The disorder of homosexuality

[ringil]

Ringil,

Define disordered.

Define disorder as you understand it.

Thank you

Homosexuality is disordered in that the attraction does not lend itself to the normative and moral expression of love and sex as viewed in the Church.

It is not a disorder as it is not a mental or physical disorder.

 

[CopticChristian]

It is not a mental illness. That is fact.

Ringil.

I like facts. I like factual statements. To state that Homosexuality is not a mental illnes is true. What is more true is this.

Homosexuality exists and has existed throughout time, in these last years, Homosexuality was declared to be a disease by committe, gathering a military manual, the DSM, and as a result of Homosexual Psychiatrists, acting on behalf of Homoesexuals that protested the notion of a Homosexuality as a mental illness, voted to have Homosexuality removed from the DSM IV, however it has been found that many Psychiatrists and Physicians do not strictly follow the DSM criteria and many Psychiatrists still continue to see Homoexuality as a mental illnes even though it has been removed from the DSM, so that many tout that IT IS NOT A MENTAL ILLNESS.

Your statement is true when all the preceding elements leading to this statement are considered.

narth.com/docs/mentaldisorder.html

the majority of psychiatrists in America viewed homosexuality as a pathology, and the majority of psychiatrists around the world continue to see same-sex attraction as signaling a mental illness.

 

[ringil]

Ringil.

I like facts. I like factual statements. To state that Homosexuality is not a mental illnes is true. What is more true is this.

Homosexuality exists and has existed throughout time, in these last years, Homosexuality was declared to be a disease by committe, gathering a military manual, the DSM, and as a result of Homosexual Psychiatrists, acting on behalf of Homoesexuals that protested the notion of a Homosexuality as a mental illness, voted to have Homosexuality removed from the DSM IV, however it has been found that many Psychiatrists and Physicians do not strictly follow the DSM criteria and many Psychiatrists still continue to see Homoexuality as a mental illnes even though it has been removed from the DSM, so that many tout that IT IS NOT A MENTAL ILLNESS.

Your statement is true when all the preceding elements leading to this statement are considered.

narth.com/docs/mentaldisorder.html

The best I can say about NARTH is that it is not a reputable source of clinical information.

I am a licensed psychotherapist BTW.

 

[LisaA]

Homosexuality is disordered in that the attraction does not lend itself to the normative and moral expression of love and sex as viewed in the Church.

It is not a disorder as it is not a mental or physical disorder.

Really? So you believe homosexuality is normal behavior? You think that sexual expression by homosexuals is normal? You think that using one’s reproductive organs as an ailmentary canal and using one’s ailmentary canal for sexual activity is normal? You think there is no abnormal mental or physical impact of homosexual sex?

From a biological and scientific basis you would be dead wrong. Apparently psychologists have a different standard? I remember a commercial for a product that claimed “Normal is what’s normal for you.” Is that your theory?

Lisa

 

[ringil]

Really? So you believe homosexuality is normal behavior? You think that sexual expression by homosexuals is normal? You think that using one’s reproductive organs as an ailmentary canal and using one’s ailmentary canal for sexual activity is normal? You think there is no abnormal mental or physical impact of homosexual sex?

From a biological and scientific basis you would be dead wrong. Apparently psychologists have a different standard? I remember a commercial for a product that claimed “Normal is what’s normal for you.” Is that your theory?

Lisa

You make many statements in your post there Lisa.

 

[LisaA]

You make many statements in your post there Lisa.

Actually there are many questions and a few statements. I hope you can enlighten all of us given you are a licensed psychotherapist. You apparently have a different viewpoint.

Lisa

 

[catholic1seeks]

For the above convo, isn’t it true that, all the while we–as Catholics–affirm homosexuality to be disordered to the ultimate good God wants for the human person, this doesn’t necessarily entail that homosexuality is in itself a disorder. A common medical definition of disorder would be “a disturbance or derangement that affects the function of mind or body.” How does it affect the function of the mind or body—disregarding the moral aspect (only scientific/medical)?

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace

As InSearchof Grace noted, you believe that a homosexual who is in a same sex pair bond can be considered as adhering to Catholic teachings,

Not necessarily–because that’s actually my question. I’ve not asserted that a same sex attracted person in a same sex pair bond can be considered as adhering to Catholic teachings–I’ve asked (in one way or another) if such a thing (provided that it does not include sexual activity) is possible.

and if we do not see your relationship as following Catholic teaching, you believe the Church is wrong, not you.

I’m actually not interested in having my relationship with my partner validated by the members of this forum or by Catholic teaching–I’m not sure what that would accomplish. I’m not Roman Catholic myself, neither is my partner. What I’m interested in is learning about what life might be like for faithful same sex attracted Roman Catholic people in light of the RCCs teachings: and not so much what their lives should look like, but what their lives can look like, and whether or not the possibilities actually available to them differ from the possibilities generally advocated for on these forums.

Why should I be so curious, you may ask, if it doesn’t directly concern me? In part, the ecclesiology of the communion (Anglican) of which I’m a member leads me to be interested in the beliefs and practices of my fellow Christians in different communions. And given my feelings regarding the Pope and my love and respect for the Roman Catholic Church generally (we can go into all that some other time perhaps), what the RCC teaches and how it teaches it is a matter of some concern for me, though, granted, it does not directly concern me because I’m not a Roman Catholic. I imagine that the position I’m in is similar to that in which many Anglo-Catholic Episcopalians who happen to love theology find themselves. It’s been said that Anglicanism lacks a dogmatic/systematic theology. I would say that Anglicanism hasn’t managed to institutionalize a systematic theology that is it’s own. The prayer book represents a systematic way of being Christian which is a* practice* of theology, but it doesn’t necessarily articulate or explicate that theology directly. Some great Anglican divines have explicated that theology, or have tried–Andrewes and Hooker for instance–and while their work has gone on to help shape an Anglican theological identity, it would be hard to say that their work represents an institutional dogmatic theology. So. If we want to engage with a systematic theology which bears some relationship to our own identity as Anglicans and can both inform our Anglican identity and challenge it in numerous healthy ways, we’ll not only look to Andrewes and Hooker and their like, but we’ll wrestle with such things as the Book of Concord, we’ll find ourselves (like the great Anglican divines) paying a lot of attention to patristics and the common theological heritage of Western Christianity, but we’ll also likely find ourselves engaging in one way or another with Roman Catholic dogmatics.

The issue of whether or not I believe the RCC to be “wrong” is kind of immaterial. I don’t consider myself aiming to be “right,” as if faith or belief is a matter of checking the right boxes on a form. I’m not interested in my faith taking the form of believing all the right things and having all the right answers. I don’t think faith is about getting it “right” so much as it’s about receiving the grace to relax into the presence of the One who truly loves us and becoming, by that grace, an instrument of grace in the world. I’m not interested in certainty, I don’t believe disagreement is an impediment to either true faith or true obedience…but a hard heart is. I’m interested in my faith being the grace of God in me to soften my heart and to completely ravish me. Simone Weil, talking about Jacob wrestling with the angel, writes: “Isn’t this the great tragedy, to battle against God and not to be vanquished?” Faith is, in part, the grace to be vanquished.

So whether or not I think the RCC is wrong or right is not really the issue. True, I happen to believe that describing same sex attraction as objectively disordered doesn’t quite ring true, but I don’t believe that way because I think I’m “right”–I believe that way because I believe in the classical catholic understanding of concupiscence (I’ve written on that before in these forums), and have some trouble reconciling that understanding with the language of objective disorder. (Keep in mind that “objective disorder” refers to the same sex attraction, but “intrinsically disordered” describes the homosexual act. Calling the act “intrinsically disordered” is not particularly problematic to me given the RCC’s understanding of sexuality, and whether or not I agree with the designation is largely irrelevant.)

The Church uses the word “disordered” and you dispute the term as I understand it. Maybe I have misinterpreted your argument but you seem to believe that while not every or maybe not even most homosexual pairs could be considered as faithful to the Church’s teaching, because the love and devotion you both have, well your relationship is “different” and thus can fall within the term “faithful Catholic.” I don’t think most CAF posters would agree with that.

I wouldn’t blame them if they disagreed–because that’s not my point. I don’t know how many same sex pair bonds would be considered faithful to RCC teaching, or how many would even welcome being so considered. I’m interested in whether or not such a consideration is even possible. See above.

I don’t consider my own relationship “different” and therefore “licit.” This isn’t actually about my relationship. When I’ve brought it up, I’ve done so as evidence that a relationship between two men who are in love with each other can be monogamous, committed, and grace-filled–a counter example to all of the seemingly necessarily sad and tormented relationships that are mentioned in these forums. Moreover, I don’t see my relationship as “different” because I know of many similar to it–loving and commited relationships between two people of the same sex in which I have seen grace at work. It was perhaps foolish and/or naive of me to mention my own situation to begin with (after all, why should/would anyone actually believe me? Folks here are not likely to believe that grace in such a relationship is possible and are as likely to think me delusional to the same degree I suspect them of being willfully blind to the grace of God). But, as the song goes, you must risk something that matters.

I hope this clears up your question.

To a great degree it does, Lisa. Thank you. And I hope the above has been useful to you in one way or another.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[BernardM]

For the above convo, isn’t it true that, all the while we–as Catholics–affirm homosexuality to be disordered to the ultimate good God wants for the human person, this doesn’t necessarily entail that homosexuality is in itself a disorder. A common medical definition of disorder would be “a disturbance or derangement that affects the function of mind or body.” How does it affect the function of the mind or body—disregarding the moral aspect (only scientific/medical)?

There are several studies that show significantly higher rates of mental illness, substance abuse, and suicide amongst homosexuals. This is universal even in open and accepting societies like the Netherlands and Thailand. This is actually a recognized issue in the gay community but is downplayed.

 

[LisaA]

For the above convo, isn’t it true that, all the while we–as Catholics–affirm homosexuality to be disordered to the ultimate good God wants for the human person, this doesn’t necessarily entail that homosexuality is in itself a disorder. A common medical definition of disorder would be “a disturbance or derangement that affects the function of mind or body.” How does it affect the function of the mind or body—disregarding the moral aspect (only scientific/medical)?

Maybe you’ve just jumped into this thread but the scientific/medical aspects of homosexuality and the specific sexual practices has been discussed. Rather than repeat maybe go back and read some of the earlier posts.

FWIW “disorder” in common parlance is a behavior that is inappropriate within the context of a particular societal group. To some extent it is necessarily perjorative and I think that is why so many bristle at the term. I see “disorder” as something that is not normal, from a biological point of view. Whatever compromises the survival of the individual within a species and the species itself is by definition abnormal. You don’t have to be a moralist to know that self destructive behavior is not normal behavior from a biological point of view.

The Catholic viewpoint is focused on life, natural law as well. So it comports completely with the biological perspective. I never cease to be amazed by the incredible logic and consistency of Catholic teaching.

Lisa

 

[LisaA]

Grace & Peace

Not necessarily–because that’s actually my question. I’ve not asserted that a same sex attracted person in a same sex pair bond can be considered as adhering to Catholic teachings–I’ve asked (in one way or another) if such a thing (provided that it does not include sexual activity) is possible.

What I’m interested in is learning about what life might be like for faithful same sex attracted Roman Catholic people in light of the RCCs teachings: and not so much what their lives should look like, but what their lives can look like, and whether or not the possibilities actually available to them differ from the possibilities generally advocated for on these forums.

I wouldn’t blame them if they disagreed–because that’s not my point. I don’t know how many same sex pair bonds would be considered faithful to RCC teaching, or how many would even welcome being so considered. I’m interested in whether or not such a consideration is even possible

I’ve cut and moved a couple of paragraphs to try to make one point. You ask if it’s possible for a same sex pair bond to adhere to Catholic teaching. Conceivably perhaps but not a very realistic scenario. Given that the pair bond have same sex attraction issues, and given they are in a ‘bond’ of some kind that indicates sexual activity or at least the occasion of sin.

Several have posted the possibility for a same sex attracted Catholic to adhere to Catholic teaching and that is through celibacy. FWIW this is the same standard for those who are single.

It’s been said that Anglicanism lacks a dogmatic/systematic theology. I would say that Anglicanism hasn’t managed to institutionalize a systematic theology that is it’s own. The prayer book represents a systematic way of being Christian which is a* practice* of theology, but it doesn’t necessarily articulate or explicate that theology directly.
… but we’ll also likely find ourselves engaging in one way or another with Roman Catholic dogmatics.

I spent four years in a Spiritual Direction program at the local Episcopal Cathedral (before I was Catholic) and so I had a LOT of involvement with the Episcopal Church. Please do not consider me hateful in saying, it is not only a church with no “dogmatic/systematic” theology, it seems to be a ship adrift on the sea. There is no foundation left and various parishes, the national governance, and various international churches seem to do and say whatever they want. Somehow they found support for women priests. Then it was homosexual priests. Then it was homosexual “marriages.” Then it was the female bishop musing on the existence of God.

You’re right if you are a member of the Episcopal (Anglican) church you sure CANT need certainty because there isn’t any there there.

What I loved about the Church and what attracted me was the CONSISTENCY of the teachings. Everything builds upon a strong an Biblical foundation. It’s not certainty that I need but logic and consistency and reason. I did not see it in the Episcopal church. Now maybe you claim the Anglican tradition is different but the English Archbishop goes off the reservation frequently! It is a source of great heartbreak in your faith that there are sharp disagreements about so many issues. Without a foundation your house will crumble…has crumbled.

So whether or not I think the RCC is wrong or right is not really the issue. True, I happen to believe that describing same sex attraction as objectively disordered doesn’t quite ring true, but I don’t believe that way because I think I’m “right”–I believe that way because I believe in the classical catholic understanding of concupiscence (I’ve written on that before in these forums), and have some trouble reconciling that understanding with the language of objective disorder. (Keep in mind that “objective disorder” refers to the same sex attraction, but “intrinsically disordered” describes the homosexual act. Calling the act “intrinsically disordered” is not particularly problematic to me given the RCC’s understanding of sexuality, and whether or not I agree with the designation is largely irrelevant.)

I think you focus on the word “right” in the arrogant, often wrong but never in doubt fashion as if the Church were subject to that silly bumper sticker “God said it, I believe it, that settles it.” The Church is strong enough to withstand our pathetic arguments. She has faced far more formidable foes than you or me.

We are not asked to be ‘right’ but to be faithful. I can rest in the assurance of a faith that is 2000 years old and built upon a rock, not sand.

When I’ve brought it up, I’ve done so as evidence that a relationship between two men who are in love with each other can be monogamous, committed, and grace-filled–a counter example to all of the seemingly necessarily sad and tormented relationships that are mentioned in these forums.

grace in such a relationship is possible and are as likely to think me delusional to the same degree I suspect them of being willfully blind to the grace of God). But, as the song goes, you must risk something that matters.

To a great degree it does, Lisa. Thank you. And I hope the above has been useful to you in one way or another.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

FWIW I don’t think anyone has said all homosexual relationships are sad or demented or anything so absolute. I do think statistically homosexual relationships are less stable, more likely to include multiple partners, casual sexual encounters, health issues and other factors that would make such an ideal far less likely than in heterosexual marriage which has every culture, thousands of years and biology on its side.

I have absolutely no doubt that homosexuals can be in monogamous, self giving and loving relationships. You are a human being first and your humanity makes you capable of all of the joys and graces and capacity to love given to all of us. But I don’t think that capacity can be taken to its greatest level without the complimentary aspects and the possibility of giving life that exists in heterosexual marriage.

BTW I have a question for you and maybe since you are not an ‘activist’ it will not make sense but why on earth do so many homosexual “activists” and “spokesmen” define themselves FIRST by their sexual activity? To me this is the least interesting, least relevant, and most private part of someone else’s life. It truly baffles me why so many public homosexuals make SUCH an issue about their sexual activities. I really neither care nor want to know and wish it were not shoved in my face at every turn. It’s so unimportant but seems to be raised to a cause celebre. Do tell. Thank you
Lisa

 

[Elizabeth502]

I’ve not asserted that a same sex attracted person in a same sex pair bond can be considered as adhering to Catholic teachings–I’ve asked (in one way or another) if such a thing (provided that it does not include sexual activity) is possible.

Mark, if not on this thread, on several other previous threads on CAF your question has been answered , and with exhaustive explanations of that. The problem as I and others see it is that you seem dissatisfied with or unaccepting of those answers. Therefore, you keep asking the same questions.

I suggested before that you might study Catholic philosophy because it can be difficult even for such an intelligent person like yourself to shift into the Catholic paradigm from a different set of expectations. (Catholic theology is integrated within its philosophy, as well as Scripture and Tradition.) Classifications and dynamics have meaning within that integration of systems. (Especially see the portion of your post “that has trouble reconciling concupisence with objective disorder.”)

However, if the above quoted question merely involves a solid non-sexual friendship, the Roman Church has no problem with that. Yes, it’s possible to be faithful to Catholic teachings while in a celibate same-sex relationship. If there happens to be an abiding sexual attraction between the two people, despite not being acted upon, wise people have often discouraged that, such as they have & would for heterosexual celibate cohabitation. (As a pragmatic matter.)

What I’m interested in is learning about what life might be like for faithful same sex attracted Roman Catholic people in light of the RCCs teachings: and not so much what their lives should look like, but what their lives can look like, and whether or not the possibilities actually available to them differ from the possibilities generally advocated for on these forums.

I think the most direct way to get that answer is to ask those people directly. There are and have been a few posters who either are doing that now, or have done that successfully in the past – being able to separate their previously active sexual relationship with an inert one characterized by mutual respect and emotional compatibility, but with vigilance over that relationship being necessary (as I understand it).

I don’t see my relationship as “different” because I know of many similar to it–loving and commited relationships between two people of the same sex in which I have seen grace at work.

God can work grace through any relationship, but we’ve been in this discussion before: The fact that God can do so and has done so is not a reversible syllogism. It does not mean that “therefore” the sexual aspects of the relationship are graced from God. God works actual graces in convicts in prison, in white-collar criminals who surrender & reform, and in all of us ordinary sinners before we even get to sacramental graces. God is not limited by our compromised behaviors and lifestyles, but transcends those to reach us, if we let him.

 

[CopticChristian]

Grace & Peace!

Coptic, I hope this not a controversial thing to say, but many same sex attracted folks are not attracted to anal sex for a number of reasons, some of which no doubt related to the pathologies you have enumerated.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias

Mark,

I certainly understand that anal sex is unnatractive and of course that would then lend one to consider alternatives. Similar problems arise here as well and then the question is would these problems arise without the action? Makes me wonder.

1.Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2010;65(12):1383-5.
Genital and oral human papillomavirus infection in a patient from the group of women who have sex with women.
Reis HL, Ferreira DC, Forattini AG, Souza PG, Curvelo JA, Passos MR.
Source
Universidade Federal Fluminense, Setor de Doenças Sexualmente Transmissíveis, Niterói, Brazil.

1. J Periodontol. 2006 Mar;77(3):523-33.
   Gingival involvement in a case series of patients with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome-related Kaposi sarcoma.
   Kalpidis CD, Lysitsa SN, Lombardi T, Kolokotronis AE, Antoniades DZ, Samson J.
   Source
   Department of Periodontology and Implant Biology, School of Dentistry, Aristotle University, Thessaloniki, Greece.
2. Int J STD AIDS. 2004 Nov;15(11):775-7.
   Oral Kaposi’s sarcoma in a non-HIV homosexual White male.Kua HW, Merchant W, Waugh MA.
   Source
   Department of Pathology, Leeds General Infirmary, Leeds LS1 3EX, UK.
3. Br Dent J. 2000 Oct 14;189(7):352-4.
   Primary syphilis remains a cause of oral ulceration.
   Alam F, Argiriadou AS, Hodgson TA, Kumar N, Porter SR.
   Source
   Department of Oral Medicine, Eastman Dental Institute for Oral Health Care Sciences, University College London.
4. J Am Osteopath Assoc. 2011 Mar;111(3 Suppl 2):S19-25.
   Genital, oral, and anal human papillomavirus infection in men who have sex with men.
   Dietz CA, Nyberg CR.
   Source
   General and HIV Medicine, Kansas City Free Health Clinic, 3515 Broadway St, Kansas City, MO 64111, USA. craigd@kcfree.org

Grace and Peace to you…I know I have a relatively low risk of any of these problems in my oral cavity…something to consider…

 

[CopticChristian]

Grace & Peace!

Must it? As a presumably opposite sex attracted person, I imagine you form friendships with members of the opposite sex to whom you are not attracted in the way that you might be attracted to a girlfriend or a wife. Or, if these attractions are present but not reciprocated or not capable of being reciprocated, I’m sure you (like most folks) are able to maintain the friendship and respect proper boundaries despite your attraction.

I’m not sure what you’re asking with the “why.” Why is anyone attracted to the people to whom they’re attracted? Why does anyone go on a date? Why does anyone pursue a romantic relationship? I can tell you, I’m not attracted to a man because I want to perform any particular sex act with or on him. Nonetheless, I have noticed in myself (and you may have noticed in yourself) that there is a qualitative difference between the attraction one feels to the folks with whom one is or would like to be friends, and the attraction one feels for someone with whom one is in love and with whom one would like to share one’s life as completely as one may. Am I same sex attracted because I want to have sex with men? I don’t think so. Am I same sex attracted because I’m attracted to other men? Yes.

Clearly. And why should it, either for you or for someone who is same sex attracted?

But why invoke it in just any scenario? Why not only in the scenario to which it properly applies–two people of the same sex who are in love with each other?

What I mean by same sex attraction in this scenario is: two men who are in love with each other in an intimate relationship which excludes sex.

I don’t know why a prostitute needs to be involved…

Are you arguing against the possibility of Josephite marriages? This is the rough model I’m following in the question I posed to Lisa and in the scenario mentioned above.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

Were Josephite marriages with homosexuals?

The question is how do you define love?

 

[CopticChristian]

Grace & Peace!

Hold up hold up hold up hold up. Coptic.

When and where did I ask you to accept homosexuality as a culture?

I thought it was clear from my post that I was discussing the obsession with youth and beauty amongst same sex attracted folks by situating it within a particular cultural phenomenon, i.e., “gay culture.” It is clear that I was critical of “gay culture” throughout the post, and in the end, I state that “gay culture” is “an artifical desire-construct.” In what way could you have interpreted all of that as saying that you must accept homosexuality as a culture?

If you don’t like calling the loose collection of tropes, mythologies, social rituals, pageants etc which construct the popular notion of a gay identity a “culture,” then please suggest another word. But, to my understanding, “culture” is the appropriate word.

I honestly have no clue what could have prompted such a strong misreading of what I wrote.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

You delude yourself into believing that you have no agenda and you do not believe in this gay culuture.

Reread your posting, just the first paragraph…

Coptic, you bring up something which is, to me, an interesting, important, and **complex issue–**and that’s the **issue of culture **and how culture creates people and conditions desire. I feel that so often when people express misgivings about same sex attracted people or same sex attraction generally, what they’re really expressing misgivings about is **“gay culture.” **And there’s a lot about “**gay culture” **over which one can be justifiably uncomfortable.

A stand alone paragraph should carry the sentiment and thoughts of the entire thought that follows…You introduce what you say is a complex issue. No it is not. You want me and anyone else to believe this. You then say the issue of culture. You don’t define it and continue to write. You say culture creates people. Where did you get that idea? You follow that with a random thought that I cannot make any sense out of “conditions desire”…So what does desire have to do with anything except your desire to promote what you believe. You feel. What is that? I know, I believe, I think,…I feel…like a gnawing in my stomach, like a charley horse…a sentiment…what does this mean in terms of what you are trying to say. You then introduce without explanation and put in paranthesis “gay culture” not once but twice. Doing this is reinforcement in my mind that you really believe that this is a real thing.

If you do not believe in it and if you do not support it why wuld you tell me that discomfort is justifiable? If it isn’t real. You end with this…

But “gay culture” as we know it and experience it today is not a necessary expression of same sex attraction, but is an artificial desire-construct which has coalesced around same sex attraction. True, it has represented itself as necessary and/or indispensable to same sex attraction, but the representation is false–i.e., it is possible to be same sex attracted, or even identify as gay without buying into all of the baggage with which “gay culture” would burden same sex attracted folks. And it’s possible for people who are not same sex attracted to **refuse to buy into the “gay culture” baggage as well–possible, in other words, **for them to see same sex attracted folks for themselves and not as functions of a particular culture./****COLOR] Hard work sometimes, but necessary work.

So if gay culture is artificial, false and that some refuse to buy into then why would it make me justifiably uncomfortable? You are very confused.

You then end with “not as a function of a particular culture”? If “gay culture” is a false construct and not related to any culture as we know it then how can you conclude that it is not a function of any particular culture? What are the particular cultures?

You make no sense in your justifying weaving of thought of your beliefs.

 

[LisaA]

Mark,

I certainly understand that anal sex is unnatractive and of course that would then lend one to consider alternatives. Similar problems arise here as well and then the question is would these problems arise without the action? Makes me wonder.

Grace and Peace to you…I know I have a relatively low risk of any of these problems in my oral cavity…something to consider…

My dentist said the protocol now is to screen for oral cancers which have exploded in numbers and severity. She said in past years the only likely victims were tobacco users with those engaging in smokeless tobaccos being the more likely victims. Now as Coptic Christian has noted, the HPV transmission is through oral contact as well as the spread of various other STDs.

I’ve also listened to medical programs that emphasized the body is quite “wonderfully made” to function properly when used properly One of the most interesting examples was that when a foreign substance is introduced into the body, it recognizes this as foreign and if properly functioning, attacks that foreign substance. OTOH a woman’s body is able to turn off the attack when it comes to male sperm (deposited properly as it were) However when using the body in a different than natural sexual expression triggers the defense mechanism. Perhaps Coptic Christian as a physician can explain this better but I found this whole series of lectures quite fascinating.

Given that Catholic teaching was promulgated long before this knowledge of the human body, it gives credence to the natural order of things being fully supported by our faith and our faith in many ways providing protection from self destructive behaviors…assuming of course that we do follow the teachings.

Lisa

 

[CopticChristian]

The best I can say about NARTH is that it is not a reputable source of clinical information.

I am a licensed psychotherapist BTW.

Ringil,

As a licensed psychotherapist tell me this…

Why is Narth not reputable?

Is the APA reputable?

BTW I am a physician BTW

 

[CopticChristian]

My dentist said the protocol now is to screen for oral cancers which have exploded in numbers and severity. She said in past years the only likely victims were tobacco users with those engaging in smokeless tobaccos being the more likely victims. Now as Coptic Christian has noted, the HPV transmission is through oral contact as well as the spread of various other STDs.

I’ve also listened to medical programs that emphasized the body is quite “wonderfully made” to function properly when used properly One of the most interesting examples was that when a foreign substance is introduced into the body, it recognizes this as foreign and if properly functioning, attacks that foreign substance. OTOH a woman’s body is able to turn off the attack when it comes to male sperm (deposited properly as it were) However when using the body in a different than natural sexual expression triggers the defense mechanism. Perhaps Coptic Christian as a physician can explain this better but I found this whole series of lectures quite fascinating.
Given that Catholic teaching was promulgated long before this knowledge of the human body, it gives credence to the natural order of things being fully supported by our faith and our faith in many ways providing protection from self destructive behaviors…assuming of course that we do follow the teachings.

Lisa

Lisa,

You mean you want me to derail the thread. No way…:nope:

 

[ringil]

Ringil,

As a licensed psychotherapist tell me this…

Why is Narth not reputable?

Is the APA reputable?

BTW I am a physician BTW

The APA is reputable- almost the definition of reputable when it comes to recognized mental health treatment, NARTH is not and they have supported therapeutic approaches which research has shown to be emotionally damaging to clients. Licensed therapists providing reparative therapeutic efforts are practicing unethically and are subject to professional disciplinary action. As a licensed clinician (LCSW) I would be professionally and ethically obligated to report if I knew that a fellow licensed colleague were attempting such efforts with clients. This is fact.

The APA provides the diagnostic criterion used to code for mental illness, addictions, and developmental, cognitive, and personality disorders. The APA is really all there is when it comes to providing professionally recognized practice that is covered by health insurance agencies. Try to get coverage for “reparative therapy” and see what happens.

What kind of physician would look to NARTH as a valid source of clinical information??? I have certainly never met another licensed therapist who would.

If you support NARTH you can’t disagree that your views as a physician are in the tiny minority within the medical profession. Do you tell your colleagues this? If so, what are their reactions? I don’t really know what kind of doctor you are so. . . . In any case I would advise you take another look at NARTH. It is fringe and does not represent mainstream medical or therapeutic opinion.

 

[CopticChristian]

The APA is reputable- almost the definition of reputable when it comes to recognized mental health treatment, NARTH is not and they have supported therapeutic approaches which research has shown to be emotionally damaging to clients. Licensed therapists providing reparative therapeutic efforts are practicing unethically and are subject to professional disciplinary action. As a licensed clinician (LCSW) I would be professionally and ethically obligated to report if I knew that a fellow licensed colleague were attempting such efforts with clients. This is fact.

The APA provides the diagnostic criterion used to code for mental illness, addictions, and developmental, cognitive, and personality disorders. The APA is really all there is when it comes to providing professionally recognized practice that is covered by **health insurance agencies. ** Try to get coverage for “reparative therapy” and see what happens.

What kind of physician would look to NARTH as a valid source of clinical information??? I have certainly never met another licensed therapist who would.

If you support NARTH you can’t disagree that your views as a physician are in the tiny minority within the medical profession. Do you tell your colleagues this? If so, what are their reactions? I don’t really know what kind of doctor you are so. . . . In any case I would advise you take another look at NARTH. It is fringe and does not represent mainstream medical or therapeutic opinion.

Ringil,

I have no respect for the APA. The APA took a military manual and turned it into a diganosis by committee farce. Homosexuality was a disease and now not a disease as per the DSM and this was due to pressure from Homosexuals and with the help of Homoexual Psychiatrists.

You point out that it codes for addiction and relate the coding to insurance companies. The issue with acceptance of an organization voting that something is a disease then not a disease is downright nuts.

Consider the DSM and alcoholism since you bring up addiction. Alcholism is not, never was and never will be a disease. This same APA that says Homosexuality is a disease now says it is not. This same organization says alcoholism is a disease that is not and yet you say is a standard. This causes those that accept alcoholism is a disease to automatically accept 12 step/AA treatment that is not treatment but brain washing.

Just take a look at a reputable organization like St Jude as it regards their contrary opinions on alcoholism…

soberforever.net/varb.cfm?utm_expid=5865369-0&utm_referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogpile.com%2Fsearch%2Fweb%3Ffcoid%3D417%26fcop%3Dtopnav%26fpid%3D27%26q%3Dst%2Bjude%2Baddiction%26ql%3D

Listen to the video at this same site and review the literature on this site…

soberforever.net/the-retreat-house-video.cfm

Couple that with a PhD that champions the same notion…

peele.net/

I find the APA to be incredible and filled with nonsense when it comes to using a book that unfortunately is geared towards insurance reimbursement and pleasing some than it is based in reality.

The APA to me has lost all credibility BTW…