosexuality is harmful.
2. Homosexuality doesn’t fit.
3. People innately feel that homosexuality is wrong.
4. Homosexuality is condemned in scripture.
5. The Church says homosexuality is wrong.

My responses:

1. The studies that have been used on this forum to support the idea that homosexuality causes harm are inaccurate. The studies say no such thing. Furthermore, no study suggests that homosexuality *causes *pyschiatric disorders, only that it’s a risk factor. The real question is why are homosexuals more likely to suffer from things like depression? How do you know it’s not from some external factor? Higher instances of depression might be likely because many homosexuals have been condemned, alienated, and ridiculed by thier friends and family.

Furthermore, the assumption is that if a practice is riskier than the alternatives, then the practice must be wrong. But, that logic doesn’t follow through when one considers other areas of life. Playing chess, for instance, is less risky than playing football. However, football players don’t want to play chess. They want to play football.

1. In the Catholic position, homosexuality is wrong because “it does not proceed for a genuine sexual complimentary.” In other words, “it doesn’t fit.” The male sexual organs, for instance, are clearly supposed to fit with the female sexual organs. But why would using these organs for some other purpose be wrong *just *because it’s another purpose? I can prove that this logic doesn’t follow through when one looks at alternative uses for *other *body parts. The classic example is the nose being used to hold’s one glasses. The nose is obviously not *made *to wear glasses, but glasses aren’t wrong *just *because it uses the nose for some other purpose.
2. There are a great many other issues in which people “just feel” something else used to be right or wrong. Interracial marriage, for instance, was by many people felt to be “just wrong.” Furthermore, there are many people who “just feel” that homosexuality is okay and right. I’m one of those people. Just because many people feel that homosexuality is wrong doesn’t make it wrong.
3. Scripture is not a good moral guidebook for our lives. Joshua 6, for instance, describes the Isrealites killing everyone (but one family) in the city of Jericho: “They observed the ban by putting to the sword all living creatures in the city: men and women, young and old, as well as oxen, sheep and asses.” I can give many other examples of acts in the Bible that we should consider absoulutely wrong today that were okayed by God in the Bible.
4. The Church’s position on homosexuality is based on the points above. The points above have been proven to be false. Therefore, the Church teaching here must be false.

 

[Exalt]

Setter:

Two things.

#1: We are having a *discussion. *That means, we’re speaking *in context *of previous points mentioned. You’re looking at conclusions of mine that follow from evidence that has not been tackled by you earlier in this thread. If you’d like me to continue repeating un-dealt-with objections of mine, I’d be glad to.

#2: Stop calling me a relativist. You said, “Moral relativists hold that no universal standard exists by which to assess an ethical proposition’s truth.” There does indeed exist a universal standard for morality. See my thoughts on this above.

Fact: One cannot “transcend” their innate human nature or they fail to be who they are created to be.

Wrong.

While this is a more philosophical question, I absolutely believe that we, as both a human society and as a human induvidual, are absolutely obligated to improve ourselves. If a given facet of our “human nature” is negative, we absolutely ought to change it. For instance, our history, literature, and culture suggests that human nature is decietful. We ought to change that.

Furthermore, if some moral taboo that was once held by a great number of people is found to be incorrect, we ought to change it.

Technology, a product of man, who is himself a created being, can never “transcend” its maker.

I never said we transcend God.

But we can transcend our old selves. We invent. We create new and better things. We change our world. I never said we transcend God.

 

[Exalt]

I am glad to be in a place of where people are of equal education as I…

Just one issue, I know in my heart it is wrong… and in my spirit is very disgusting.

Being reared in the Pentecostal Church I do not doubt it one bit that it is in agreement with the Holy Scriptures to allow it to overtake me.

The more I struggle the more I want to let go, but something keeps me holding on. That substance that does so, is only from our Father in Heaven.

SSA to me is not something that I feel I should take lightly, because I can look back on my past and see why I’ve developed it, and for those that can’t, there is reasons… Especially because those who live by faith must understand that God is not confusion, but peace.

To those that tell me to relax and just be my lil’ ol’ homosexual self, I would love to do that… but then I’d be letting Satan have more laughs and I’ve had enough of that in my life. Proof that homosexuality is a sin or is deceptive? No greater proof than to have been there and going through it myself… There’s no doubt God’s calling me into a place of rest… Look at Israel 40 years for a 4 day journey in the desert… come on… why give up now? I’ve made the mistake, as did they, to let small things beset them… Yes, more prayer in my life and more surroundings by devout Christians and those who are living the best they can according to the Word of God, salvation through the Son (Jesus Christ), and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and the examples set by those who have followed in the path of righteousness before us, would just be more helpful, but we’re in a sinful world.

Honestly, giving up would be good and temporary pleasure and exciting, but letting go and moving on into the blessings of the Father would be the greatest gift in the world… And that’s what God intends for us, the best and the greatest, nothing less, only more.

Peace be with you,
Brian

I respect your decision, but I am sorry that you feel that it’s so wrong. It really isn’t wrong. Could it be possible that the negative feelings you have towards homosexuality, and your spirit being “disgusted” with it are based on prejudices that have been engraved in you by simply living in a heterosexually-dominated world, in a church that condemns it? I encourage you to continue looking, to continue searching.

But nonetheless, I can only expect a person to act according to thier conscience.

You’re still okay by me, no matter your opinions on homosexuality. If you were my friend or brother (or, if I were old enough, son) I’d still absolutely love you because if it. And I don’t condemn you. You have to understand that my objections are based on the idea that a celibate lifestyle is a difficult one (and that the reasons against homosexuality are illogical, as I have posted two posts above), as many others have said. I want to save you from that pain, that loneliness, that pointless martyrdom. Noble? Yes. Of course. But unnecessary.

 

[LittleDeb]

So getting back to the original topic of this thread…

How do we view a Christian who struggles with SSA or any other actions against God? Watching this thread spiral down into a defense homosexual actions reminds me of how important this topic is. All sexual acts must be ordered towards procreation and unity.

We pray for our contracepting friends. We pray for our friends who are in same sex relationships. We pray for those with addictions. We pray for those with traumatic pasts that are influencing present behavior. We pray for those who are struggling with anything and everything.

When those folks come along who say that every sexual act does not need to be ordered towards procreation and unity, we try to set them straight. We honor and revere those who are maintaining chaste marriages, chaste celibacy, and chaste single lives. We try to correct and help those who are not. In my past I was not living a chaste single life. I say prayers of thanksgiving for all of those who helped me through prayer and action to overcome my state of sin.

 

[blessedtoo]

The classic example is the nose being used to hold’s one glasses. The nose is obviously not made to wear glasses, but glasses aren’t wrong just because it uses the nose for some other purpose.

Glasses on the nose, kissing with the mouth, or any other “example” you try will not work. If you look back at what LittleDeb posted, you will see that the purpose of the reproductive organs is to **REPRODUCE. **Putting your glasses on your nose or kissing with the mouth does not **THWART **the purpose of those organs. However, unnatural sexual acts DO INDEED thwart the purpose of the reproductive organs.

Great post, LittleDeb.

 

[Exalt]

Glasses on the nose, kissing with the mouth, or any other “example” you try will not work. If you look back at what LittleDeb posted, you will see that the purpose of the reproductive organs is to **REPRODUCE. **Putting your glasses on your nose or kissing with the mouth does not **THWART **the purpose of those organs. However, unnatural sexual acts DO INDEED thwart the purpose of the reproductive organs.

1. In other words, wearing glasses doesn’t take away your **ability **to smell. Wearing glasses doesn’t take away your **ability **to breath through your nose.

But… having homosexual intercourse does not take away one’s **ability **to produce children.

1. As has been stated before, the Sexual Reproduction organs have more than one purpose - it’s not *just *to produce children.
2. Give me a clear and distinct defination of what it means for an action to “thwart” the original purpose of the organs.

It seems to mean “to use a bodily organ for a purpose which is different from the original use of that organ.” Of course, you’ll say something like “to use a bodily organ for a purpose that is contrary to the original use of that organ.” But, then you’ll have to define what “contrary” actually means. It seems to be just a matter of value - “different” (used in that first defination) is a morally nuetral term while “contrary” (used in the second defination) is a morally negative term.

To say that one uses a body part in a “different” way implies that one approves of or has no moral stance on that use; to say that one uses a body part in a “contrary” way implies that one has a negative view of that use.

Then, of course, you’d have to justify your negative view. But, then you would have to admit that it’s not that *because *the body part is being used for a “different” or “contrary” use, but that the given use of that body part is harmful. Thus, getting us right back where we started - it is really the “ends caused” that tells us if a given use of a body part is correct or not. The “ends caused” is what is important.

My position: *Because the expression of homosexuality in sexual way is **not *harmful, and indeed can be the expression of love, joy, and intimacy, one must therefore conclude that it is acceptable to use those body parts in the context of such a situation.

You must prove that homosexual sex is harmful to prove that homosexual sex uses the body parts in a “contrary” or “thwarting” way. Showing association is *not *enough. You have to show causation.

Furthermore, proving that anal sex can be risky is not good enough. You have to to prove that mutual masturbation, oral sex, and all other types of sexual expression as harmful too. After all, not every male homosexual couple has anal sex - and niether do female homosexual couples.

 

[LittleDeb]

All sexual acts must be BOTH procreative and unitive. I actually do agree that the sex organs do fill more than just one function. They are for procreation and unity. In order to procreate, two must become one. In order to unite, two must become one.

I find that the saddest part of the debate on homosexual actions and contracepted sex is our infertile brothers and sisters get dragged into the fray. The proof against homosexual actions (and contracepted sex) is in the fruit. Or in this case the lack thereof. Our infertile loved ones are dragged in and compared to sterile sex. Both agendas say, “well a post-menopausal couple can’t make babies either, but they are still allowed to have sex.”

Infertile sex is very different than sterile sex. Infertile sex is a part of nature. Sterile sex is on purpose. That is what it means to use the sexual organs contrary to their purpose. Sterile sex is just that. Sterile. It means it lacks completion, it lacks function, it lacks unity. Some of the acts referenced that are used in homosexual and contracepted acts are also a part of foreplay. Alone they are incomplete acts. Only with the possibility of procreation and unity is it a complete act.

Since mutual masturbation and oral stimulation have neither procreation nor unity as their result, it logically follows that they alone are not acts in concordance with the reproductive organs. They may stimulate the reproductive organs but used alone are then contrary to the function of reproduction. Only acts that can reproduce, even if they don’t each time, are considered procreative. Only acts in which, “two become one” are considered unitive.

I didn’t mean to go in this direction, but I saw signs that this thread about living a chaste, beautiful life was starting to get derailed. Chastity is totally and completely about using one’s reproductive organs in accordance with their function. Either we are procreative and unitive with our spouse or no one else at all. I will repeat. There are 3 options in life. Chaste celibacy, chaste marriage, or chaste single life. Every person on earth is called to one of these three areas. Isn’t it so amazing how God is constantly re-presenting that He is a Triuune God?