The disorder of homosexuality

[Viviphilia]

I appreciate your awareness that going too far, making too many demands might well spark a counter revolution so to speak. I certainly wish more homosexuals had this perception because I think it would benefit both sides of this issue.

Lisa

Thanks Lisa, I’m glad we’ve found some things to agree on. It would be nice if both sides of this issue could de-escalate.

Not to antagonize, but I wonder if perhaps your rose-colored glasses view of social attitudes towards homosexuals over the last half century is a reason why the gay liberation movement is ongoing. I’m sure that a lot of homosexuals who lived in that period would feel quite differently about it than you.

• V

 

[Viviphilia]

And by this reasoning we ought to stop declaring pedophilia as deviant and sinful. That way pedophiles don’t need to feel the torture.

I’m surprised you haven’t yet heard this yet, but adults get to make their own decisions about sex and children are not believed to be able to make their own decisions about sex. There is a very big difference between morally permitting homosexuality and morally permitting pedophilia. If you’re unable to discern such basic and obvious differences, perhaps you should do a bit more research on the topic before you post next time?

If you are genuinely concerned about pedophilia, instead of falsely attributing a weak slippery slope to homosexuals, why not try focusing on Wahhabist Muslims who are actively and unabashedly promoting child marriage in Saudi Arabia?

 

[PRmerger]

When I try to write with my left hand, it tends to disobey my brain and turns out quite poorly. So my left hand is disordered because I’m right handed?

It is part of the natural order, Viv, that one hand is dominant over the other.

 

[LisaA]

Hi again Lisa,

Did you say it was off topic when homosexuality was compared to pedophilia or incest? Why would you now say that it is off topic to compare homosexuality to left-handedness? Is it because you view homosexuality (not homosexual sex, just homosexuality itself) as a criminal thing, rather than just another variation of Human behavior? Left handedness certainly is on topic, since it is just about as disordered as homosexuality, which is to say not really disordered at all.

I didn’t think going into lefthandedness was really within the scope of the thread. I don’t recall any comparision of homosexuality to pedophilia or incest. I have never said anything about homosexuality being criminal. Your entire paragraph makes absolutely no sense in the context of this thread. As for your conclusion, was this the result of a shell game? I wouldn’t notice as you equate being left handed with homosexuality? Hey I’m a little sharper than that V.

Every bit of evidence, biological, theological, theoretical has supported the Church’s contention that that homosexuality is disordered. I thought Reap Reason’s comment that since one’s nature is being compromised by homosexuality, it is abnormal, disordered, whatever you want to call it. Someone is born male or female. They have two X chromosomes or an XY pair. Nothing will change that basic reality. But some born with an XY have SSA and thus cannot live in truth of their nature as males. Instead of being attracted toward females which is what God and biology both intended, the male is attracted to males.

This cannot be considered normal by any standard can it? You violate your nature. You end up with health problems, you have increased mental illness, drug addiction or suicide tendencies. Your relationships are procreational dead ends. How could this be intended?

This might be a case of eisegesis. I don’t recall saying that left handedness is abnormal, I merely said that people are normally right handed. I think it’s fairly normal for people to be left handed. If any handedness is abnormal, it would be ambidexterity, which occurs in only 1% of the population. But I wouldn’t like to call ambidexterity abnormal due to the stigma of the term. With respect to hair, I would consider albinism an abnormal case, red hair, not so much. As far as sexuality goes, pedophilia and incest are very rare if I’m not mistaken. Whereas homosexuality could occur in as much as 10% of the population, similar to the rates of left-handedness.

The 10% statistic is a legacy of the incredibly flawed, corrupt and debunked Kinsey Report. My understanding is that the rate is closer to 3%. Further SSA seems far less static than opposite sex attraction, particularly with females. The majority of “straights” have never been in a same sex relationship. OTOH homosexuals can be in same sex relationships, opposite sex relationships and then back to same sex relationships.

I think a lot of lesbians might feel that their sexuality is a “rather minor characteristic that does not compromise the life, health or survival” of them or their partner.

True the health risks are far greater with males although as noted earlier there has been a dramatic increase in oral cancers, oral STDs etc. Further while a lesbian may not have a problem with survival, a pair of lesbians cannot reproduce…thus the survival of the species would be compromised if SSA were a normal behavior.

Now many lesbians do conceive and bear children through AI but if they use techniques such as IVF they do have higher risk of certain cancers.

H
It’s a little unfair to be so dramatic about a phenomena which has only recently come out of status as morally taboo. One could just as easily say that it is not homosexuality itself, but rather society’s attitudes towards that condition which have caused so much crisis. I suppose we’ll know more as homosexuality becomes more normalized.

Regards,

• V

I don’t know what you mean by dramatic. I think this discussion has been quite measured. I don’t think homosexuality has or will ever be considered normal. It might be tolerated or even accepted as a lifestyle engaged in by some people but I don’t see this ever becoming mainstream. Again I maintain that one’s sex life is really not something to be shared with the public.

Lisa

 

[PRmerger]

I’m not sure I understand what you mean by “purpose of a left hand or right hand.”

Nor do I understand your question, “To what is the hand ordered?”

If you’d like to elaborate, feel free.

I answered it already, Viv.

 

[PRmerger]

I’m sorry but I don’t understand your questions, or why you are injecting a provocative racial comment into this discussion. Instead of focusing on me, perhaps you should focus on the thread topic.

With all due respect, Viv, I am quite capable of addressing comments on threads to both concepts: the poster and the general thread topic.

So my point is that you are quite indulgent with “thoughtful morality”, even, (you say), if it doesn’t agree with yours.

Except I would proffer that you are not quite so indulgent with “thoughtful morality” that really doesn’t agree with your morality. To wit: the “provocative racial” example I cited. You are not quite so indulgent with folks who propose something that is, well, odious. You would stand up and argue against this white supremacist’s hateful vituperations, no?

Why do you not allow Catholics to do the same?

 

[PRmerger]

I’m surprised you haven’t yet heard this yet,

but adults get to make their own decisions about sex and children are not believed to be able to make their own decisions about sex.

Is this what it’s all about? Consent? That’s why pedophilia is immoral because of…

the ability (or lack thereof) of a party to consent to it?

:bigyikes:

If you are genuinely concerned about pedophilia, instead of falsely attributing a weak slippery slope to homosexuals, why not try focusing on Wahhabist Muslims who are actively and unabashedly promoting child marriage in Saudi Arabia?

Again with the direction-making about what I can focus on. That’s a very peculiar argument to present, Viv. As if a thoughtful person can only focus on one particular idea at a time.

I wonder if you’re one of those people who has to eat her spaghetti first, then her ground beef, then her Ragu, then the onions. Must. Focus. On. Only. One. Thing. Ackkk! I accidentally ate an onion and a piece of meat!

 

[LisaA]

Thanks Lisa, I’m glad we’ve found some things to agree on. It would be nice if both sides of this issue could de-escalate.

Not to antagonize, but I wonder if perhaps your rose-colored glasses view of social attitudes towards homosexuals over the last half century is a reason why the gay liberation movement is ongoing. I’m sure that a lot of homosexuals who lived in that period would feel quite differently about it than you.

• V

No comment about my analysis of the impact of AIDS? I think this was a VERY big deal and heavily influenced attitudes toward homosexuals. Further because of the bathhouse scene, “Patient Zero” and the rampant and horrible spread of the disease, the subculture of very promiscuous homosexuals, casual sexual encounters, etc had a lot to do with an increase in hostility toward homosexuals. Prior to AIDS there was a lot more live and let live. Homosexuals were involved in a number of businesses and industries and as noted had large enclaves in certain cities where they were certainly able to live in peace.

I don’t know your experience and cannot second guess it but as I’ve said repeatedly I had substantial interaction with homosexuals during the 80s and up until this time. I just didn’t see the kind of violent or hateful reaction that you claim was all around. In fact the only time I’ve seen this is with respect to the Phelps family during a military funeral. I assure you their hateful words were completely rejected.

What I see now is that if we don’t want a gay agenda in children’s textbooks or demands that private businesses provide services against their religious objections or don’t want marriage redefined we are “haters.” That attitude is IMO without merit.

Lisa

 

[stewstew03]

Is this what it’s all about? Consent? That’s why pedophilia is immoral because of…

the ability (or lack thereof) of a party to consent to it?

If that’s true, then there should be no objection to the idea of sex workers who consent to bondage in exchange for the opportunity to live in the West…

 

[chris62]

One would expect the same incidence as any other rural area. Or do you disagree? Concentrations can be higher in big cities. In California, San Francisco ended up with a huge population because guys getting kicked out of the services for homosexuality during WW2, were discharged in SF. Rather than go home, and explain why they were home early, a lot of gay men stayed in SF. This lead to a gay subculture which attracted more gay people. So, that is an anomaly in population density.

I do disagree.
I would suggest that cities in today’s western culture have a higher homosexuality ratio than cities in other cultures of today.

 

[Viviphilia]

Someone is born male or female. They have two X chromosomes or an XY pair. Nothing will change that basic reality.

As a matter of fact, some people are born with 46,XXY genotype. They have two X chromosomes and a Y. There are lots of variations like that, but those people tend to be invisible to those who are able to take their sex and gender for granted.

I don’t think homosexuality has or will ever be considered normal.

I think homosexuality is a normal variant of sexual orientation, just as left-handedness is a normal variant of handedness, and red hair is a normal variant of hair color. I can see that you do not care for that view and I wonder if further discussion might prove fruitless.

My goal here has been to learn more about Catholic views of such topics, and I thank you for contributing to that goal.

• V

 

[Gaber]

I do disagree.
I would suggest that cities in today’s western culture have a higher homosexuality ratio than cities in other cultures of today.

I guess it seems that way because in other cultures, coming out might mean that death, or worse, ensues.

 

[chris62]

I guess it seems that way because in other cultures, coming out might mean that death, or worse, ensues.

I am unaware of a death penalty in any pacific island for being homosexual.

 

[Viviphilia]

What I see now is that if we don’t want a gay agenda in children’s textbooks or demands that private businesses provide services against their religious objections or don’t want marriage redefined we are “haters.”

As a matter of fact, I personally oppose that sort of political activism. You are falsely attributing to me a position which I have never maintained.

 

[Viviphilia]

Why do you not allow Catholics to do the same?

I’m not sure I understand you. Would you mind quoting whatever statement of mine you have issue with so that I can try to understand your complaint?

 

[PRmerger]

If that’s true, then there should be no objection to the idea of sex workers who consent to bondage in exchange for the opportunity to live in the West…

A most trenchant point.

 

[ReapReason]

I think homosexuality is a normal variant of sexual orientation, just as left-handedness is a normal variant of handedness, and red hair is a normal variant of hair color. I can see that you do not care for that view and I wonder if further discussion might prove fruitless.

My goal here has been to learn more about Catholic views of such topics, and I thank you for contributing to that goal.

• V

Well if everything we become is purely reducible to genes, and normality is measured by their functionality, then to be born with no arms and legs is normal. To develop attraction to children is normal. To develop attraction to animals is normal. There is no real objective value distinction between any potential biological or psychological condition. There is no such thing as abnormality. But that kind of thinking is a product of a naturalistic world-view. You have to begin with naturalism before you can infer those things.

Objectively speaking, Naturalism renders the concept of normality meaningless. Disorder is meaningless given a naturalist world-view. Everything just is what they are; just an expression of energy. If a naturalistic society puts limitations on human actions, it is only in the sense of what one perceives as pragmatically advantages in terms of social, material, and physical survival. In such a society It is no wonder that someone would think that homosexuality is okay.

In a naturalistic world, the gay man defines his sexuality purely in terms of his orientation because that is what he most values. Gender has the least value in terms of defining how a gay person expresses his sexuality (what he ought to do with it). It is to an extent a meaningless fact that we should happen to be men or women. In fact in a naturalistic world, it would not be abnormal at all for a person to completely change his or her gender identity to what ever he or she felt desirable, because the value of gender is purely subject to the whim of human fancy.

For a christian meta-physician however, value is objective, it is not subject to our whim. The value of sexuality is a given fact. Sexuality objectively begins with the fact that one is either a man or a women, and these things have an intrinsic meaning and value that we are not at liberty to change. We ought to value gender as fundamental to our sexuality and also as the defining factor of what we do with it, if we are to be true to the objective value of what it means to be men or women. Because the value of human sexuality begins with gender, the true value of orientation is only fulfilled insofar as it reflects the value of our gender identity. This is to say that orientation exists as an extension of our sexual identity and not as that which defines it fundamentally. Thus if one truly recognises the objective value of their gender identity, then insofar as they express themselves sexually they will only do that which expresses the value of their gender. If homosexual attraction does not reflect the value of ones gender, then homosexual attraction is by definition a disorder insofar as it impedes the natural end and value of being a man or a women. Homosexual behaviour degrades the complimentary nature of men and women.

Thus in the eyes of a Christian meta-physician, any man or women that acts upon homosexual attraction is immoral insofar as they are degrading their identity as men and women. They are not being true to the value of what they really are. Therefore homosexuality is considered to be a shameful act.

It is for this reason that homosexuality is impossible for Christianity; at least from a metaphysical stand-point.

 

[PRmerger]

I’m not sure I understand you. Would you mind quoting whatever statement of mine you have issue with so that I can try to understand your complaint?

Will do.

That is why I try my best to be respectful to Catholics, even when I am not respected. I’m opposed to hatred and ignorance,** not differences in thoughtful morality. **

• V

As I said, you are indulgent only with differences in morality that you consider to be “tolerable.” i.e. homosexuality.

But not with other differences in morality, such as white supremacy.

And here’s another quote of yours that supports my argument:

My own position is that I would like to see both sides calm down and try to respectfully agree to disagree.

Your proclamation that we should try to “agree to disagree” only applies to differences in morality that you find palatable.

You allow yourself to be the arbiter of what we can agree to disagree on, but not Catholics.

You may draw the line at white supremacy.
Catholics draw the line at homosexual behavior.

Why do you oppose this? Why must we agree to disagree?

Will you agree to disagree with a white supremacist?

 

[RobbyS]

As a matter of fact, some people are born with 46,XXY genotype. They have two X chromosomes and a Y. There are lots of variations like that, but those people tend to be invisible to those who are able to take their sex and gender for granted.

I think homosexuality is a normal variant of sexual orientation, just as left-handedness is a normal variant of handedness, and red hair is a normal variant of hair color. I can see that you do not care for that view and I wonder if further discussion might prove fruitless.

My goal here has been to learn more about Catholic views of such topics, and I thank you for contributing to that goal.

• V

And as benign, which what you are implying? May I suggest it is no more than a prejudice that you share with others, based I suppose on the notion that Christian morality is founded in unreason. BTAIM, it is probably as rare as red-headedness, because most homosexuals go both ways. Certainly the old Greeks did, and pederasty was strongly established in their culture. The Jews proscribed it, making it a capital offense, and practiced only by hellenized Jews, the sort that the Macabees revolted against.

 

[RobbyS]

Well if everything we become is purely reducible to genes, and normality is measured by their functionality, then to be born with no arms and legs is normal. To develop attraction to children is normal. To develop attraction to animals is normal. There is no real objective value distinction between any potential biological or psychological condition. There is no such thing as abnormality. But that kind of thinking is a product of a naturalistic world-view. You have to begin with naturalism before you can infer those things.

Objectively speaking, Naturalism renders the concept of normality meaningless. Disorder is meaningless given a naturalist world-view. Everything just is what they are; just an expression of energy. If a naturalistic society puts limitations on human actions, it is only in the sense of what one perceives as pragmatically advantages in terms of social, material, and physical survival. In such a society It is no wonder that someone would think that homosexuality is okay.

In a naturalistic world, the gay man defines his sexuality purely in terms of his orientation because that is what he most values. Gender has the least value in terms of defining how a gay person expresses his sexuality (what he ought to do with it). It is to an extent a meaningless fact that we should happen to be men or women. In fact in a naturalistic world, it would not be abnormal at all for a person to completely change his or her gender identity to what ever he or she felt desirable, because the value of gender is purely subject to the whim of human fancy.

For a christian meta-physician however, value is objective, it is not subject to our whim. The value of sexuality is a given fact. Sexuality objectively begins with the fact that one is either a man or a women, and these things have an intrinsic meaning and value that we are not at liberty to change. We ought to value gender as fundamental to our sexuality and also as the defining factor of what we do with it, if we are to be true to the objective value of what it means to be men or women. Because the value of human sexuality begins with gender, the true value of orientation is only fulfilled insofar as it reflects the value of our gender identity. This is to say that orientation exists as an extension of our sexual identity and not as that which defines it fundamentally. Thus if one truly recognises the objective value of their gender identity, then insofar as they express themselves sexually they will only do that which expresses the value of their gender. If homosexual attraction does not reflect the value of ones gender, then homosexual attraction is by definition a disorder insofar as it impedes the natural end and value of being a man or a women. Homosexual behaviour degrades the complimentary nature of men and women.

Thus in the eyes of a Christian meta-physician, any man or women that acts upon homosexual attraction is immoral insofar as they are degrading their identity as men and women. They are not being true to the value of what they really are. Therefore homosexuality is considered to be a shameful act.

It is for this reason that homosexuality is impossible for Christianity; at least from a metaphysical stand-point.

From an historical viewpoint also. Christians followed Jewish morality, the difference between them and the several schools of the pharisees being relativly little. Christianity is an incarnational faith, viewing the creation as a good thing, unlike the gnostics.