Rally and Campaign for Homosexuality, go team

[CopticChristian]

Matilda Bennet recently closed this thread…because it was old and it caused me to reflect.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=35663
**
Is Homosexuality Genetic?**

It made me realize that the same element is at large trying to promote acceptance of Homoexuality. It is no different than the general public brainwashing and acceptance by the medical community of which I am a part of concerning alcoholism. Alcoholism as a disease was based on faulty science and promoted by a campaign of acceptance based on this science.

The US population and the world at large are not immune to Brainwashing and attempts to cause us to believe what is not true. This is common when a community wants acceptance of a belief. Meme’s are viruses of the mind that are incorporated and perpetuated by repetition and cognitive dissonance. The campaign for Homosexual acceptance includes the move of “gay” psychiatrists to remove the notion that Homosexuality is a disorder from the DSM and much on the genetics of Homosexuality with poor science. This has been seen before with the notion that alcoholism is a disease and it is not now or will it ever be.

Many will tout that Alcoholism is a disease with a genetic component and even swallow the media message. What they don’t know is the entire notion is based on faulty science and the same media message.

baldwinresearch.com/alcoholism.cfm

It was Jellinek’s self-proclaimed “scientific” study that opened the door for the medical community’s support. E.M. Jellinek’s study was funded by the efforts of Marty Mann and R. Brinkley Smithers. And, like so many other circumstances involving Jellinek and Mann, the study was bogus, if not outright fraudulent. The surveys Jellinek based his conclusions on were from a handpicked group of alcoholics. There were 158 questionnaires handed out and 60 of them were suspiciously not included. His conclusion was based on less than 100 handpicked alcoholics chosen by Marty Mann. Mann, of course, had a personal agenda to remove the stigma about the homeless and dirty alcoholic or “bowery drunk” in order to gain financial support from the wealthy. By removing the stigma, the problem becomes one of the general population, which would then include the wealthy. The first step was Jellinek publishing his findings in his book “The Disease Concept of Alcoholism," which was based on selected subjects who fit the criteria supporting Mann’s preconceived conclusions. Later, E.M. Jellinek was asked by Yale University to refute his own findings. He complied. E.M. Jellinek’s The Disease Concept of Alcoholism did not stand up to scientific scrutiny.

Stanton Peele, PhD, The Diseasing of America & the Truth about Addiction…

Less well known is that the government has invested millions to get an “addictive disease” message across. The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) is the government agency responsible for getting to the root of drug abuse. Since 2003, the NIDA has been headed by brain researcher Nora Volkow, who has popularized the idea of “Addiction as a Brain Disease.” Typical of this exposure was the massive, 14-part series that premiered on HBO in 2007 that officially told Americans that addiction is a “chronic, relapsing brain disease.”

The argument for Homosexuality as genetic, inborn, can’t help it and the Science behind it is as poor and unbelieveable as the science behind alcoholism as a disease. The promotion of acceptance is parallel including the harnessing of the APA by “Gay” psychiatrists to do the reverse for Homosexuality that was done for Alcholism. Alcoholism is a disease or disorder and it is not and now Homosexuality was a Psychiatric disorder and it is not. The campaign is on for the team to brainwash for acceptance things that are not true. It reminds me of this…

`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

Off with their heads, Off with their heads

Have you swallowed the false science and accepted the campaign for the team?

 

[PJH_74]

What does it matter? The reality is that many people identify as homosexual and have to face strong criticism from society and possibly their own family. If this was not such an ingrained thing, why risk losing friends and family over it? Why in some places risk losing your job or even life?

Arguments like the above are more for people who want proof for what “just is” for the people affected. But then again, it is easy to say something is not enough when you don’t want to be open to a changed mind.

 

[CopticChristian]

B]What does it matter?

The reality is that many people identify as homosexual and have to face strong criticism from society and possibly their own family. If this was not such an ingrained thing, why risk losing friends and family over it? Why in some places risk losing your job or even life?

**Arguments **like the above are more for people who want proof for what “just is” for the people affected. But then again, it is easy to say something is not enough when you don’t want to be open to a **changed mind./**QUOTE]PJH,

What does it matter? I don’t care, why should you care, and if you did not care then that would have been enough to say.

Reality. Homosexuals exist. Agreed.

Arguments. Disagreements and agreements exist.

Changed Mind. Agreed we should all be open to changed minds. Did you know that the word for changing your mind in Greek is “Metanoia”…repent for the kingdom of God is at hand…just means change your mind.

So you agree that we can change our minds. The question then is which way we agree that it can be changed and there possibly we disagree.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

What does it matter? The reality is that many people identify as homosexual and have to face strong criticism from society and possibly their own family. If this was not such an ingrained thing, why risk losing friends and family over it? Why in some places risk losing your job or even life?

Arguments like the above are more for people who want proof for what “just is” for the people affected. But then again, it is easy to say something is not enough when you don’t want to be open to a changed mind.

You are aware of the study where mice repeatedly pressed the pleasure button and died because they wouldn’t press the food button right? People (and I am not limiting this to people with ssa) also do things that don’t make sense.

But in any case, something does not require a genetic basis to be deep seated and hard to change - perhaps even after a certain point practically impossible.

Furthermore, if you think “just is” is enough to prove your position, then why bother with genetic stuff at all? Whatever the truth about the moral issues surrounding homosexuality (which I think are rather clear), twisting science to try to make a point is still dishonest and wrong.

So if you think the deeply ingrained desire some people have for homosexual activity is enough to make your point, fine. Make your point with it. But to then twist science to help make a point in some other way and attack people who point this out as denying the obvious is not cool. The more honest approach would be to say “yes, that’s right, so let’s jettison that argument and instead discuss the issue on these terms.”

 

[edwest2]

Scroll down to: “I was born this way”

catholic.com/tracts/homosexuality

Self-control is required by all, straight and gay. The Church and State do not decide when you have sex, only you do. And I say that with all due respect to all.

Peace,
Ed

 

[CopticChristian]

Scroll down to: “I was born this way”

catholic.com/tracts/homosexuality

Self-control is required by all, straight and gay. The Church and State do not decide when you have sex, only you do. And I say that with all due respect to all.

Peace,
Ed

Ed,

Thought I would just put it out there for ease of reading.

**
“I Was Born This Way”**

Many homosexuals argue that they have not chosen their condition, but that they were born that way, making homosexual behavior natural for them.

But because something was not chosen does not mean it was inborn. Some desires are acquired or strengthened by habituation and conditioning instead of by conscious choice. For example, no one chooses to be an alcoholic, but one can become habituated to alcohol. Just as one can acquire alcoholic desires (by repeatedly becoming intoxicated) without consciously choosing them, so one may acquire homosexual desires (by engaging in homosexual fantasies or behavior) without consciously choosing them.

Since sexual desire is subject to a high degree of cognitive conditioning in humans (there is no biological reason why we find certain scents, forms of dress, or forms of underwear sexually stimulating), it would be most unusual if homosexual desires were not subject to a similar degree of cognitive conditioning.

Even if there is a genetic predisposition toward homosexuality (and studies on this point are inconclusive), the behavior remains unnatural because homosexuality is still not part of the natural design of humanity. It does not make homosexual behavior acceptable; other behaviors are not rendered acceptable simply because there may be a genetic predisposition toward them.

For example, scientific studies suggest some people are born with a hereditary disposition to alcoholism, but no one would argue someone ought to fulfill these inborn urges by becoming an alcoholic. Alcoholism is not an acceptable “lifestyle” any more than homosexuality is.

Sounds like my premise is on the same page…

One for our team…go team

 

[RobbyS]

What does it matter? The reality is that many people identify as homosexual and have to face strong criticism from society and possibly their own family. If this was not such an ingrained thing, why risk losing friends and family over it? Why in some places risk losing your job or even life?

Arguments like the above are more for people who want proof for what “just is” for the people affected. But then again, it is easy to say something is not enough when you don’t want to be open to a changed mind.

In the 18th century, “gay” was used to mean “libertine."

 

[Julia_Mae]

The US population and the world at large are not immune to Brainwashing and attempts to cause us to believe what is not true. This is common when a community wants acceptance of a belief. ** Meme’s are viruses of the mind that are incorporated and perpetuated by repetition and cognitive dissonance. **

To fight bad science one thing we can do is correct information that is wrong, like this bad definition of “meme.” Dawkins used the word to represent a bit of data, whether fact or belief, that is transmitted through a population. They are certainly not “viruses of the mind.”

This forum is a kind of subculture, and in it one “meme,” bit of data, that is passed from person to person, is the is idea that being gay is a choice one can make or unmake at will. There is little science to support such a meme as a fact, but much cultural response to spread the idea and many attempts to “prove” it is a fact. I don’t think anyone is “brainwashing” anyone else, unless you are trying to brainwash people and infect them with “memes” as much as those you accuse. I observe that people have different things that WANT to believe and that science is essentially irrelevant to the discussion, especially as no one here is competent to decide what is good or bad science from the data freely available.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

To fight bad science one thing we can do is correct information that is wrong, like this bad definition of “meme.” Dawkins used the word to represent a bit of data, whether fact or belief, that is transmitted through a population. They are certainly not “viruses of the mind.”

This forum is a kind of subculture, and in it one “meme,” bit of data, that is passed from person to person, is the is idea that being gay is a choice one can make or unmake at will. There is little science to support such a meme as a fact, but much cultural response to spread the idea and many attempts to “prove” it is a fact. I don’t think anyone is “brainwashing” anyone else, unless you are trying to brainwash people and infect them with “memes” as much as those you accuse. I observe that people have different things that WANT to believe and that science is essentially irrelevant to the discussion, especially as no one here is competent to decide what is good or bad science from the data freely available.

Actually, you’ll find that opinion on whether one can choose to have or not have SSA varies on this forum, and even among those who say that the choice is possible, few believe that it must necessarily be easy. Those who think that it can be changed, at least in some cases, tend to think of it as a psychological problem which can be treated, again, at least in some cases.

Note that I said “choose to have SSA” as opposed to “choose to be homosexual”. The idea that people can choose whether or not to act on their drives or desires - whether these desires are hardwired in or the result of environmental influence - is much more widely accepted around here, mainly because it’s blindingly obvious.

As a last point, you say that there is no evidence that people can change their attractions. I’m not sure that’s the case, as I am aware of a few psychologists who specialize in doing just that, but whether it is or not does not change the fact that there is no evidence of a genetic cause either. If it is true that there is no evidence either way, then that means that science has no idea how it happens and should admit to such, not pretend that it has proven whichever result would be most politically correct at the time.

 

[markeverett49]

To fight bad science one thing we can do is correct information that is wrong, like this bad definition of “meme.” Dawkins used the word to represent a bit of data, whether fact or belief, that is transmitted through a population. They are certainly not “viruses of the mind.”

Initially, Dawkins used “meme” as a metaphor (-see, “The Selfish Gene,” published in, I believe, 1973). Since then, Dawkins has come to take the term literally, without any physical description of what a meme is or how it does what it supposedly does. I find it ironic that a man so determined mock those who take things “on faith” has nothing but his own faith to show that memes exist.

That said, I agree with your correction of meme as “a virus of the mind.” That’s not how the term is used.

 

[Julia_Mae]

As a last point, you say that there is no evidence that people can change their attractions.

No, I did not say that.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

Iron Donkey:

As a last point, you say that there is no evidence that people can change their attractions.

No, I did not say that.

Julia Mae:

This forum is a kind of subculture, and in it one “meme,” bit of data, that is passed from person to person, is the is idea that being gay is a choice one can make or unmake at will. There is little science to support such a meme as a fact, but much cultural response to spread the idea and many attempts to “prove” it is a fact.

Sorry, little evidence (unless I misunderstood entirely?). I make the same response though, with “no” replaced by “little” in all instances.

 

[CopticChristian]

To fight bad science one thing we can do is correct information that is wrong, like this bad definition of “meme.” Dawkins used the word to represent a bit of data, whether fact or belief, that is transmitted through a population. They are certainly not “viruses of the mind.”

This forum is a kind of subculture, and in it one “meme,” bit of data, that is passed from person to person, is the is idea that being gay is a choice one can make or unmake at will. There is little science to support such a meme as a fact, but much cultural response to spread the idea and many attempts to “prove” it is a fact. I don’t think anyone is “brainwashing” anyone else, unless you are trying to brainwash people and infect them with “memes” as much as those you accuse. I observe that people have different things that WANT to believe and that science is essentially irrelevant to the discussion, especially as no one here is competent to decide what is good or bad science from the data freely available.

Julia,

The book Virus of The Mind…by Brodie

amazon.com/Virus-Mind-The-Science-Meme/dp/0963600117

This is from whence I get the definition…

 

[Slavonic]

Why should one limit himself to homosexual attraction? The more relevant question is what causes attraction of any sort. From there one can look at different subsets of the population.

 

[CopticChristian]

Why should one limit himself to homosexual attraction? The more relevant question is what causes attraction of any sort. From there one can look at different subsets of the population.

Slavonic,

This sounds like a good project for you to research and bring back the information for all to review.

I suggest that as you do that try to see if other sorts of attractants are asking for special priveleges and rights.

Let us know, Ok…

 

[Slavonic]

My point was not to change the subject of this thread. That being said, attraction is a complicated process. There is no doubt, that philosophy (aesthetics), psychology, genetics, neuroscience, physiology, sociology and cultural anthropology each on their own would fail to adequately describe it.

Perhaps “genetic” and “born that way” are inadequate descriptions for several reasons. First, no one’s orientation is genetic alone, it just can’t be, given the myriad factors involved. Is there a genetic component to attraction? Modern science thinks there is but hasn’t really isolated anything. I prefer to view a person’s orientation as something that can be described as “just the way it is.”

 

[Simon_James]

As a celibate Catholic homosexual, I have rebelled against the cultural normalization of homosexuality, whatever the excuse. I decided that I have a voice too and that gay “crusaders” do not speak for me, and especially not about WHY I like men.

I have come to a deep understanding of the origin and nature of my sexual orientation, which I have expressed in writing carefully crafted over a decade. Not wanting to place a candle under a bushel, I built a website chronicling the struggle to be true to the faith and celibate yet also hinting at the hidden (and tremendous) rewards of celibacy. Come visit: simonjamesonline.com

 

[CopticChristian]

As a celibate Catholic homosexual, I have rebelled against the cultural normalization of homosexuality, whatever the excuse. I decided that I have a voice too and that gay “crusaders” do not speak for me, and especially not about WHY I like men.

I have come to a deep understanding of the origin and nature of my sexual orientation, which I have expressed in writing carefully crafted over a decade. Not wanting to place a candle under a bushel, I built a website chronicling the struggle to be true to the faith and celibate yet also hinting at the hidden (and tremendous) rewards of celibacy. Come visit: simonjamesonline.com

Simon,

I visited your site. You are truly brave and courageous. We all have burdens. Some of bear them and some of us don’t. I did not see how much your book was. I see it is a series of poems. I spent time in College in creative writing and had fascinations about writing Poems for a living. I was going to go to Iowa for creative writing however realized that the financial future was dim and changed course. Writing remains a hobby and joy.

I suggest you consider reading the following book…“Secrets of Personal Mastery”., L. Michael Hall, PhD…you may find that it gives you insight into how you may garner strength in your struggle understanding thoughts and management of those thoughts.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

It’s probably not genetic. At least, I can’t see how it could be. Having said that, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t have a biological cause, and even if it were an environmental cause it still wouldn’t be a choice as many Christians try to imply when they claim it’s not genetic.

 

[edwest2]

It’s probably not genetic. At least, I can’t see how it could be. Having said that, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t have a biological cause, and even if it were an environmental cause it still wouldn’t be a choice as many Christians try to imply when they claim it’s not genetic.

Can you explain further about how you came to the conclusion that it wouldn’t be a choice? Honestly, we Christians (most of us, I hope) aren’t looking for an excuse to say it is or isn’t, we’re just looking for the facts. I am not one of those who wants to belittle anyone. I just want to understand.

Peace,
Ed