Spain's new cardinal says homosexuality a 'defect'

[LisaA]

The nail has been struck on the head with the above comment from the good doctor. I might add that the “normality” of non-celibate homosexuality has not only been decided by political fiat, but judicial fiat as well–all bowing to societal pressures from secularists.

It was also “decided” by a vote, removed from the DSM as a mental illness. No scientific studies to support the change, just “stuffing the ballot box” on the part of the (gay) president of the organization and a host of his merry followers… Now I don’t have the education to make a decision regarding mental illness but when there was clearly an agenda, there was no sea change research that demonstrated homosexuality was abnormal behavior, just an agenda to be followed. Once that organization made a pronouncement, the secular press, the gay lobby, the media and of course the Hollywood elites who don’t seem to think twice about sexual sins or destruction cause thereby, followed suit. We now have created a “protected class” in some areas for those who claim to be involved in a particular sex practice. The world has turned upside down…a defect is now a source of “pride.”

Lisa

 

[Catolico65]

It was also “decided” by a vote, removed from the DSM as a mental illness. No scientific studies to support the change, just “stuffing the ballot box” on the part of the (gay) president of the organization and a host of his merry followers… Now I don’t have the education to make a decision regarding mental illness but when there was clearly an agenda, there was no sea change research that demonstrated homosexuality was abnormal behavior, just an agenda to be followed. Once that organization made a pronouncement, the secular press, the gay lobby, the media and of course the Hollywood elites who don’t seem to think twice about sexual sins or destruction cause thereby, followed suit. We now have created a “protected class” in some areas for those who claim to be involved in a particular sex practice. The world has turned upside down…a defect is now a source of “pride.”

Lisa

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

The nail has been struck on the head with the above comment from the good doctor. I might add that the “normality” of non-celibate homosexuality has not only been decided by political fiat, but judicial fiat as well–all bowing to societal pressures from secularists.

The law in question in Lawrence v. Texas was definitely unconstitutional according to the equal protection clause (see what Justice O’Connor wrote)

It was also “decided” by a vote, removed from the DSM as a mental illness. No scientific studies to support the change, just “stuffing the ballot box” on the part of the (gay) president of the organization and a host of his merry followers… Now I don’t have the education to make a decision regarding mental illness but when there was clearly an agenda, there was no sea change research that demonstrated homosexuality was abnormal behavior, just an agenda to be followed. Once that organization made a pronouncement, the secular press, the gay lobby, the media and of course the Hollywood elites who don’t seem to think twice about sexual sins or destruction cause thereby, followed suit. We now have created a “protected class” in some areas for those who claim to be involved in a particular sex practice. The world has turned upside down…a defect is now a source of “pride.”

Lisa

Homosexuality made it into the DSM-1 because psychologists in the process of needing to come up with a manual, but not wanting to actually go and write an entire one themselves basically used Medical 203 from the VA which many psychologists were already familiar with. Specific criteria for mental disorders were only introduced in DSM-III.

Does it bother you that people can no longer evict “them queers” just for being “gay”?

 

[april32010]

According to OKCupid’s data (millions of members) What is a “homosexualist”? Wikipedia just redirects to gay.

okcupid and wikipedia ,i guess that settles that !

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

okcupid and wikipedia ,i guess that settles that !

Wow, ignorant and childish ad hominem, I guess that settles that!

 

[april32010]

The law in question in Lawrence v. Texas was definitely unconstitutional according to the equal protection clause (see what Justice O’Connor wrote)

and slavery was constitutional,abortion is constitutional,and forced sterilization was also constitutional.

 

[april32010]

Wow, ignorant and childish ad hominem, I guess that settles that!

ad hominem |ˈad ˈhämənəm|
adverb & adjective
1 (of an argument or reaction) arising from or appealing to the emotions and not reason or logic.

okcupid and wikipedia are reason and logic ?

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

and slavery was constitutional,abortion is constitutional,and forced sterilization was also constitutional.

The reason that law was unconstitutional under equal protection clause it because it made the same act illegal for one group, but not another, if the law had sodomy illegal regardless of who the participants were then it would not have been

okcupid and wikipedia are reason and logic ?

okcupid’s data is suitable for examining number of partners by sexual orientation.

When one is attempting to find out the meaning of a word and after one has attempted to consult a dictionary with the word not being found there, then an encyclopedia is a valid place to consult for the meaning of a word.

 

[LisaA]

Homosexuality made it into the DSM-1 because psychologists in the process of needing to come up with a manual, but not wanting to actually go and write an entire one themselves basically used Medical 203 from the VA which many psychologists were already familiar with. Specific criteria for mental disorders were only introduced in DSM-III.

Does it bother you that people can no longer evict “them queers” just for being “gay”?

I see you’re new so I’ll cut you some slack but don’t think that last remark adds to the discussion. Further you don’t have the slightest bit of evidence that my grammar is as poor as your example nor have or would I use of the word “queer” which you must consider a perjorative. If you’ve read my posts you would have seen I have had a lot of interaction with gays and Lesbians, some are dear friends and I had a cousin come out in his mid 30s so this behavior doesn’t shock me. However that I might love my gay friends does not mean I think homosexuality is normal behavior nor do I believe gays can “marry” given the biological constraints.

Homosexuality has been considered an abnormality in Western Civilzation for hundreds of years. It was just the promotion by admittedly gay officials in the APA that pushed it out of the DSM. I’m not sure homosexuality rises to the level of mental illness although there are other behaviors considered not quite normal but still not requiring intervantion. I don’t care that it was removed even though clearly based on ideology rather than research (funny how the Left reveres science unless it disagrees with their feelings’ based conclusions:shrug. That it was removed though does not make the behavior normal.

Interesting revelation today, a written response to a young man who was having sexual urges toward males “like I should have with women…” by Dr Martin Luther King where he told the young man that the attraction was based on certain life experiences and could be guided into a normal sexuality with counseling. While gays/Lesbians have tried to attach their behavior related sexual activity to the same cause as the fight against racism, in reality the icon of civil rights was not exactly accepting that the young man with SSA was facing the same uphill battle as were blacks in that day.

Lisa

 

[LisaA]

The reason that law was unconstitutional under equal protection clause it because it made the same act illegal for one group, but not another, if the law had sodomy illegal regardless of who the participants were then it would not have been

.

Wow an answer in search of a question! Anyone here suggesting sodomy be made illegal again?

Lisa

 

[Darryl1958]

Wow an answer in search of a question! Anyone here suggesting sodomy be made illegal again?

Lisa

There is no push for that kind of legislation whatsoever. When it comes to Catholics across the political spectrum, neither special laws outlying what happens to two consenting adults in the privacy of their own lives, nor violence and overt hostility towards homosexuals are part of the agenda.
Laws against sodomy have few if any advocates across the Western world these days.
By and large, no Catholics lack compassion for what the condition of homosexuality foists on those afflicted by it. It is not an easy road to travel.

The real difference in society does not center on the idea that homosexuals ought to be treated with dignity. The real difference centers on whether or not people agree that homosexuality is a defect or merely an alternate form of sexual expression, neither better nor worse than any other expression.

Most of us I think are satisfied enough that what people do in the privacy of their homes is not the business of the state, and no greater good is being served by making sodomy illegal.

 

[meltzerboy]

I see you’re new so I’ll cut you some slack but don’t think that last remark adds to the discussion. Further you don’t have the slightest bit of evidence that my grammar is as poor as your example nor have or would I use of the word “queer” which you must consider a perjorative. If you’ve read my posts you would have seen I have had a lot of interaction with gays and Lesbians, some are dear friends and I had a cousin come out in his mid 30s so this behavior doesn’t shock me. However that I might love my gay friends does not mean I think homosexuality is normal behavior nor do I believe gays can “marry” given the biological constraints.

Homosexuality has been considered an abnormality in Western Civilzation for hundreds of years. It was just the promotion by admittedly gay officials in the APA that pushed it out of the DSM. I’m not sure homosexuality rises to the level of mental illness although there are other behaviors considered not quite normal but still not requiring intervantion. I don’t care that it was removed even though clearly based on ideology rather than research (funny how the Left reveres science unless it disagrees with their feelings’ based conclusions:shrug. That it was removed though does not make the behavior normal.

Interesting revelation today, a written response to a young man who was having sexual urges toward males “like I should have with women…” by Dr Martin Luther King where he told the young man that the attraction was based on certain life experiences and could be guided into a normal sexuality with counseling. While gays/Lesbians have tried to attach their behavior related sexual activity to the same cause as the fight against racism, in reality the icon of civil rights was not exactly accepting that the young man with SSA was facing the same uphill battle as were blacks in that day.

Lisa

With regard to your last paragraph, Lisa, very few people in those years regarded homosexuality other than a mental illness which required psychotherapy. Even the noted sex therapist, Dr. Evelyn Hooker (appropriate name!), practiced aversion therapy to turn gay people straight, believing this was the cure. She later regretted using the technique, which resulted in making many of her patients interested in neither sex. The point I’m making is that there was much ignorance even in the psychological community concerning sexuality in general and homosexuality in particular. Martin Luther King’s attitudes simply reflected that ignorance.

 

[LisaA]

There is no push for that kind of legislation whatsoever. When it comes to Catholics across the political spectrum, neither special laws outlying what happens to two consenting adults in the privacy of their own lives, nor violence and overt hostility towards homosexuals are part of the agenda.
Laws against sodomy have few if any advocates across the Western world these days.
By and large, no Catholics lack compassion for what the condition of homosexuality foists on those afflicted by it. It is not an easy road to travel.

The real difference in society does not center on the idea that homosexuals ought to be treated with dignity. The real difference centers on whether or not people agree that homosexuality is a defect or merely an alternate form of sexual expression, neither better nor worse than any other expression.

Most of us I think are satisfied enough that what people do in the privacy of their homes is not the business of the state, and no greater good is being served by making sodomy illegal.

Heavens you must have thought I was being serious. I wasn’t. As to the statement bolded, I disagree that the “real difference” is whether or not people agree about whether or not homosexuality is a defect or just another sexual expression “neither better nor worse…”

Not so much.

Your religion is unlisted so I am not aware if you understand the Catholic interpretation of Same Sex Attraction which is compassionate about the people who are struggling with this challenge but in no way is SSA acted upon is considered “just another way to get your sexual pleasure.” The term disordered is used and while some consider it pejorative, in reality it’s almost scientific, referring to the way we are ordered by our very DNA. Women are oriented to be women, to have sexual relationships with men and of course men are ordered to have sexual relationships with women. You can look at biology, sociology, history and even theology for reference.

That being said I suspect very few Catholics lie awake nights wondering what those engaged in a same sex relationship do in the privacy of their homes. No one is suggesting new sodomy laws. What we do object to is the specious idea that if you have sexual relationships with others of the same gender, you should be considered equivalent to a man and woman in a marriage. It’s simply not. You can reject your DNA based gender but don’t call it normal. The Cardinal’s “defect” comment was probably just a poor translation and should have been interpreted as disordered.

Lisa

 

[LisaA]

With regard to your last paragraph, Lisa, very few people in those years regarded homosexuality other than a mental illness which required psychotherapy. Even the noted sex therapist, Dr. Evelyn Hooker (appropriate name!), practiced aversion therapy to turn gay people straight, believing this was the cure. She later regretted using the technique, which resulted in making many of her patients interested in neither sex. The point I’m making is that there was much ignorance even in the psychological community concerning sexuality in general and homosexuality in particular. Martin Luther King’s attitudes simply reflected that ignorance.

Not indicating that Martin Luther King Jr was any kind of authority on homosexuality but as a pastor, very likely he had a Biblical interpretation of homosexuality. His answer was very compassionate and understanding the difficulty and struggle. He was in no way suggesting some kind of aversion therapy. But he was also differentiating between a struggle with an impulse to behave a certain way, albeit a strong impulse, and an intrinsic, genetic “born this way” characteristic of being a black man. I suggest that were he alive today, he would be compassionate about homosexuality but would not consider it equivalent to fighting a history of slavery and Jim Crow laws due to one’s skin color

Lisa

 

[Catolico65]

With regard to your last paragraph, Lisa, very few people in those years regarded homosexuality other than a mental illness which required psychotherapy. Even the noted sex therapist, Dr. Evelyn Hooker (appropriate name!), practiced aversion therapy to turn gay people straight, believing this was the cure. She later regretted using the technique, which resulted in making many of her patients interested in neither sex. The point I’m making is that there was much ignorance even in the psychological community concerning sexuality in general and homosexuality in particular. Martin Luther King’s attitudes simply reflected that ignorance.

Notwithstanding anecdotal evidence, the reality is for most people according to many studies that homosexual desire gravitates towards heterosexual, thus it is correct to help confused people change as the Spanish Cardinal recommends. Unfortunately, the gay lobby doesn’t want you to know this. They believe by mere repetition of claims and “consensus” that claims become valid, but this is not scientific to say the least.

 

[Darryl1958]

Heavens you must have thought I was being serious. I wasn’t.

I am being serious that no one wants to bring back sodomy laws. I thought that you were being serious about that too.

As to the statement bolded, I disagree that the “real difference” is whether or not people agree about whether or not homosexuality is a defect or just another sexual expression “neither better nor worse…”

Catholic and traditional Judeo-Christian understanding is that it is a defect(disorder). The secular modern thinking are more of the belief that 'God created me this way, and God doesn’t make junk".

Not so much.

…

Your religion is unlisted so I am not aware if you understand the Catholic interpretation of Same Sex Attraction which is compassionate about the people who are struggling with this challenge but in no way is SSA acted upon is considered “just another way to get your sexual pleasure.”

My listed religion ought not play a role in the logic of my arguments, nor the acceptability of them.
Catholic teaching certainly is not that this is legitimate way to get your pleasure. Secular modern teaching, which frowns upon the repression of religious teaching, certainly is that SSA acted upon is just another way of getting your pleasure.
There are (very much) two clashing understandings at play here.

The term disordered is used and while some consider it pejorative, in reality it’s almost scientific, referring to the way we are ordered by our very DNA. Women are oriented to be women, to have sexual relationships with men and of course men are ordered to have sexual relationships with women. You can look at biology, sociology, history and even theology for reference.

I have already made the argument for defect(disorder) in this very thread. Nobody seems to have been able to understand it.

That being said I suspect very few Catholics lie awake nights wondering what those engaged in a same sex relationship do in the privacy of their homes.

Very few people at all would. This is not a point of contention.

No one is suggesting new sodomy laws.

That is what you said already, and that is what I agreed to, in all seriousness.
I did take you seriously on that point, and agreed to it.

What we do object to is the specious idea that if you have sexual relationships with others of the same gender, you should be considered equivalent to a man and woman in a marriage. It’s simply not.

Yes. Like I have said, that is the point of contention. Sodomy laws are not the point of contention between anyone, and haven’t been since the days of Anita Bryant. Her ideas never carried the day with any side.

You can reject your DNA based gender but don’t call it normal. The Cardinal’s “defect” comment was probably just a poor translation and should have been interpreted as disordered.

The two terms are sufficiently similar that I am willing to accept either as the authentic Catholic teaching.
The modern secular understanding would likewise reject both.
You may say “not so much” but there is nothing in your argument that would support that this is not exactly where the disagreement lies.
Certainly the disagreement does not lie with one side wanting a return to sodomy laws, and the other side doesn’t. I have no idea why I shouldn’t have taken you seriously on that when you said so the first time.
I took you seriously and agreed.

Lisa

 

[LisaA]

I am being serious that no one wants to bring back sodomy laws. I thought that you were being serious about that too.

No I was responding to another poster who made a snarky comment that those who believe homosexuality is disordered and not equivalent to heterosexual relationships want a return to sodomy laws. As I said, this is an answer in search of a question and a frequent method to shut down rational discussion.

Catholic and traditional Judeo-Christian understanding is that it is a defect(disorder). The secular modern thinking are more of the belief that 'God created me this way, and God doesn’t make junk".

SECULAR “modern” thinking refers to “God doesn’t make junk.” God is not a part of secular thinking. Ironically though the pro homosexual activists toss biology out the window when making reference to “born this way” or “I’m perfect the way I am…”

Huh?

…

My listed religion ought not play a role in the logic of my arguments, nor the acceptability of them.
Catholic teaching certainly is not that this is legitimate way to get your pleasure. Secular modern teaching, which frowns upon the repression of religious teaching, certainly is that SSA acted upon is just another way of getting your pleasure.
There are (very much) two clashing understandings at play here.

Now I’m really confused. You seem to contradict yourself. As to “get your pleasure” that isn’t the focus of Catholic teaching regarding sexuality. The reference is that sexual expression is limited to marriage and has both procreative and unitive aspects. It’s not just “getting your rocks off…” in a religiously acceptable way.

And secular teaching FAVORS the repression of religious teaching with respect to these issues. It would be lovely if secularists were as respectful of religious teaching on sexuality but they are not.

As to the reference to your stated faith, it’s that most people do not understand the word “disordered” and thus not being Catholic, I thought you might have misinterpreted the word as being inordinately negative or pejorative. When I read it, I see biology permeating the entire philosophy. Who knew that Catholics didn’t reject science

I have already made the argument for defect(disorder) in this very thread. Nobody seems to have been able to understand it.

Sorry do not recall the post. I will search for it.

Very few people at all would. This is not a point of contention.
That is what you said already, and that is what I agreed to, in all seriousness.
I did take you seriously on that point, and agreed to it. Yes. Like I have said, that is the point of contention. Sodomy laws are not the point of contention between anyone, and haven’t been since the days of Anita Bryant. Her ideas never carried the day with any side.

The two terms are sufficiently similar that I am willing to accept either as the authentic Catholic teaching.

The modern secular understanding would likewise reject both.

You may say “not so much” but there is nothing in your argument that would support that this is not exactly where the disagreement lies.

Certainly the disagreement does not lie with one side wanting a return to sodomy laws, and the other side doesn’t. I have no idea why I shouldn’t have taken you seriously on that when you said so the first time.
I took you seriously and agreed.

OK. I think we still are not connecting regarding secular theories on homosexuality. I see them as feelings based relativism so common in modern thought and on the media. I am old enough to recall the “If it feels good do it…” from the 60s and frankly when I was young and stupid I was young and stupid. Sounded good to me!

But as St Paul said, when I was a child I spoke as a child…I have since put away childish things. I just wish our culture and our media would GROW UP. Feelings are not a good way to make important decisions regarding your life or that of others. As our beloved Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, noted relativism is the cause of much evil in this world.

Lisa

 

[shawnbm]

We go round and round in circles and jockey for position on the subject and it is really not as convoluted as one might make it seem. Homosexuality that is acted upon has been abhorrent and viewed as at the very least disordered (say abomination or gravely sinful in biblical view) for millennia. The modern case for making SSA (as it is often referred to) as a viable lifestyle to be proudly declared, lived and embraced–together with a push to change laws and societal norms of thousands of years–is a recent phenomenon in human history (spanning back to the 1970s, but with its nascent work being performed in the 1950s, with the Sixties in between). It is no surprise this movement has begun in the USA with its constitutional principles and the majority of the nation, from a historical perspective, having been molded by the Protestant Revolution and the “age of reason”. This has led to an impulse right out of the Manifest Destiny of two centuries ago–every man is his own pope, with God-given rights of liberty to freely pursue happiness as he says it for himself.

And so, it does not take long to jump into sexual mores and the privacy issue. Once found by Justice Blackmun in Roe v. Wade as implicit in the US Constitution, that made it (the right to privacy) implicit in the bedroom. Judge not for ye stand to be judged, right? Well, don’t judge or criticize me for how I want to live my life! I will live as I please and you have no right–indeed, you are morally wrong and bigoted to suggest otherwise–to view me as unequal in status to that which has been accepted as morally, religiously, politically and socially proper and normal for millennia. As long as I am not hurting anyone, I am free to live this way, proclaim it and show it publicly and am entitled to have a family like anyone else–it’s the American way! Oh, and by the way, I was born this way so acting out on my desires is God-given and therefore not sinful. The active homosexual is every bit as normal and properly ordered as the heterosexual. Every man and woman has a right to privacy, we are told, therefore, there is a right to sexual intimacy. God made us for sexual intimacy to become more fully human and to deny me my private right to be intimate with whom I wish–and to be married just like everyone else–is hateful, bigoted and un-American.

This is how I see the evolution of this dilemma. I honestly think the societal tide has changed and now we must prepare ourselves how to deal with the homosexual age.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Our country is becoming like ancient Rome when it comes to homosexuality.

All countries at sometime will have to pay for their sins. It’s not a matter of IF–it’s a matter of WHEN.

Homosexuality is disordered. Jesus who gave the perfect sacrifice was unblemished and ordered. All people should try to emulate His Orderedness.

 

[Darryl1958]

No I was responding to another poster who made a snarky comment that those who believe homosexuality is disordered and not equivalent to heterosexual relationships want a return to sodomy laws. As I said, this is an answer in search of a question and a frequent method to shut down rational discussion.

I know. I merely seconded your motion.

SECULAR “modern” thinking refers to “God doesn’t make junk.” God is not a part of secular thinking. Ironically though the pro homosexual activists toss biology out the window when making reference to “born this way” or “I’m perfect the way I am…”

Yes, the secular line is “God doesn’t make junk” The Catholic line is SSA is a defect. There is a world of difference between the two.
I am not sure why you are still having a problem. Do you somehow still think I am arguing against you, or against Catholic teaching?

The snarky reply that you got from the poster reflected her hurt feelings where she thinks she is being persecuted in that Catholics want homosexuality to be made illegal.
I have been merely pointing out in a dispassionate manner that that is not where the disagreement lies.

Now I’m really confused. You seem to contradict yourself. As to “get your pleasure” that isn’t the focus of Catholic teaching regarding sexuality. The reference is that sexual expression is limited to marriage and has both procreative and unitive aspects. It’s not just “getting your rocks off…” in a religiously acceptable way.

You really are confused. You still don’t seem to be grasping that I have been laying out two different arguments. The two different arguments of course contradict each other.
This is where the disagreement lies between Catholic teaching and the world of the left. It does not lie in the idea that Catholics or Catholic teachings want to re-criminalize homosexuality, as the poster had(snarkily) suggested.

And secular teaching FAVORS the repression of religious teaching with respect to these issues. It would be lovely if secularists were as respectful of religious teaching on sexuality but they are not.

Secular teaching believes that religious teaching onn sex is both wrong and harmful. Secularist believe that Catholic teaching is ergo evil. They do not seek to argue, therefore, but seek to expunge (traditional)Christianity from society altogether

As to the reference to your stated faith, it’s that most people do not understand the word “disordered” and thus not being Catholic, I thought you might have misinterpreted the word as being inordinately negative or pejorative. When I read it, I see biology permeating the entire philosophy. Who knew that Catholics didn’t reject science

I did not state my faith. That is what unlisted means. People who think that their sexuality is normal and perfect will see the word as a pejorative whether the noun is ‘defect’ or ‘disorder.’ There is no politically correct way to get around that.
Catholic teaching does not see the homosexual as evil though. It sees homosexual attraction as something that brings pain and hardship into a persons life, even eternally so.

OK. I think we still are not connecting regarding secular theories on homosexuality. I see them as feelings based relativism so common in modern thought and on the media. I am old enough to recall the “If it feels good do it…” from the 60s and frankly when I was young and stupid I was young and stupid. Sounded good to me!

I am not disagreeing with that. This is secular understanding of sexuality. Catholic teaching is different.

But as St Paul said, when I was a child I spoke as a child…I have since put away childish things. I just wish our culture and our media would GROW UP. Feelings are not a good way to make important decisions regarding your life or that of others. As our beloved Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, noted relativism is the cause of much evil in this world.

I am not disagreeing with that.

Lisa

I am not disagreeing with her.