The disorder of homosexuality

[Petersmate]

Much opinion has been expressed here, and I can simply say much the same as what I said in post #2. With 2 gay children and their mentally ill mother personal experience tells me that homosexuality is a mental illness.

Not an opinion just an observation.

 

[LisaA]

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.

You need to quit taking every criticism of the “gay agenda” as a PERSONAL attack. You have been very clear that you oppose the more radical elements and tactics. That’s commendable as many cannot see beyond their own (or their group’s) self interest to understand that homosexuals who don’t act in a civilized manner, for example who make obscene gestures toward a former president do more to hurt their cause than help it.

I also thought I had made clear that my objection to the whole “gay agenda” is, as one poster put it, the demand that we normalize a behavior that biologically, theologically, historically and traditionally has been considered abnormal, disordered or whatever term you would like to use. ReapReason has posted several times regarding one’s intrinsic nature as male or female (and please do not start using some remote and extremely rare situation as somehow invalidating the usual XX or XY structure of gender). There is simply nothing you or anyone has said that would lead me to conclude that homosexuality is simply a different variety of otherwise normal sexual relations. It’s not. Wishing doesn’t make it so.

That being said, I think the vast majority, if not all of those posting from a Catholic perspective have emphasized that having SSA is not the issue but acting on it. In addition everyone that I recall posting has emphasized that we are all children of God, all sinners and should demonstrate compassion and charity.

Again it seems to me that your belief is like many supporting a homosexual normalization cause. You think that homosexual sexual activity should be completely acceptable as equivalent to married sexual expression, taught to our children, discussed in public, and that marriage should be redefined as any two people who want to call their relationship a marriage (that of course leads to the question why must this be limited to two?).

Anyone who doesn’t share this belief is by definition a “hater” or a homophobe.

I’d appreciate your response to my multiple postings on what I object to on the “gay rights” causes that are now before the public.

Lisa

 

[LisaA]

And yet, there has been discrimination in employment, housing, provision of medical services, military eligibility, etc… How overt discriminatory behavior has been may have been related to location. I would expect a gay couple to have a very different experience on the streets of New York, as opposed to being newly arrived at a small rural town.

My uncle is gay. He tells me that the first time he went into a gay bar, at the age of 18, the vice squad came through and required ID from each person in the bar. They then wrote down their names in notebooks to add to their records as known homosexuals. This sort of behavior is what sparked the Stonewall riots. It was the night that Judy Garland had died. The bar was frequented by drag queens. The police came to take ID’s. The drag queens had had enough of the practice, and they rioted.

As an aside, someone pointed out to me how much courage it took in the past to be openly homosexual. There was a lot of discrimination. The people who were not discriminated against so much where the ones who could pass as straight. Personally, I would think twice about putting on a dress, fishnets and heels to go to the market (I’m male). Particularly a few decades ago, that would take some courage.

Epan I have never said there was never or even now there are no examples of discrimination. However if you read the statement I specified that I haven’t seen the kind of violent and hateful acts that V seemed to infer were commonplace even today. Further the incidents you mentioned took place DECADES ago. Just as there was overt racism in our past, there was clearly some pretty digraceful targeting of homosexuals and in fact laws on the books allowing policemen to harrass or even arrest homosexuals. OK let’s not forget the past and vow not to repeat it.

OTOH I think we’ve swung too far in the opposite direction. I am very opposed to the removal of DADT in the military. But FWIW not because of the homosexual aspects. I would also be opposed to shared sex showers or housing. Having had significant personal contact with many troops (and their families) the military does not condone ANY sexual activity and tries very hard to acknowledge that a group of young people, in a stressful situation, are going to experience a lot of sexual tension, temptation and even harrassment. Therefore to simply ignore the sex drive of young males particularly and toss them into a situation where this becomes even more tense, is not beneficial to the individual’s career, their buddies’ safety or our military. I believe this was a terrible P.C. decision made without considering the ramificaitions and unintended consequences. So I’m all for discriminiation in military housing…for everyone.

Also I am not under the illusion that there are no homosexuals in the military. There are. And if they keep their sex lives private just as heterosexuals are to keep their sex lives private, there would not be a problem. To make this a public statement is IMO a real mistake.

Sorry to derail the thread but the word discrimination has become perjorative and sometimes is not a negative but a necessary act.

As to the Christopher Street and Stonewall incidents, no excuse at all. That was disgusting and as noted, is a shame of our past, not our future

Lisa

 

[Viviphilia]

I also thought I had made clear that my objection to the whole “gay agenda” is, as one poster put it, the demand that we normalize a behavior that biologically, theologically, historically and traditionally has been considered abnormal, disordered or whatever term you would like to use.

Hi Lisa,

The reason I originally wanted to talk to you was because you had made several comments about biology. I responded to your comments, and I don’t think you’ve really responded in turn. Instead, you’ve started going into the politics of the issue and lumping me in with the dreaded members of the “gay agenda,” as if these were two opposing football teams and one must be on either side. You’ve once again brought up biology in relation to homosexuality. I’d ask you more about those comments, but I fear it would be pointless.

There is simply nothing you or anyone has said that would lead me to conclude that homosexuality is simply a different variety of otherwise normal sexual relations. It’s not. Wishing doesn’t make it so.

Wishing? Really? I’d like to see an argument which refutes my points without relying on an invincible ignorance fallacy.

Again it seems to me that your belief is like many supporting a homosexual normalization cause. You think that homosexual sexual activity should be completely acceptable as equivalent to married sexual expression, taught to our children, discussed in public, and that marriage should be redefined as any two people who want to call their relationship a marriage (that of course leads to the question why must this be limited to two?).

Anyone who doesn’t share this belief is by definition a “hater” or a homophobe.

I’d appreciate your response to my multiple postings on what I object to on the “gay rights” causes that are now before the public.

Lisa, I have responded, several times. I am not a member of the dreaded “gay agenda.” You appear to want me to speak for them and I told you I don’t. You keep telling me what I think and putting words I never said in quotations. Now you’ve introduced the word “homophobe” as if I have used that word.

When you get done talking with your strawman, I hope you’ll talk to me.

• V

 

[LisaA]

Hi Lisa,

The reason I originally wanted to talk to you was because you had made several comments about biology. I responded to your comments, and I don’t think you’ve really responded in turn. Instead, you’ve started going into the politics of the issue and lumping me in with the dreaded members of the “gay agenda,” as if these were two opposing football teams and one must be on either side. You’ve once again brought up biology in relation to homosexuality. I’d ask you more about those comments, but I fear it would be pointless.

Wishing? Really? I’d like to see an argument which refutes my points without relying on an invincible ignorance fallacy.

Lisa, I have responded, several times. I am not a member of the dreaded “gay agenda.” You appear to want me to speak for them and I told you I don’t. You keep telling me what I think and putting words I never said in quotations. Now you’ve introduced the word “homophobe” as if I have used that word.

When you get done talking with your strawman, I hope you’ll talk to me.

• V

It sounds like you haven’t read the multiple posts by me and others related to biology. What would be the point of repeating them? You haven’t read or acknowledged the mulitple posts that referred to the biological, historical, theological and traditional objections to homosexual sex. This has been posted over and over and over. You just ignore the answer, claim you’ve been ignored and then ask the same question.

I’m sorry for the mixed paragraph regarding haters and homophobes. I agree you have not called anyone a homophobe.

You say you aren’t of the “gay agenda” crowd but you continue to maintain that homosexuality is as normal as heterosexuality and you have NEVER responded regarding your opinion of the demands of homosexuals to have their sexual proclivities included in children’s textbooks, same sex"marriage," that private businesses provide services that are against their religious traditions etc. THIS is where I say homosexuals have gone too far. I am happy for live and let live. I don’t want to be involved in anyone’s sexual choices or activities and I don’t want them part of the public sphere. DADT is a great approach in my opinion.

Lisa

 

[Tolerance6]

I do not believe that homosexuality is a disorder, just a different way of life from you or me. If we all want to be good people, whether we are Christians or belong to some other faith, we must learn to tolerate everyone, not just those who agree with our customs. Love should be seen as the highest blessing from God, and if some people wish to love a member of the same sex, than so be it. Shunning people who are different from us has never benifitted society in history; for there is only one race: the human race. If everyone accepted that, I believe the world would be a much better place. Learn to tolerate others, as Jesus taught.

 

[fix]

I do not believe that homosexuality is a disorder, just a different way of life from you or me. If we all want to be good people, whether we are Christians or belong to some other faith, we must learn to tolerate everyone, not just those who agree with our customs. Love should be seen as the highest blessing from God, and if some people wish to love a member of the same sex, than so be it. Shunning people who are different from us has never benifitted society in history; for there is only one race: the human race. If everyone accepted that, I believe the world would be a much better place. Learn to tolerate others, as Jesus taught.

If a father and son want to marry each other because they claim love is that a blessing?

 

[ReapReason]

If a father and son want to marry each other because they claim love is that a blessing?

 

[Gaber]

If a father and son want to marry each other because they claim love is that a blessing?

This is a tactic befitting the level of “reasoning” by the anti gay faction here: put up a ridiculous straw man and distribute it over the whole question. Good going, Fix. I guess for you it’s in. I’m embarrassed for you, as you seem not capable of doing that for yourself.

 

[ReapReason]

This is a tactic befitting the level of “reasoning” by the anti gay faction here: put up a ridiculous straw man and distribute it over the whole question. Good going, Fix. I guess for you it’s in. I’m embarrassed for you, as you seem not capable of doing that for yourself.

You didn’t answer the question Gaber.

The point is, just because love is involved does not mean its okay to do something. Your argument is fallacious.

 

[Gaber]

You didn’t answer the question Gaber.

The point is, just because love is involved does not mean its okay to do something. Your argument is fallacious.

So you understand the totality of Love, its meaning, and scope? You say Love is just “involved?” So are we talking about the chicken or the pig here in the bacon and eggs of life? The chicken was involved, but the pig was committed. Is love one or both? Or something greater?

 

[CopticChristian]

I do not believe that homosexuality is a disorder, just a different way of life from you or me. **If we all want to be good people, whether we are Christians or belong to some other faith, we must learn to tolerate everyone, not just those who agree with our customs. Love **should be seen as the highest blessing from God, and if some people wish to love a member of the same sex, than so be it. Shunning people who are different from us has never benifitted society in history; for there is only one race: the human race. If everyone accepted that, I believe the world would be a much better place. Learn to tolerate others, as Jesus taught.

Tolerance,

This is Catholic Answers, what you believe is not relevant to the teachings of the OHCAC…

Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that **“homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”**142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

If you have a problem with this, read your Bible, take it to the Church

You want to be good. Read your bible, only God is good. On your own you can do nothing. How do you propose that people are good?

Define your understanding of Love. Faith, Hope and Love…Love is the greatest and Love endures forever…only one thing endures forever, without beginning and without end…what might that be?

 

[Gaber]

…This is Catholic Answers, what you believe is not relevant to the teachings of the OHCAC…
…

So tell us, why is the OHACAC relevant to your view? How did it userp the position of your ability to gather information and calculate? How did you learn about the OHACAC? Were your teachers about the OHACAC absolutely and completely reliable? Theirs, Down the line, with no adjustments, additions, deletions, misinterpretations, mistranslations, deviations in intention or meaning, reasoning of Divine premises accurately understood by means of human intellect, cultural norms applcable in nuance and colloquialism, semantics, experiential competency in hig mysticism, etc, etc, etc all the way back? How do you account for Jesus’ teaching fitting the non dualist model as well? Are you sure that the shenanigans of the third century didn’t in the least bit color things? the additions, deletions, and closed canon of the Bible, is that ans its interpretation absolutely inerrantly so in the hands of men, given that even the purest message from the other side has yet to be filtered by a mind chock full of bronze age and earlier paradigms? Where do you yourself fit in here, other than as a sheeple?

I myself think that the Church very well has a body of Teaching that can lead one to an experience of Truth. The Saints, certain ones much more than others, point to that clearly. But on here, CC, I get far more of a feeling of unexamined rah rah for our team than any results of sincere inquiry and the resultant insights.

I may be way wrong, but that is what I get. And I get that from the legalistic approach of quoting lines and verses of doctrine, most usually supporting what comes off to me as an emotional investment, not a clear functioning of the Love that birthed our Faith. It’s all intellections and extrapolations covering up origins and lawyered up as “proofs”’ of what God has to say about something that Jesus never mentioned.

Sorry, I think y’all protest too much.

 

[fix]

This is a tactic befitting the level of “reasoning” by the anti gay faction here: put up a ridiculous straw man and distribute it over the whole question. Good going, Fix. I guess for you it’s in. I’m embarrassed for you, as you seem not capable of doing that for yourself.

The reasoning is correct. It points out the absurdity of your position.

 

[fix]

You didn’t answer the question Gaber.

The point is, just because love is involved does not mean its okay to do something. Your argument is fallacious.

How can he answer it? The question answers itself .
He just dose not like the answer.

 

[CopticChristian]

So tell us, why is the OHACAC relevant to your view? How did it userp the position of your ability to gather information and calculate? How did you learn about the OHACAC? **Were your teachers about the OHACAC absolutely and completely reliable? **Theirs, Down the line, with no adjustments, additions, deletions, misinterpretations, mistranslations, deviations in intention or meaning, reasoning of Divine premises accurately understood by means of human intellect, cultural norms applcable in nuance and colloquialism, semantics, experiential competency in hig mysticism, etc, etc, etc all the way back? How do you account for Jesus’ teaching fitting the non dualist model as well? Are you sure that the shenanigans of the third century didn’t in the least bit color things? the additions, deletions, and closed canon of the Bible, is that ans its interpretation absolutely inerrantly so in the hands of men, given that even the purest message from the other side has yet to be filtered by a mind chock full of bronze age and earlier paradigms? **Where do you yourself fit in here, other than as a sheeple? **I myself think that the Church very well has a body of Teaching that can lead one to an experience of Truth. The Saints, certain ones much more than others, point to that clearly. But on here, CC, I get far more of a feeling of unexamined rah rah for our team than any results of sincere inquiry and the resultant insights.

I may be way wrong, but that is what I get. And I get that from the legalistic approach of quoting lines and verses of doctrine, most usually supporting what comes off to me as an emotional investment, not a clear functioning of the Love that birthed our Faith. It’s all intellections and extrapolations covering up origins and lawyered up as “proofs”’ of what God has to say about something that Jesus never mentioned.
Sorry, I think y’all protest too much.

Mr. Dinero, Ronin that states Catholic, Ronin,

The OHCAC is relevant to my view because I am Catholic and I am posting on a forum called Catholic Answers.

I was fortunate to be born into the Catholic Church and have a family that was Catholic. Nothing was usurped. I voluntarily agreed to participate as I grew. John Paul II would call this a participatory theonomy.

The teachers of the OHCAC are completely reliable.

I am convinced that there was a 3rd Century and it appears that you show your prejudice in suggesting that Jesus is not the same yesterday, today and tommorrow as the Church is the Body of Christ. Thank you for the reveal. I suggest you remove the name Catholic from your designation.

The issue of the Protestant removal of the Deuterocanonicals, closing of the canon and the other side message is another reveal. Thank you for the insight.

You have not studied the Bible and appear to lack Christian understanding. Thank you again for the insight for don’t you know that the letter to the Romans points out that nothing will seperate us from the love of God…as we are sheep to be slaughtered all the day long. You are suspect in your Christian beliefs and understanding.

You are correct. You are wrong. You do not understand being Catholic and again I suggest you remove the notion of Catholic from your designation as your opinions denigrate the name I cherish.

I believe I protest to little.

 

[Jimmygill88]

I have been a Catholic all my life (50 years) and I am afraid to say that it is an unpalatable truth that nothing gets us as worked up as any subject involving matters '‘south of the waistline’ (for those of us still lucky enough to have one). Deeply immature

 

[Gaber]

I have been a Catholic all my life (50 years) and I am afraid to say that it is an unpalatable truth that nothing gets us as worked up as any subject involving matters '‘south of the waistline’ (for those of us still lucky enough to have one). Deeply immature

No kidding, Jimmygill88. Thanks. Visiting some of the threads that have to do with sex, marriage, dating, and masturbation are deeply disturbing. Fear, guilt, and loathing appear to be rampant there, just like God wants.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Mr. Dinero, Ronin that states Catholic, Ronin,

The OHCAC is relevant to my view because I am Catholic and I am posting on a forum called Catholic Answers.

I was fortunate to be born into the Catholic Church and have a family that was Catholic. Nothing was usurped. I voluntarily agreed to participate as I grew. John Paul II would call this a participatory theonomy.

The teachers of the OHCAC are completely reliable.

I am convinced that there was a 3rd Century and it appears that you show your prejudice in suggesting that Jesus is not the same yesterday, today and tommorrow as the Church is the Body of Christ. Thank you for the reveal. I suggest you remove the name Catholic from your designation.

The issue of the Protestant removal of the Deuterocanonicals, closing of the canon and the other side message is another reveal. Thank you for the insight.

You have not studied the Bible and appear to lack Christian understanding. Thank you again for the insight for don’t you know that the letter to the Romans points out that nothing will seperate us from the love of God…as we are sheep to be slaughtered all the day long. You are suspect in your Christian beliefs and understanding.

You are correct. You are wrong. You do not understand being Catholic and again I suggest you remove the notion of Catholic from your designation as your opinions denigrate the name I cherish.

I believe I protest to little.

I second that, CC. Gaber has gone ronin down the river from true Christian understanding and is lost at sea, and is hoping he can take others with him, to be lost as he is. He sounds really frustrated in his posts because he knows he fails to persuade others except those who need no persuading to begin with.

Why do defenders of active homosexual life who insist that they are being Catholic sign up on Catholic Answers? Hard to believe they are here to have a true exchange, it seems, but to antagonize. The thing is they end up being antagonized instead.

The message is plain that homosexuality is a disorder as the Church has defined a disorder, as not ordered towards procreation. Christian civilizations have always understood from scripture and tradition the boundaries to man’s choice as to a sexual partner in marriage. To the ancients and through the ages, marriage means sexual intercourse. Sexual intercourse for progeny. (As LisaA has emphasized enough times upthread, it is biology that is operative, not mere feelings.) A sexual partner in marriage is not to come from close family relations, to be of a certain age or maturity, not for a man to choose to be of “one flesh” with another man as though the other is a woman, not for a woman to be of “one flesh” with another woman (impossible!), and not for a man or a woman to do the same with a beast. These are the boundaries.

Those who maintain homosexuality is not a disorder wants to break down an unyielding boundary in sexual pairing, or complementarity. Our bodies as the Creator made them do not lie but addled minds do.
,

 

[Jimmygill88]

I’m a bit worried about the assertion that Theologians don’t know definitively what ‘causes’ homosexuality but just in case it’s a matter of choice or free will they class it as disordered and sexual activity as a mortal sin. Of course theologians have been wrong before. Galileo was excommunicated for saying the earth went round the sun, limbo has (at long last) been put to bed as non existent. I think charity should dictate that we should allow ourselves to be open to the nature/nurture hypothesis. There does seem to be an amount of personal distaste for gay people exhibited among the correspondents, and prurient and unhelpful links drawn between peodeophiles and homosexuals. As we know the vast majority of that vile practice takes place in the home, and as for the catholic church in that particular degraded arena ‘people who live in glass houses should not throw stones’