The disorder of homosexuality

[LisaA]

Fix,

Notice that those that want to argue a point of view speak in generalities and not specifics. The only time you see specifics is when as in my case it is directed by emotion filled objection.

Generalizations are not a way to communicate.

You are specific, direct and answer with no doubt as to the meaning of what you say.

There is a difference in forms of communication. When you get no specifics and you are dealing with generalizations you are dealing with disordered thoughts.

It’s much easier to address a completely irrelevant point, meander down another rabbit trail or talk in circles than to present a position and what backs it up (hopefully a few facts). Thanks for weighing in

Lisa

 

[CopticChristian]

It’s much easier to address a completely irrelevant point, meander down another rabbit trail or talk in circles than to present a position and what backs it up (hopefully a few facts). Thanks for weighing in

Lisa

Lisa,

Generalizations of this sort are seen in Schizophrenics and adolescents. Adults with this type of thinking mirror the thinking of Shchizphrenics but they grow out of it.

Some adults remain with the immature mind of an adolescent.

I have 5 children and 4 grandchildren and one on the way. In my experience with the child throwing a tantrum, yielding frustration, the child knows that they are frustrating. The solution is to ignore the child and they then realize that they are alone in their frustration and then they contemplate change.

Continuing this dialogue getting nowhere would lead me to believe that if you stop posting then they will be left alone to recognize their inability to dialogue successfuly, contemplate, and hopefully change… There is another post “Disordered Homosexuality and Truth” that is consistent with Catholic Answers aliging homosexualilty and Vertitatis Splendor, as you recall my knowledge was miniscule.

This is my take on this…

 

[fix]

Who said anything about contradicting Church teaching…? I simply stated they have added clarity - teachings, like the parables, if profoundly true often have layers of meaning that are not immediately obvious if viewed from outside a lived experience. In fact profound truths often include their opposites as well.

How can truth contradict truth? It really is not possible. Lived experience only matters if the experience conforms to the moral law.

 

[fix]

Fix,

Notice that those that want to argue a point of view speak in generalities and not specifics. The only time you see specifics is when as in my case it is directed by emotion filled objection.

Generalizations are not a way to communicate.

You are specific, direct and answer with no doubt as to the meaning of what you say.

There is a difference in forms of communication. When you get no specifics and you are dealing with generalizations you are dealing with disordered thoughts.

Yes, discursive talk is a way to keep moving the target so as not to have to defend one’s position clearly.

I want to know why some moral topics are allowed to be seen in this nebulous, gray way that cannot be pinned down and other topics are allowed to be viewed as black and white. What is the standard?

 

[CopticChristian]

Yes, discursive talk is a way to keep moving the target so as not to have to defend one’s position clearly.

I want to know why some moral topics are allowed to be seen in this nebulous, gray way that cannot be pinned down and other topics are allowed to be viewed as black and white. What is the standard?

The standard is when you sway and view it my way. This is adolescent thinking. My way or the highway…no pinning down until you accept my view and as you cave in to my protesting then we can have peace.

In the 60’s Hewey Newton as you recall said something like this…"we demand 5 things and when they give in to that we demand 5 more and then when they concede to that we demand 5 more…until we get our way…the end point and the standard is to establish a standard of their own…The black and white is concession to that point of view.

This posting is about the Catholic Church saying that Homosexuality is disordered…this isn’t going to change with any law, any psychiatrist, any gay protesting…unless you believe that the Catechism is going to be pulled off the shelf and rewritten…

How long did it take to get the Catechism we have today?

The disorder of homosexuality as the Church states is sinful in action…that is it, that is the standard.

 

[Hadrianus]

Grace & Peace!

Coptic, the movie was Amadeus–the context was the Emperor of Austria (depicted as a poor musician, unable to truly understand music) exchanging words with Mozart on The Marriage of Figaro. The words, in the film, are supplied by one of the Emperor’s ministers who suggests that the opera contains, “too many notes.” Mozart is rightly flummoxed, responding that there were neither more nor less notes than the piece required. I don’t know that this reference does your point any favors, Coptic, but I understand what you’re getting at.

I would say–I used as many words as I thought it would take to show you what I meant in the post of fewer words which you completely misunderstood. I did not think that verbal economy would be useful to you (as it did not appear to be useful to you before in the other post). If you find other people consistently using many words to get something across to you, it’s not necessarily because they’re trying to justify something you don’t agree with–more than likely, they suspect that they need all those words in order to explain themselves. And even then…

I wish you all good things in your endeavors and the grace to do the work which God has called you to do.

I like the word eisegesis. It happens far more often than we’re willing to admit, particularly on the interwebs!

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

Oh, eisegesis, is the normal means of communication on the internet, it’s just that the term isn’t very common.

 

[spencelo]

I heard a priest recently explain that homosexuality is a disorder, like drug addiction, and I agreed with him.
Some people fall into drug addiction because their make-up is such that just a little bit of some drug gets them hooked easily.
They have a propensity in their system to need more and more.
If they lived in a different culture they would not be a drug addict.
I think homosexuality is the same.
Some people may have a slight SSA, and in different cultures it may not rise into a problem. They may suppress that feeling and instead meet a woman and marry and have kids etc. and be perfectly happy.
But in today’s culture, they get hooked into the SSA lifestyle that many including the media tell them is OK, and that it is a natural thing that they are born with, and they get hooked into the homosexual lifestyle.
If the same person lived in a quiet pacific island somewhere, or at a different time in history, then they wouldn’t have a SSA.
Hence the influx of homosexuality at the moment in our particular culture.
I don’t think this applies to all homosexuals, but I think it would apply to many.

How are you using the term “disorder?” Are you using it in the sense defined in the DSM IV? If so, it is very far from clear why you think homosexuality is a “disorder” in that sense.

 

[LisaA]

How are you using the term “disorder?” Are you using it in the sense defined in the DSM IV? If so, it is very far from clear why you think homosexuality is a “disorder” in that sense.

Take a trip back through the posts. This has been discussed at length. The term disorder is with respect to the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Lisa

 

[spencelo]

Take a trip back through the posts. This has been discussed at length. The term disorder is with respect to the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Lisa

Ah, thanks for the clarification! But in that case, the Catholic definition of “disorder” has no traction with the rest of society. Homosexuality is viewed as a disorder because, in the opinion of some, it is immoral.

 

[LisaA]

Ah, thanks for the clarification! But in the case, the Catholic definition of “disorder” has no traction with the rest of society. Homosexuality is viewed as a disorder because, in the opinion of some, it is immoral.

No it is considered a disorder from a biological point of view because it both compromises individuals of a species and because it is by definition, a procreative dead end, also compromises the species’ survival. In biology, the first objective is survival and the second is to procreate. Anything in opposition to those two objectives is by definition self destructive and abnormal.

The Catechism uses the term for similar reasons, because practice of homosexuality is by definition closed to life and because homosexuals engaged in homosexual sex are violating the teaching against adultery (in the case where one or both are married) or fornication.

Again many aspects of this phenomenon have already been discussed. You obviously have an agenda. Do you have any facts?

LIsa

 

[spencelo]

No it is considered a disorder from a biological point of view because it both compromises individuals of a species and because it is by definition, a procreative dead end, also compromises the species’ survival. In biology, the first objective is survival and the second is to procreate. Anything in opposition to those two objectives is by definition self destructive and abnormal.

Let’s start with your second claim first – that homosexuality is a disorder because it compromises species survival. And by “survival” I assume you mean “genetic survival.” Do you have any evidence at all that we humans aren’t reproducing at a fast enough rate for genetic survival? Yes or no? If no, then it’s hard to understand how homosexuality is compromising anything.

Regarding your first claim, you’re going to have to clarify it for me. Are you saying that homosexuality is a disorder because it compromises individual survival? What do you mean by “survival” here? Are you saying that homosexuality is something life-threatening to homosexuals? If so, I’d like to see evidence for that incredible claim. If not, are you merely saying that individual homosexuals can’t procreate so their genes won’t survive to the next generation? If so, it is wrong on two fronts: homosexuals can procreate (via artificial insemination, etc) and I see nothing wrong with not procreating. What goes against biology isn’t necessarily immoral.

homosexuals engaged in homosexual sex are violating the teaching against adultery (in the case where one or both are married) or fornication.

Really? I thought adultery meant cheating on your spouse. Same-sex couples in committed, monogamous relationships aren’t adulterers in that sense.

Again many aspects of this phenomenon have already been discussed. You obviously have an agenda.

Guilty as charged! My “agenda” here is to debate, learn and inform. Hope that’s okay with you

 

[LisaA]

Let’s start with your second claim first – that homosexuality is a disorder because it compromises species survival. And by “survival” I assume you mean “genetic survival.” Do you have any evidence at all that we humans aren’t reproducing at a fast enough rate for genetic survival? Yes or no? If no, then it’s hard to understand how homosexuality is compromising anything.

Regarding your first claim, you’re going to have to clarify it for me. Are you saying that homosexuality is a disorder because it compromises individual survival? What do you mean by “survival” here? Are you saying that homosexuality is something life-threatening to homosexuals? If so, I’d like to see evidence for that incredible claim. If not, are you merely saying that individual homosexuals can’t procreate so their genes won’t survive to the next generation? If so, it is wrong on two fronts: homosexuals can procreate (via artificial insemination, etc) and I see nothing wrong with not procreating. What goes against biology isn’t necessarily immoral.

Really? I thought adultery meant cheating on your spouse. Same-sex couples in committed, monogamous relationships aren’t adulterers in that sense.

Guilty as charged! My “agenda” here is to debate, learn and inform. Hope that’s okay with you

You are certainly mixing things up. Biology doesn’t make moral claims but natural law is fully supported by biology. So to say going against biology isn’t immoral is silly. Biology doesn’t make moral judgements.

Homosexual activity has detrimental health consequences. Again, let’s quit going over well plowed turf. You can find all of your questions addressed in previous posts.

Homosexuals (note the plural) cannot reproduce within their same sex pairing. So it fails both the biological and the Catholic “test” for normality.

Again take the time to go back to see what has already been discussed. Your agenda is clear and I suspect you have no interest in learning anything or you would already have read the prior posts.

Lisa

 

[spencelo]

You are certainly mixing things up. Biology doesn’t make moral claims but natural law is fully supported by biology. So to say going against biology isn’t immoral is silly. Biology doesn’t make moral judgements.

Homosexual activity has detrimental health consequences. Again, let’s quit going over well plowed turf. You can find all of your questions addressed in previous posts.

Homosexuals (note the plural) cannot reproduce within their same sex pairing. So it fails both the biological and the Catholic “test” for normality.

Again take the time to go back to see what has already been discussed. Your agenda is clear and I suspect you have no interest in learning anything or you would already have read the prior posts.

Lisa

I stand by my previous substantive reply, and if you ever care to address it, I’m willing to engage. I made clear what my “agenda” is.

 

[CopticChristian]

Let’s start with your second claim first – that homosexuality is a disorder because it compromises species survival. And by “survival” I assume you mean “genetic survival.” Do you have any evidence at all that we humans aren’t reproducing at a fast enough rate for genetic survival? Yes or no? If no, then it’s hard to understand how homosexuality is compromising anything.

Regarding your first claim, you’re going to have to clarify it for me. Are you saying that homosexuality is a disorder because it compromises individual survival? What do you mean by “survival” here? Are you saying that homosexuality is something life-threatening to homosexuals? If so, I’d like to see evidence for that incredible claim. If not, are you merely saying that individual homosexuals can’t procreate so their genes won’t survive to the next generation? If so, it is wrong on two fronts: homosexuals can procreate (via artificial insemination, etc) and I see nothing wrong with not procreating. What goes against biology isn’t necessarily immoral.

Really? I thought adultery meant cheating on your spouse. Same-sex couples in committed, monogamous relationships aren’t adulterers in that sense.

Guilty as charged! My “agenda” here is to debate, learn and inform. Hope that’s okay with you

Spence,

Spend some time learning.

Spend some time informing. I suggest you spend about 3 posts informing whatever it is you want anyone to know and then let us know when you have finished.

You are a speck in the sea of the controversy. Vatican City, The OHCAC, in the Catechism states that homosexuality is “a disorder”…you don’t like it…well then don’t be Catholic…choose to vote with your feet. The Catechism does and will continue to say it is diordered based on religous beliefs…do you really think you can tackle religous beliefs and impose your will? Good Luck.

Vatican City is under attack by gays because of opposition to the stance of the OHCAC as it regards legalizing SSM and the like.

Here is the rub. The minority of homosexuals want a voice that demands equal rights, equal justice, and want to silence a small country like Vatican City in the UN because it does not promote their agenda…that vote lost 416-1…so far you lose…

Now, I have informed…let me see you inform…

 

[LisaA]

I stand by my previous substantive reply, and if you ever care to address it, I’m willing to engage. I made clear what my “agenda” is.

If you cared to address the topic you would have read the prior posts where all of your issues and questions have been discussed. I don’t bother recreating the wheel.

Lisa

 

[spencelo]

If you cared to address the topic you would have read the prior posts where all of your issues and questions have been discussed. I don’t bother recreating the wheel.

Lisa

See here’s my problem – I don’t believe they have been addressed, despite your say-so. So, if I took the time to read 20+ pages of material only to discover that my questions haven’t been addressed, then I’m going to be very disappointed! I don’t wish to take that chance.

But I am willing to “recreate the wheel” with you, if you’re willing. If not, I’ll just have to seek out new battles!

 

[CopticChristian]

See here’s my problem – I don’t believe they have been addressed, despite your say-so. So, if I took the time to read 20+ pages of material only to discover that my questions haven’t been addressed, then I’m going to be very disappointed! I don’t wish to take that chance.

But I am willing to “recreate the wheel” with you, if you’re willing. If not, I’ll just have to seek out new battles!

Spence,

try this…

I asked this and want to know that…etc

I do that all the time…if you go back and review my questions to you they were formulated

y/n…if I can do it you can…

 

[Elizabeth502]

if I took the time to read 20+ pages of material only to discover that my questions haven’t been addressed, then I’m going to be very disappointed! I don’t wish to take that chance.

Then, if you don’t respect the time others have already put into answering your questions ahead of your asking them, don’t expect those same people – or even new joiners – to respect your viewpoints and assertions. Discussions involve give as well as take.

Not only have your questions been answered on this thread, they have been answered on multiple previous CAF threads, available to you by rejecting intellectual laziness and embracing intellectual vigor, with the help of tools like Search options.

 

[spencelo]

Then, if you don’t respect the time others have already put into answering your questions ahead of your asking them, don’t expect those same people – or even new joiners – to respect your viewpoints and assertions. Discussions involve give as well as take.

Except again, I don’t believe my questions have been answered – but feel free to prove me wrong. Btw, I don’t ask people to “respect” my viewpoints and assertions, but if anyone wishes to challenge them, I’d be happy to consider their arguments (or nonarguments).

Not only have your questions been answered on this thread, they have been answered on multiple previous CAF threads, available to you by rejecting intellectual laziness and embracing intellectual vigor, with the help of tools like Search options.

Prove me wrong! If you don’t wish to make the effort, I’ll understand.

 

[fix]

Ah, thanks for the clarification! But in that case, the Catholic definition of “disorder” has no traction with the rest of society. Homosexuality is viewed as a disorder because, in the opinion of some, it is immoral.

The Church uses that term in a philosophical way. The attraction is not ordered toward the good. Now, whether the few, or many, accept this truth in no way changes it.