I
InSearchofGrace
Guest
I see that the humor of your double entendre was not appreciated by our guest Ronin. You could have inserted an emoticon, I suppose.
,
- Status
,
T
tskrobacz
Guest
It is only our ego elf that needs such an absolute answer…a black and white certainty. I think we can agree that even in her deep wisdom, the Church, like each of us continues to reach for the infinite with stubby little finite arms…God is always beyond our understanding and therefor infinitely knowable.
H
Hadrianus
Guest
I do not know who Thomas Landess is so have no way of evaluating his evaluation of Hooker. In any case, those who wish to say “gay is good” will do so regardless of evidence, and those who say “homosexuality is a mental illness” will do so, and both will cherry pick their arguments whether psychological or biological to support their preconceived notions.
A theological debate is always possible; but when it comes to the sciences, I agree with what the Church has said. First, that the psychological genesis of homosexuality remains largely unknown, and secondly that the Church does not refer to this condition as a mental illness. Equally, I find the endless conspiracy theories aimed at the international psychological community tiresome at best. Anyone with integrity in the scientific community will only ever speak of probabilities, unless certitude can be achieved through replication. Something very difficult to do in many instances in the psychological field.
Personally, I cannot understand why orthodox Catholics are not content with the Church’s clear teaching on the sinfulness of homosexual acts, but wish to see those tempted to such declared mentally ill as well. Do we declare fornicators mentally ill? Or adulterers? This makes me mindful of the terrible lobotomy craze of the 1950’s when many people, mostly women, who suffered merely from treatable neuroses were lobotomized and their lives ruined. I note that this particular obsession is largely American as well.
In saying all of this I am not suggesting that many homosexuals may not suffer from neuroses, brought on perhaps by the peculiarity of their own condition, or perhaps related to the same neurological factors regarding the amygdala and hippocampus which other studies have found. But I don’t think a neurosis is usually classified as a mental illness. If I am wrong in this then, by all means, I will stand corrected, of course. I mean a fear of heights can be a neurosis, but schizophrenia is a mental illness.
A theological debate is always possible; but when it comes to the sciences, I agree with what the Church has said. First, that the psychological genesis of homosexuality remains largely unknown, and secondly that the Church does not refer to this condition as a mental illness. Equally, I find the endless conspiracy theories aimed at the international psychological community tiresome at best. Anyone with integrity in the scientific community will only ever speak of probabilities, unless certitude can be achieved through replication. Something very difficult to do in many instances in the psychological field.
Personally, I cannot understand why orthodox Catholics are not content with the Church’s clear teaching on the sinfulness of homosexual acts, but wish to see those tempted to such declared mentally ill as well. Do we declare fornicators mentally ill? Or adulterers? This makes me mindful of the terrible lobotomy craze of the 1950’s when many people, mostly women, who suffered merely from treatable neuroses were lobotomized and their lives ruined. I note that this particular obsession is largely American as well.
In saying all of this I am not suggesting that many homosexuals may not suffer from neuroses, brought on perhaps by the peculiarity of their own condition, or perhaps related to the same neurological factors regarding the amygdala and hippocampus which other studies have found. But I don’t think a neurosis is usually classified as a mental illness. If I am wrong in this then, by all means, I will stand corrected, of course. I mean a fear of heights can be a neurosis, but schizophrenia is a mental illness.
J
JackyB
Guest
R
ringil
Guest
Sorry, these tests are highly valid and reliable psychometric tools. They are some of the MOST valid and reliable tests we have based on exaustive statistical analysis of tens of thousands of representative samples.
I’m sorry if you don’t agree but your disagreement doesn’t invalidate the reams of peer reviewed studies from the most prestigious journals in the world. The decades of statistical analysis.
You see you are really voicing disagreement with the very FOUNDATIONS of modern Psychology. There is really no where to go in a discussion with you (at least for me) as you reject the totality and fundamental aspects of any clinical point I would make.
I’m not trying to be offensive but, really, we are disagreeing as far as the east is from the west. We de-value the very essence of what the other would say regarding inter and intra-psychic functioning. We speak two different languages on these issues.
Frankly our discussions are a waste of time.
R
ringil
Guest
Thomas Landess was a opular ghost writer for the Right. He wrote on subjects decrying what he say as the Left’s attempts to destroy the American family. He also lamented what he saw as the loss of Christian values in the west.
A highly political figure with decidedly right leaning professional bent.
So, yeah, he had an agenda, as he claims the APA had an agenda.
R
ringil
Guest
Good observation. I believe the cause of this purely American oddity may come from an infection of Evangelical ideas in the psyche of some American Catholics. It is very common to see this in converts to the faith, especially from those coming from more low-church, biblical literalist, backgrounds. You will see quite a bit of this type of thing here on CAF.
C
CopticChristian
Guest
Ringil,
I agree. I find that when I was a Psychology major in College it was a waste of time. I find that Psychology in general solves no problems. I believe that the tragedy of Psychology and Psychiatry is that too much time is wasted on studying abnormal. That is the trend of Medicine. Study the abnormal and try to normalize. This is the paradigm of Medicine that in my opinion does not translate to Psychological issues.
I could Coach any intelligent human how to gear any of those tests to lean any way they wanted them to go. I studied them ad nauseum and find them pretty useless in my opinion. I tested my theory on this with a Psychologist and told him after the fact that I had studied for and was aware of what these tests were looking for. They are in my opinion worthless.
I am not alone in this. William Glasser, MD. believes that the DSM is bunk as I do and as you know he has authored “Choice Theory” and “Reality Therapy”. I am more inclined to believe that people make choices for the most part and I would rather spend my time studying well people and how to make efforts to excel as Maslow presented in hierarchy of needs.
I find General Semantics, NLP, Neurosemantics and the Meta Model of the mind coupled with writings of the OHCAC more inclined to lead to mental health than any psychological theory I have seen.
You have to agree that unless you have a model of the mind, and I know that you do, a model that you can test and expect to get predictable results from then you are wasting your time in trying to cause change in anyone. The meta model does that quite well.
D
Deo_Volente
Guest
Grace & Peace!
Just reading through some recent posts in this thread as I’ve been away for a bit, and found this flabbergasting:
Assuming we continue a discussion either in this thread or any other in the future, how about we do this: how about, when I tell you what I believe, that you accept that I believe it in good faith? And how about, when you tell me something you believe, that I accept that you believe it in good faith? How about that? That way, you’ll avoid making the mistake of telling me what I do or don’t believe and I, too, will be preserved from making the same error.
Here, I am saying that as a result of your post to which I was responding, I was led to think about the various human cultures to which we belong and the influence that such cultures have over our development as people and, in a related way, how they exercise influence over what we desire as well as how we articulate what we desire to ourselves and to others. I state that I find such considerations to be interesting, important and complex.
I assume that you will understand how I am understanding the word “culture” by the context in which I use the word. Clearly, I’m not talking about civilization or high culture such as the fine arts. But if what I was talking about was unclear, I figured that most would not find it difficult to intuit (given what I write subsequently), that what I mean by the word “culture” is something along the lines of an “office culture” or “school culture,” the observable patterns of thought or behavior of people in a particular group and how those patterns create expectations of thought or behavior, establish norms, build community, etc.
Regarding my statement that culture creates people, simple reflection would lead one to consider how the various cultures in which one participates influence and form one as an individual in community with other individuals–they have a real effect on who we are. We are social animals. Moreover, since I believe that who we are as individuals is not sui generis but constructed by our interactions with those around us, saying that culture creates people is another way of saying that who we are is formed in community with others. Further, it is not such a big step from saying that we are who we are because of the groups of which we are members and participants to saying that we desire according to the desire of the other (I refer you to Girard’s mimetic theory for more information). It’s not a random thought at all, particularly not when you consider that, for the most part, the Judeo-Christian tradition sees the will (the thing in us which desires and pursues what is desired) as the locus of what makes us who we are as individual people."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. "
Here, I state a suspicion (a feeling is what I call it, following a colloquial use of the word “feeling”) that when people express misgivings about same sex attraction that what they’re really objecting to is “gay culture.” I make this statement based on observations of what people say when they make their objections to same sex attraction (i.e., when such objections take the form of a list of pathologies). I put “gay culture” in quotes (not parentheses), because I’m designating it as something that is self-consciously artificial according to the common use of what is called “scare quotes.” Scare quotes are often used by people when they wish to draw attention to the semiotic or linguistic slipperiness of a particular concept or thing within a particular context. I introduce the concept of “gay culture” at this point because it is the particular culture that I will be considering in the remainder of the post. I introduce the concept once, and I mention it a second time in a sentence which is meant to lead into/introduce the next paragraph of the post.
The second time I mention “gay culture,” it is to say that the misgivings (which I identify in the sentence as giving rise to a sense of discomfort) are not unjustified, with the understanding that they are not unjustified given the nature of “gay culture,” which nature will be briefly touched upon in what follows in the post.
While it is true that I see “gay culture” as a self-conscious and largely artificial construct, it does not follow from such a perspective that I would believe that “gay culture” has no real impact on people’s behavior or expectations either for those who participate in “gay culture” or those who buy into if (only to oppose it). General “corporate culture” such as one experiences to one degree or another in a white-color office setting is a similar case: an artificial construct which has real consequences on human thought and behavior.
Regarding you’re statement that I’m confused, I would venture to guess that you believe that because you’ve completely misunderstood what I’ve said and your misunderstanding is confusing and absurd.
Under the Mercy,
Mark
All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!
Just reading through some recent posts in this thread as I’ve been away for a bit, and found this flabbergasting:
Coptic, I honestly have no idea how you can be misreading me as severely as you are, unless you’ve already made up your mind that you know precisely the sort of things I think and believe, regardless of anything I may say to the contrary. I suspect you’re falling victim to some sort of bias or other. Of course, having said that, I have a feeling that you’ll read that and think, “He’s calling me a homophobe! How typical of someone who’s totally steeped in the homosexualist agenda!” Sigh.
Assuming we continue a discussion either in this thread or any other in the future, how about we do this: how about, when I tell you what I believe, that you accept that I believe it in good faith? And how about, when you tell me something you believe, that I accept that you believe it in good faith? How about that? That way, you’ll avoid making the mistake of telling me what I do or don’t believe and I, too, will be preserved from making the same error.
Your analysis is absurd, Coptic–I would accuse you of eisegesis (reading into what I wrote something you wanted or expected to read) if I didn’t suspect that maybe something else, perhaps something completely unrelated to our discussion was causing your befuddlement (for instance, maybe you’re not a native English speaker). So. Let me break that paragraph down for you:“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.”
Here, I am saying that as a result of your post to which I was responding, I was led to think about the various human cultures to which we belong and the influence that such cultures have over our development as people and, in a related way, how they exercise influence over what we desire as well as how we articulate what we desire to ourselves and to others. I state that I find such considerations to be interesting, important and complex.
I assume that you will understand how I am understanding the word “culture” by the context in which I use the word. Clearly, I’m not talking about civilization or high culture such as the fine arts. But if what I was talking about was unclear, I figured that most would not find it difficult to intuit (given what I write subsequently), that what I mean by the word “culture” is something along the lines of an “office culture” or “school culture,” the observable patterns of thought or behavior of people in a particular group and how those patterns create expectations of thought or behavior, establish norms, build community, etc.
Regarding my statement that culture creates people, simple reflection would lead one to consider how the various cultures in which one participates influence and form one as an individual in community with other individuals–they have a real effect on who we are. We are social animals. Moreover, since I believe that who we are as individuals is not sui generis but constructed by our interactions with those around us, saying that culture creates people is another way of saying that who we are is formed in community with others. Further, it is not such a big step from saying that we are who we are because of the groups of which we are members and participants to saying that we desire according to the desire of the other (I refer you to Girard’s mimetic theory for more information). It’s not a random thought at all, particularly not when you consider that, for the most part, the Judeo-Christian tradition sees the will (the thing in us which desires and pursues what is desired) as the locus of what makes us who we are as individual people."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. "
Here, I state a suspicion (a feeling is what I call it, following a colloquial use of the word “feeling”) that when people express misgivings about same sex attraction that what they’re really objecting to is “gay culture.” I make this statement based on observations of what people say when they make their objections to same sex attraction (i.e., when such objections take the form of a list of pathologies). I put “gay culture” in quotes (not parentheses), because I’m designating it as something that is self-consciously artificial according to the common use of what is called “scare quotes.” Scare quotes are often used by people when they wish to draw attention to the semiotic or linguistic slipperiness of a particular concept or thing within a particular context. I introduce the concept of “gay culture” at this point because it is the particular culture that I will be considering in the remainder of the post. I introduce the concept once, and I mention it a second time in a sentence which is meant to lead into/introduce the next paragraph of the post.
The second time I mention “gay culture,” it is to say that the misgivings (which I identify in the sentence as giving rise to a sense of discomfort) are not unjustified, with the understanding that they are not unjustified given the nature of “gay culture,” which nature will be briefly touched upon in what follows in the post.
While it is true that I see “gay culture” as a self-conscious and largely artificial construct, it does not follow from such a perspective that I would believe that “gay culture” has no real impact on people’s behavior or expectations either for those who participate in “gay culture” or those who buy into if (only to oppose it). General “corporate culture” such as one experiences to one degree or another in a white-color office setting is a similar case: an artificial construct which has real consequences on human thought and behavior.
Clearly because it has real consequences in the world in terms of human behavior, desire, and expectations that people both inside and outside the culture have for the behavior and desire of those on the inside.
It is false in the sense that is not a naturally authentic expression of same sex attraction qua same sex attraction.
Regarding you’re statement that I’m confused, I would venture to guess that you believe that because you’ve completely misunderstood what I’ve said and your misunderstanding is confusing and absurd.
My statement was a version of this: the more we see individuals as functions or representatives of a particular culture to which they are perceived or believed to belong (in the case of my post, “gay culture”) the less likely we will be to see them as human beings in their own right. An analogous example: a man with a particular southern US regional dialect will, to many people in New York City, be thought of as a redneck and as little more than an embodiment of “redneck culture” until either a) the man with the dialect definitively demonstrates that they have nothing to do with “redneck culture” or b) the New Yorker perceiving the man with the dialect transcends or overlooks the presuppositions which form upon hearing the southern dialect, regardless of the actual relationship the man with the southern dialect may have to “redneck culture.” Another example: athletic men are often perceived as participating in “jock culture” of one sort or another simply because they’re athletic.
Coptic, what makes no sense is that sentence. What makes less sense is how you could so completely misunderstand what I was saying…unless you were the victim of some misunderstanding or delusion.
Under the Mercy,
Mark
All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!
G
Gaber
Guest
Robert De Niro? Yeah, riiiiiiiiight, lol
Don’t you wish, hahaha!But a tag line for that movie, “an American intelligence operative adrift in irrelevance” feels like a good descriptor sometimes. Except I am not adrift. But relativity,a s dear Dr; Einstein described it bein goperative even in personal perceptions, I most ceratinly would seem so to you. by my estimation.
Y ar primarlily taking tskrobacz to tsk, but that individual stands for many, primarliy as a spokesperson for compassion and a deeper-than-legalistic examination and exegesis of what you and others on here are claiming to be in alignment with God Himself as interpreted by men of a curiously predisposed viewpoint which on examinatoin may not hold water that is holy.
Excellent. As it is said, “the biggest room in the Universe is the ‘room’ for improvement!” B as you must know, a paradigm is a description and does not necessariy equate with reality. Usually not. Especially unexamined religous ones. But that is another book, so I’m not going there now. But good for you! I admire the effort we all need to make to learn more and have a greater correspondence of of ourt paradigm to Reality. Most people think that what is the contents of their unacknowledgedly very limited awareness is a 1/1 description. Do you buy that?
Yes, and in all that you underestimate what you are behind all that. Yu are putting fort surmises about person, not knowledge. Of which there are degrees and kinds. Most, as I see it, and not becoause of my own stature, whatever it might be, are somewherer in the 2>14 y.o. range in most phases of development. Even if they are the best mathematician or whatever. there are other factors at play here that most, as I see it, don’t consider as applicable, as ultimately fundamental as they are.
Early on…I knew lots and perhaps discounted others
Later on…I recognized that perhaps there was much to learn
Last…as I get older I know squat…so you are quite correct that my understanding of Veritatis Splendor is minisicule…
What is of primary and foundational importance is what you know about yourself s conscious awareness being. the most onerous and most rewarding task any of us have is to burst laughing and screaming with joy out of flatland. So when you are able by whatever means to accept that Grace which will knock out from under your feet everything you now believe to be real, we might have a more useful conversation.Then at least all those that know squat can learn more and know less squat…OK
I was where you are and many others are. Not by my own bidding, something about who and what we are was shown to me that is Ineffable. And having seen that, I can see why you and others might have the stand you do about homosexuality and insist that it is a disorder. But the actual and primary disorder is that yo, as most people do, think that you are a person who has as a possesion a religion that is an actual paradigm of the total scope of reality and all its dynamics, meanings, and implications. I assure you that as a devout, knowledgeable, very well catechized, devout and proselytizing RC I did not. You may not, either. There is that chance, eh?
What I am saying is that if you are capable of supporting and augmenting by intellection what passes on here for “proof” of homosexuality as a “disorder,” you have quite a monumental a paradigm shifting surprise waiting for you in the “wings.” All goodness and wonderfull nature of what you have up to now accomplished and deserve praise for notwithsatnding.
C
CopticChristian
Guest
Gaber,This isn’t the place for personal explanaiton, and yet personality rules these pages. Except, perhjaps for the proctor. After I answered you in kind, being more kind thatn was deserved, the proctor removed both our comments in what i took to be an exceptionally mild reprimand, though deserved. on both parts. That is about the most impartial action I’ve found in this thread,
So since I fele that the personality aspect rules here, meaning that all evidence brouight to bear is filtered through personality even if it has scientific or pseudo-scientific origin, I will reply to your questions.
Robert De Niro? Yeah, riiiiiiiiight, lol
But a tag line for that movie, “an American intelligence operative adrift in irrelevance” feels like a good descriptor sometimes. Except I am not adrift. But relativity,a s dear Dr; Einstein described it bein goperative even in personal perceptions, I most ceratinly would seem so to you. by my estimation.
Y ar primarlily taking tskrobacz to tsk, but that individual stands for many, primarliy as a spokesperson for compassion and a deeper-than-legalistic examination and exegesis of what you and others on here are claiming to be in alignment with God Himself as interpreted by men of a curiously predisposed viewpoint which on examinatoin may not hold water that is holy.
Excellent. As it is said, “the biggest room in the Universe is the ‘room’ for improvement!” B as you must know, a paradigm is a description and does not necessariy equate with reality. Usually not. Especially unexamined religous ones. But that is another book, so I’m not going there now. But good for you! I admire the effort we all need to make to learn more and have a greater correspondence of of ourt paradigm to Reality. Most people think that what is the contents of their unacknowledgedly very limited awareness is a 1/1 description. Do you buy that?
Yes, and in all that you underestimate what you are behind all that. Yu are putting fort surmises about person, not knowledge. Of which there are degrees and kinds. Most, as I see it, and not becoause of my own stature, whatever it might be, are somewherer in the 2>14 y.o. range in most phases of development. Even if they are the best mathematician or whatever. there are other factors at play here that most, as I see it, don’t consider as applicable, as ultimately fundamental as they are.
Frankly, my dear, i give a damn about what squat or not you know about me. that is superflous and irrelevant. What is of primary and foundational importance is what you know about yourself s conscious awareness being. the most onerous and most rewarding task any of us have is to burst laughing and screaming with joy out of flatland. So when you are able by whatever means to accept that Grace which will knock out from under your feet everything you now believe to be real, we might have a more useful conversation.
I was where you are and many others are. Not by my own bidding, something about who and what we are was shown to me that is Ineffable. And having seen that, I can see why you and others might have the stand you do about homosexuality and insist that it is a disorder. But the actual and primary disorder is that yo, as most people do, think that you are a person who has as a possesion a religion that is an actual paradigm of the total scope of reality and all its dynamics, meanings, and implications. I assure you that as a devout, knowledgeable, very well catechized, devout and proselytizing RC I did not. You may not, either. There is that chance, eh?
What I am saying is that if you are capable of supporting and augmenting by intellection what passes on here for “proof” of homosexuality as a “disorder,” you have quite a monumental a paradigm shifting surprise waiting for you in the “wings.” All goodness and wonderfull nature of what you have up to now accomplished and deserve praise for notwithsatnding.
My experience with those of many words is a need to justify. I have no need to justify. I only believe and act on those beliefs.
No amount of protest will change the Catechism or teaching of the OHCAC. I know that actions are afoot to declare that Homosexuality should not be a crime in at least 76 countries and for that I am in favor. When the dust settles the world will admit that it is not a crime. Nothing will change tradition and the teaching of the Church. In the end what will be left is this.
Homosexuality exists. Homosexuals are people. The OHCAC teaches that Homosesuality is intrinsically disordered. It does not matter what the APA says or anyone else says. This teaching for better or worse is as those who are part of the OHCAC is the teaching of the Kingdom and not of the world. I can’t change it, you can’t change it, and it will continue to be a thorn in the side. I suggest you have hope…for Paul himself says he lived with a thorn in his side. This is life and this will be life.
C
CopticChristian
Guest
Deo,
I recall somewhere, something about a movie where a criticsim was offered and the criticism was this…“too many words”…I directed an answer to Gaber that I suggest you read. That is all I have to say. I shall dismiss myself from this thread and get back to the work in the Kingdom.
G
Gaber
Guest
L
LisaA
Guest
Tsk having been gone yesterday I came back to read lots and lots of verbiage by you in response to C.C. who has apparently become frustrated with the seemingly endless prose that doesn’t really respond to the points made.
All the talk about the DSM isn’t so much a matter that “some people” want to think of homosexuality as a mental illness so much as it points out the lack of credibility when a mental illness can be voted in or out based on agendas and rather poorly done research.
I can certainly understand the desire to remove the stigma associated with a DSM classification although there are many many many sexual limitations or problems (for lack of a better word) that are in the DSM and are there not to be perjorative but simply to assist in addressing the problem. I don’t want to be that graphic on this forum but most relate to heterosexual sexual activity. After all the “D” is for diagnostic and is I thought intended to be helpful in dealing with the physical or psychological problems.
At any rate the issue for me is that removal from the DSM has been interpreted by homosexual activists as carte blanche to demand that their practices be considered as normal and accepted as heterosexual relations by married couples. This has frankly gone way too far with demands that homosexuals be identified as such in children’s text books, demanding that children be taught about homosexual sex (imagine I got all the way through high school without hearing about sodomy…how did I survive?) demanding that marriage licenses no longer say “husband” and “wife” but “spouse” and “spouse.” A recent series of cases were on the same theme…homosexuals search out businesses that seem to be overtly Christian or in some way unfriendly to homosexual activities. They enter the business, make SURE the proprietor knows they are homosexual, demand services and when referred to a competing business instead, turn and SUE the business owner because he/she didn’t want to photograph their “wedding” or rent them the honeymoon suite in their three room B&B.
Did you consider responding to my question (repeated at least three times)? Why is it that homosexual activists seem to think their private sex lives must be shoved in our faces? Why do homosexual activists self identify FIRST as homosexuals? Is this the most important thing about you? Is this anyone’s business but yours? Would any heterosexual mayor open up every speech with “I’m the first mayor who openly speaks about my enjoyment of bondage!” ?
Tsk or someone who understands this phenomenon please explain? I thought it was so much classier when people kept their sex lives private.
Lisa
All the talk about the DSM isn’t so much a matter that “some people” want to think of homosexuality as a mental illness so much as it points out the lack of credibility when a mental illness can be voted in or out based on agendas and rather poorly done research.
I can certainly understand the desire to remove the stigma associated with a DSM classification although there are many many many sexual limitations or problems (for lack of a better word) that are in the DSM and are there not to be perjorative but simply to assist in addressing the problem. I don’t want to be that graphic on this forum but most relate to heterosexual sexual activity. After all the “D” is for diagnostic and is I thought intended to be helpful in dealing with the physical or psychological problems.
At any rate the issue for me is that removal from the DSM has been interpreted by homosexual activists as carte blanche to demand that their practices be considered as normal and accepted as heterosexual relations by married couples. This has frankly gone way too far with demands that homosexuals be identified as such in children’s text books, demanding that children be taught about homosexual sex (imagine I got all the way through high school without hearing about sodomy…how did I survive?) demanding that marriage licenses no longer say “husband” and “wife” but “spouse” and “spouse.” A recent series of cases were on the same theme…homosexuals search out businesses that seem to be overtly Christian or in some way unfriendly to homosexual activities. They enter the business, make SURE the proprietor knows they are homosexual, demand services and when referred to a competing business instead, turn and SUE the business owner because he/she didn’t want to photograph their “wedding” or rent them the honeymoon suite in their three room B&B.
Did you consider responding to my question (repeated at least three times)? Why is it that homosexual activists seem to think their private sex lives must be shoved in our faces? Why do homosexual activists self identify FIRST as homosexuals? Is this the most important thing about you? Is this anyone’s business but yours? Would any heterosexual mayor open up every speech with “I’m the first mayor who openly speaks about my enjoyment of bondage!” ?
Tsk or someone who understands this phenomenon please explain? I thought it was so much classier when people kept their sex lives private.
Lisa
H
Hadrianus
Guest
Deo Volente,
Nice use of the word "eisegesis." Not much in common usage .
T
tskrobacz
Guest
Those of use who were raised in religious contexts are often inclined to give a value judgement to everything and to ourselves. That’s the guilt middle-class folks have. We have it because we are alienated from our own souls. We’re standing over here, apart from ourselves , analyzing: Is it good, better, best? Is it a venial sin, is it mortal sin?
When we are in that stance of analyzing the self, we are a spectator and we are necessarily divided from our own soul. Maybe that’s why Jesus said " Do not judge and you will not be judged (Matt 7:1). Our judgments separate us, alienate us and, therefore, condemn us.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Perhaps.
However, I’ve just ordered a book, Homosexuality and the Catholic Church, by John F. Harvey, and in the few pages that I have read thus far on Amazon, Harvey cites research which suggests that homosexuality may result from a relationship deficit that occurs in childhood. For example, a boy who disassociates from his father (who may be abusive, alcoholic or whatever) seeks to regain approval through a relationship with another man.
Until I know more, my opinion is that there may be multiple causes of homosexuality, and I doubt that genetics alone account for the disorder.
R
ringil
Guest
Certainly, that is true. Like most psychological structures, I, and the majority of mental health professionals acknowledge that a homosexual inclination is a result of “nature and nurture.”
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
I agree with this. There is an agenda that is being followed.
For example, the percentage of the population that is gay or lesbian is estimated to be 2-5%. Yet, the television show, Glee, features four homosexual men, one lesbian woman, and one bisexual female out of roughly 35 regular characters - approximately 16% of the show’s “population”.
The dispropotionate representation of homosexuals may be due to the nature of the show which is the story of singers and dancers, but I can’t help but think that the writers, directors and producers of the show are seeking to advance a cause in the minds of the younger audience at whom the show is targetted.
L
LisaA
Guest
Tsk I have to laugh! You again rambled on and on, making presumptions about me and saying nothing.
“raised in religious context?” Tsk I was raised by ATHEISTS, militant anti-church parents. They were both PhD’s in biology, totally secular. As I started into this discussion I used ONLY my secular perspective. My parents who as I said had ZERO religious interest, guilt etc said that from a scientific point of view, homosexuality is by definition abnormal behavior. Any behavior that results in compromising an individual of a species or the species itself is in opposition to the completely secular perspective that it’s “survival of the fittest” so to speak. Homosexuality by definition is a procreative dead end. And regardless of the happy face provided in Will & Grace or Glee, results in a number of mental and physical health issues.
That some psychologists voted it out of the DSM is not relevant to the biological aspects which again have zero to do with Catholic guilt or religious teaching.
Again Tsk will you answer my question? Why do homosexuals so strongly self identify by a sexual practice? Do you want to know how I best enjoy sex? Is it relevant? Is it relevant to a five year old in the grade school down the street?
As to the “judge not lest ye be judged” go ahead, judge me by my homosexual activities…that’s what the passage is about. Not that one cannot judge. As my spiritual director said, we are hardwired to judge. What we must do though is to see the log in our own eye. No log, no judgement
Lisa
- Status