B
buffalo
Guest
Which one?
The homosexual state of mind: Marriage isn't about a man & woman but love & love
- Status
Stephen168
New member
So they do not have a problem with marriage being reserved for people of the opposite sex.
What benefits have changed recently which no long make marriage about children?I guess you could argue that, with all the other benefits marriage brings, it can’t really be considered just for children anymore.
L
Lochias
Guest
“People like me?” Can you enlighten me further on just what you mean by that? And there are people who have educated themselves for their entire lives on theology, God, and other spiritual studies, and have not found evidence to prove themselves wrong, but right. Do you agree that their faith is also not blind?
I do not envy the person who gets most of their information from Google. There’s a reason that journal databases and libraries are still required by teachers in college, you know.
How generous of you.Really? Okay. My bad, I guess.
Someone seems to be allergic to being proved wrong, That certainly colors your other arguments most…interestingly.A. “I’ve met homosexuals who don’t care and are happy about the way things are now.”What I mean is I’ve met homosexuals who claimed they don’t care about marriage, or are happy with Civil Unions. I guess you could argue that, with all the other benefits marriage brings, it can’t really be considered just for children anymore.
B." Marriage isn’t just for children anymore!!"
…erm…what? For one, until men can have babies with each other, sure it is…and two, you do realize that your two statements up there clash like peanut butter and tuna fish on the same sandwich, right?
B
Bradski
Guest
Well, NARTH is quoted constantly by people on both sides of the debate, more often by those on the right using them as experts in the field, often as a direct rebuttal of anything that the APA might say, or perhaps has said.
In fact they came out with the Journal of Human Sexuality in 2009 which was their response to APA claims on homosexuality. It’s about as comprehensive as they can make it (obviously), even quoting papers going back to the 18th century. It can be found here: www.unav.es/icf/…/Narth_What-research-shows-homosexuality.pdf
It may be worth looking at the document to see what sort of case NARTH makes. Although I should point out that the authors do admit to some problems in preparing the paper, which include:
• the difficulty in defining, quantifying or measuring sexual orientation, attractions and identity;
• differing definitions of “success” or “change”;
• changing scientific standards and methodologies;
• the wide variety of techniques and therapies within the mental health community;
• shifting cultural and social attitudes toward sexuality in general and homosexuality in particular.
They also acknowledge that some individual studies and reports have limitations or weaknesses and that some older studies and reports may be “less methodologically sophisticated.”
Likewise a précis of another paragraph:
Before discussing specific reports, we acknowledge that the evaluation of the helpfulness and harmfulness of reorientation therapies is limited by methodological difficulties.
In the last few decades of the 20th century, therapies for unwanted homosexual attractions and behaviors diversified to the extent that **proper evaluations of their efficacy were very difficult to implement. **
The typically modest numbers of clients for each therapy made it impossible for most tests to have adequate statistical power.
The few studies conducted either lumped together various therapeutic approaches or **failed to operationalize and measure adequately the unique features of a given approach. **
Both positive and negative stories about therapy processes and outcomes have been reported without an objective means of resolving conflicting accounts.
Most of the mental health professionals who have offered reorientation therapy have been private practitioners without the time or resources to engage in systematic outcome.
The paper spends a reasonable amount of time, before getting down to the nitty gritty, explaining that what follows is effectively worthless. A commendably honest position, but not one that would result in anyone taking it too seriously.
I’ll balance that with another quote from the exactly the same paper:
The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American School Counselor Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the National Association of Social Workers, together representing more than 480,000 mental health professionals, have taken the position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and thus is not something that needs to or can be “cured.”
If I may summarise:
The paper admits in the first instance to being mightily flawed, is sponsored by an organisation that believes that homosexuality is abnormal (thus admitting its bias) and quotes from numerous mental health organisations representing nearly half a million professionals to the effect that they disagree diametrically with everything that they have concluded.
Is this an organisation that anyone could claim has any credibility?
D
Debora123
Guest
This is not proven, neither does the Church teach this.
It could be completely environmental, but it could also be a tendency that they are born with. OR it could be a little bit of both.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Okay. You’re cool.
D
Do_Good_Then_Go
Guest
What sort of prior lifestyle/behavioural choices of the parents do you think predispose a child to be homosexual?
I have a gay son and while I readily acknowledge my husband and I may not have always been perfect as parents, who is? We certainly were and are ‘good enough’ parents by any reasonable measure. None of our other children are gay.
Gay people have all sorts of parents - good, bad and indifferent. They have had all sorts of upbringings, education, and life experiences. I have no doubt that there are some who are gay because of something in that parenting, upbringing, and life experience but I’m just as sure that that doesn’t hold true for most gay people.
Most parents of gay children spend a long time examining their every action and deed as parents and as people, and looking for blame where it seems likely there is none.
I wish I knew the cause, I really do. I’d love to know. Not even the Church claims to know the cause. I’ve never heard that the Church believes homosexuality can be explained by prior poor behavioural and/or lifestyle choices made by parents.
Perhaps I’ve misunderstood what you meant?
C
CopticChristian
Guest
Go,
I have read your threads and see that you choose to tell us that you live in a country with socialized medicine, belive you have a “gay” child and do not designate any beliefs…and that is OK…I do not accept the notion of “Gay”…I believe that it is appropriate to say you have a heterosexual child with same sex attraction…to say and continually say “gay people” etc is an acceptance of the paradigm and not the condition. I understand that you have a child that you find is different however to say that the child is gay is accepting a paradigm…I believe that expressing this in this way is consistent with the Catholic understanding of this situation. You may not like this, you may not choose to accept this…I did not come up with this…Dr. Nicolisi suggests this as a better way to express the sentiment and I will ask you to do the same as I believe that it is expresses the same sentiment without accepting the notion that this is the way it is and it will never change that I choose not to believe as do others and is consistent with thoughts of the OHCAC as found on this thread…
I ask you to refrain from using the word “gay” in describing your child.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
I would even be happy with just “I have a son who…” I don’t know any mother who puts a descriptor “straight” or “heterosexual” in front of the word son. It doesn’t make it a different category of son to put the word “gay” in front of it. It’s as if he is identified more with his sexuality than any other aspect of his humanity – not just for him ***but for *** his mother. Being a mother myself, I don’t understand why another mother would do that.
It’s more than that. It’s defining him by his sexuality over his wholeness or over any other feature. And it is done exclusively for homosexuals, not for heterosexuals.
D
Debora123
Guest
I highly doubt Go refers to her son as “my gay son” all the time like that when speaking about him. Neither do I think she defines her son’s wholeness by his sexuality, as is suggested above.
In her post, she specified about her son’s sexual orientation because it was the topic at hand, and she was using her experiences as an example. This doesn’t necessarily mean she reduces his whole personhood into his sexuality. :nope:
I know Go around these parts and she seems like a really good mother.
D
Do_Good_Then_Go
Guest
Hi Coptic, I live in a country with universal health coverage but I’m not sure what that has to do with this topic. My son is gay, it’s a fact, and there’s nothing wrong with saying that. The Church says that homosexuals are sinning if they act on their homosexuality – the Church doesn’t say there is no such thing as homosexuality.
Elizabeth, I don’t define my son by his sexuality any more than I define him by his tallness or his grumpiness in the mornings. He is smart, kind, funny, hard-working, and very much loved. He also happens to be gay. An internet forum is not the same as one’s daily life and I don’t burst into rooms announcing that my son is gay or say ‘my gay son’ when talking about my children. Equally it is not some secret that I feel I must hide and never mention to anyone. It all depends. I suspect you know that though.
Another poster commented that the ‘predisposition’ to homosexuality is because of prior poor choices by parents and I was commenting on that, and asking for more information as I think I have probably misunderstood what was meant.
Elizabeth, I don’t define my son by his sexuality any more than I define him by his tallness or his grumpiness in the mornings. He is smart, kind, funny, hard-working, and very much loved. He also happens to be gay. An internet forum is not the same as one’s daily life and I don’t burst into rooms announcing that my son is gay or say ‘my gay son’ when talking about my children. Equally it is not some secret that I feel I must hide and never mention to anyone. It all depends. I suspect you know that though.
Another poster commented that the ‘predisposition’ to homosexuality is because of prior poor choices by parents and I was commenting on that, and asking for more information as I think I have probably misunderstood what was meant.
D
Debora123
Guest
Go,
I thought the suggestion another poster made here of the parent’s being at fault for a child’s homosexuality was very uncharitable, not to mention completely false and even ignorant.
Can there possibly be some cases where a messed up upbringing played a role in a child’s sexuality? Sure (though if that’s the case, it’s probably the minority). But to say that it’s always the fault of the parents/upbringing is just wrong.
From knowing you around here, you seem like a good mother and a good person. I hope you don’t buy into the notion that you did anything wrong or that it was your fault.
God bless.
I thought the suggestion another poster made here of the parent’s being at fault for a child’s homosexuality was very uncharitable, not to mention completely false and even ignorant.
Can there possibly be some cases where a messed up upbringing played a role in a child’s sexuality? Sure (though if that’s the case, it’s probably the minority). But to say that it’s always the fault of the parents/upbringing is just wrong.
From knowing you around here, you seem like a good mother and a good person. I hope you don’t buy into the notion that you did anything wrong or that it was your fault.
God bless.
D
Do_Good_Then_Go
Guest
That’s it exactly Debora! Thanks, you have explained it better than I did.
B
buffalo
Guest
The church is unsure of the genesis per the Catechism.
B
buffalo
Guest
The Church does not know, this is true. New to the table is that epigenetics is the means to pass lifestyle choices to children.
I am simply submitting this as an area to research.
How old is your son?
B
buffalo
Guest
Bingo! Orientation should not be the definition of a person.
There is so much more. But that is our reductionist society. 
D
Debora123
Guest
Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying.
That’s why I objected to your post claiming that homosexuality originates through the parent’s free will.
C
Crescentinus
Guest
Indeed. Sadly, homosexualists tend to objectify homosexuals due to the latter’s sexual orientation. The former cannot see or ignores to see the latter’s humanity.Bingo! Orientation should not be the definition of a person.
B
buffalo
Guest
No - it is the consequence of prior free will choices is my point. We can take that all the way back to Adam to illustrate the point I am getting at.
We are beginning to see the epigenetic influence with a parent who smoked.
Having said all that, it seems the homosexual outcome is linked to early childhood. An alcoholic may carry an epigenetic predisposition to it that shows up as a weakness toward it and therefore has higher odds succumbing to it. I have no facts on the epigenetic part, just musing.
D
Debora123
Guest
Ok, if you’re referring to the fall of man, aka, original sin, then sure… I can go with that if you put it that way.
…As long as we acknowledge that the cause of homosexuality has not been proven, I’m ok with such theory. Though I don’t necessarily agree with it.
- Status