The Reformation for Secular Homosexual thinking

[Elizabeth502]

I don’t know about the research, but as a gay guy, I say that my experience has been different. I see this time and time again, including in myself, that guys who experience same-sex attraction have felt unloved or abandoned or somehow neglected by their fathers as children.

The desire to rediscover that love leads guys like me to seek sex with other men, but nobody finds what they’re looking for, and many end up being promiscuous, leading to extreme levels of sexually transmitted diseases among the MSM (men who have sex with men, but do not necessarily identify as gay or bi) population.

The genesis of the condition is pathological. The condition itself is normal only insofar as it is common, but is detrimental and serves no natural purpose.

2-5% of people are gay. All that means is that it’s common. Science is the study of facts and has nothing to say about the morality of a particular action. So being gay and homosexual behaviour are common, but so is adultery and theft. Just because something is common does not make it right.

The Vatican will not change its stance. I am gay and I don’t need the Vatican to rubber stamp my unfortunate predicament and say it’s okay. If it did, it still wouldn’t make my condition any less pathological.

Insightful, courageous, and honest post. Conforms also to what clinicians not brainwashed by the APA have observed as well. Resonates with what Dr. Rick Fitzgibbons has discovered, also.

catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0011.html

The most prevalent argument against yours (by other gays) is to deny that their attraction proceeded from any lack or disappointment. On a conscious level, that may be very true. And the same is true for all of us, heterosexuals as well, who are not aware of how we compensate, or in what we take refuge, for our own wounds. The Church has said, and psychologists say regularly, that life is a journey of healing our wounds in the healthy direction, in the hope of permanence as opposed to apparent ‘fixes,’ and all of that takes a great deal of work – earthly work and spiritual work. In talks, interviews, and programs, Dr. Fitzgibbons has said that he has never once seen any journey out of homosexual behavior succeed without God’s grace, sought by the individual and responded to.

And again, one can say the same for all of us. We are wounded, and few of us are completely aware of the unhealthy ways in which we compensate for those wounds, in various behaviors and outlets. We need both grace and practical healing to be restored to wholeness.

God Bless You.

 

[CopticChristian]

Insightful, courageous, and honest post. Conforms also to what clinicians not brainwashed by the APA have observed as well. Resonates with what Dr. Rick Fitzgibbons has discovered, also.

catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0011.html

The most prevalent argument against yours (by other gays) is to deny that their attraction proceeded from any lack or disappointment. On a conscious level, that may be very true. And the same is true for all of us, heterosexuals as well, who are not aware of how we compensate, or in what we take refuge, for our own wounds. The Church has said, and psychologists say regularly, that life is a journey of healing our wounds in the healthy direction, in the hope of permanence as opposed to apparent ‘fixes,’ and all of that takes a great deal of work – earthly work and spiritual work. In talks, interviews, and programs, Dr. Fitzgibbons has said that he has never once seen any journey out of homosexual behavior succeed without God’s grace, sought by the individual and responded to.

And again, one can say the same for all of us. We are wounded, and few of us are completely aware of the unhealthy ways in which we compensate for those wounds, in various behaviors and outlets. We need both grace and practical healing to be restored to wholeness.

God Bless You.

Elizabeth,

Amen to your thoughts and insights. I thought it would be appropriate to share who Dr. Fitzgibbons is…

Fitzgibbons, Richard. “Origin and Healing of Homosexual Attractions and Behaviors.” 2nd Pan American Conference on Family and Education Toronto, Ontario May, 1996.

THE AUTHOR

Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons is a psychiatrist and Director of Comprehensive Counseling Services in W. Conshohocken, PA and the co-author with Robert Enright, of Helping Clients Forgive: An Empirical Guide: An Empirical Guide for Resolving Anger and Restoring Hope, 2000, American Psychological Association Books.

What is a shame is that I have been asked many times what or who can say how many Homosexuals have changed in some way. I offer Dr. Nicolosi’s book and to that the response I have gotten is as silly as a secular, non-physician, non-scientist…and declared Catholic…that says the following…

So quack cures are alright then?

I here on in shall feel free to describe ‘reparative therapy’ as a ‘quack cure’.

That’s good enough for me.

I’d love to do a follow up with all those 2000.

I wonder how many ‘succeeded’ long term?

The agenda is to denigrate any hope, call into question success and suggest that somehow there would be a way to obviate fact.

 

[edwest2]

Thank you, Elizabeth502.

God bless,
Ed

 

[CaliLobo]

Lobo,

I reject the entire DSM as does William Glasser, M.D… I suggested that the DSM IV and DSM V be rejected as a starting point. I am not alone. I have no obligation to accept this, nor does any other Physician. I reject the Disease model of Alcoholism and the 12 step religion of AA. This is based on knowledge and understanding.

There is no wealth of Psychiatric observation or research that you believe exists. Show it to me. There is no observation that a baby when born is gay. Show this to me.

You provide links to those that accept this nonsense with educational not necessarily supportive and data oriented data. Pull some data that proves your contentions.

I reject your notion that there is support for Essentialism.

Polls are not used to prove anything in the field of medicine except polls to show that Physicians accept or reject certain notions. Polls show that Physicians do not accept the disease model of Alcoholism. Polls show that Depression is over diagnosed and that many Physicians do not follow the DSM.

Stanford has the only University based program for Transgender surgery. What you don’t understand is that it feeds the Plastic Surgery program, it feeds the Psychology department and it makes money and give the University a place in the academic world. It is not a Moral decision for Stanford. It is a monetary decision for Stanford.

I feel sorry for your plight. You have no ability to prove what you contend.

Being gay is part of a four-variable analysis, the four variables being assigned gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, and gender expression.

The only reason a baby is considered one gender or another at birth is because doctors look at the genitalia and assign a gender. But that gets thrown out the window with intersex babies, right?

A baby has no sexual orientation upon birth. That comes during puberty. By then, a series of environmental factors affect the person, which determine gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation.

We don’t need formal, mathematical science to prove that what we observe is real and normal. All we need is simple observation and polling. Your call for more scrutinized scientific proof is a sign of denial, just like that observed among climate change skeptics.

And why do we need to reject essentialism? What’s so wrong with it in itself? Isn’t it just your personal opinion that essentialism isn’t valid?

 

[CopticChristian]

CaliLobo:
Lobo,

Being gay is part of a four-variable analysis, the four variables being assigned gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, and gender expression.

In whose opinion, yours?

The only reason a baby is considered one gender or another at birth is because doctors look at the genitalia and assign a gender. But that gets thrown out the window with intersex babies, right?

A baby has no sexual orientation upon birth. That comes during puberty. By then, a series of environmental factors affect the person, which determine gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation.

I have delivered babies, I have fathered babies, and when mom’s get sonograms…they ask, is it a boy or a girl?..so orientation or sex is assigned before birth for many. Intersex babies is a nonsequitor that has nothing to do with being gay.

If you want to assign gay=anomaly then you are welcome to open that door.

We don’t need formal, mathematical science to prove that what we observe is real and normal. All we need is simple observation and polling. Your call for more scrutinized scientific proof is a sign of denial, just like that observed among climate change skeptics.

This conclusion is mute based on sonograms that determine sex prior to birth.

And why do we need to reject essentialism? What’s so wrong with it in itself? Isn’t it just your personal opinion that essentialism isn’t valid?

As a lawyer you deal with facts that are either true or not true, proven or not proven. I deal with facts, fancy, fallacy and fantasy all the time. Essentialism=Fanatasy, not fact and why accept something that has yet to be proved as fact that is not fact.

Sorry you do not understand that facts are facts and fantasy is fantasy.

 

[edwest2]

It appears some in the Supreme Court are considering the facts.

latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-court-gay-parents-20130406,0,2117892.story

Peace,
Ed

 

[Elizabeth502]

Thank you, Elizabeth502.

God bless,
Ed

You’re welcome, Ed.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

I don’t know about the research, but as a gay guy, I say that my experience has been different. I see this time and time again, including in myself, that guys who experience same-sex attraction have felt unloved or abandoned or somehow neglected by their fathers as children.

I don’t wish to question your own personal experience, but you must know that several studies suggest that many (or most) men generally have found their fathers to have been distant or would describe their relationship with their fathers as estranged. I can point you in the direction of the research if you’re interested. Seeing father-son estrangement in the lives of many (or most) same-sex attracted men should not, therefore, be particularly surprising. So to argue that this feeling of estrangement is the source of same-sex attraction is to fall into the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning.

Simply because one thing (the realization one is same-sex attracted) follows another thing in time (estrangement from the father) does not actually mean that the one is caused by the other. You could easily argue, based on the same data (and some have), that the estrangement occurred 1) because the same-sex attraction of the son was unconsciously intuited by the father who rejected the son or; 2) that the same-sex attraction was consciously or unconsciously hidden from the father by the son, thus creating distance in the relationship and leading to estrangement.

The desire to rediscover that love leads guys like me to seek sex with other men, but nobody finds what they’re looking for, and many end up being promiscuous, leading to extreme levels of sexually transmitted diseases among the MSM (men who have sex with men, but do not necessarily identify as gay or bi) population.

But as fallacious as post hoc ergo propter hoc arguments are, they appeal very nicely to our love of linear narratives, and they can appear helpful to us in constructing such narratives when we look to make sense of where we are and who we are in our lives. That doesn’t mean the reasoning becomes any less fallacious or any more true simply because it lends itself to linear storytelling, however. It just means that post hoc reasoning can help us buy into particular narratives to which we are disposed (for whatever reason) and by which we subsequently begin to understand ourselves and our lives.

Few would wish to argue that mother-son estrangement plays an essential role in the development of male heterosexuality, mostly because such an argument would be laughable–that a boy can be more heterosexual the more distant he is from his mother or the more he rejects his mother or is rejected by her sounds a bit absurd. It amounts to some old Victorian wives-tale notion of parenting which sees the mother as a bad developmental influence on the son. But the inverse of this logic is what is in evidence in narratives regarding same-sex attraction which rely upon or seek to benefit from post hoc type reasoning relating to the phenomenon of father-son estrangement.

The genesis of the condition is pathological. The condition itself is normal only insofar as it is common, but is detrimental and serves no natural purpose.

While I cannot (and do not wish to) question your experience, I do question the logic you’ve presented as relating to that experience, and I question the narrative (and its structure) which depends on or profits by that logic.

Because I can only imagine that it is due to the seductions of that narrative that you could so easily move from speaking of “guys like me” to a more general/universal statement regarding the pathological nature of the genesis of same-sex attraction. Indeed, “guys like you” may do precisely what you say they do and I will have to take you at your word in that regard. But others who do not conform to the narrative to which you subscribe would find it difficult to affirm your conclusions regarding a generally pathological genesis of same-sex attraction…and the more circumspect among us would likely wish to take a cue from the catechism and remain on slightly more reasonably agnostic ground when it comes to addressing the genesis of same-sex attraction, viz: we don’t know and therefore cannot say.

Also, in what way is same-sex attraction necessarily detrimental? To what is it detrimental? I understand that same-sex attraction may have had a detrimental effect on you or your life, but would you go so far as to say that same-sex attraction is necessarily and inherently detrimental to everyone that experiences it?

Likewise, you say that same-sex attraction serves no natural purpose. Don’t you mean to say that you have yet to discover a purpose or a good that same-sex attraction might serve?

I mention this because Gourevitch’s observation of the nature of power in his study of the Rwandan genocide is, to me, broadly applicable: “power consists in the ability to make others inhabit your story of their reality.” Who we are is very much analogous to a story we tell ourselves and to others about who we are. What matters is not just the story we tell…but whose story we’re actually telling.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Elizabeth502]

A lot of energy and words, Mark, in an effort to discredit anyone, including within the gay community, who disagrees with your highly subjective assessment that homosexual behavior is a wonderful thing. If it were such a wonderful thing, we’d see much more evidence of that, and much less evidence of how wanting it is. We’d also see many fewer attempts to browbeat the public into convincing us just how wonderful it is.

 

[markeverett49]

Likewise, you say that same-sex attraction serves no natural purpose. Don’t you mean to say that you have yet to discover a purpose or a good that same-sex attraction might serve?

Elizabeth can speak for herself, of course, but I want to respond to this. NO ONE has discovered a purpose or good that same-sex attraction might serve. (If you ask questions this way—willful ignorance, really—you open yourself up to questions like, “Well, what if some people just hate gay people? Maybe YOU don’t see the value of it but that doesn’t mean there isn’t any!” “Hey, did you know that 11 % of the population is bigoted, which means it is at least TWICE as normal, nearly THREE TIMES as normal as homosexuality? Just because YOU are repulsed by it doesn’t mean other people must be subjected to your baseless moralism!”

There is no natural purpose for same-sex attraction to serve. You have labored to save a view of yourself as normal and healthy that has robbed the words “normal” and “healthy” of meaning. (I remember when “normal” was a pejorative among many gay people; now it is claimed as a birthright.)

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

A lot of energy and words, Mark, in an effort to discredit anyone, including within the gay community, who disagrees with your highly subjective assessment that homosexual behavior is a wonderful thing.

Just a few quick points, Elizabeth:

–I expected this. (I expect one or two more saying similar things before long.)

–It didn’t take much energy, to be honest.

–I wasn’t discrediting anyone. I mentioned many times that Carl’s experience was not at issue–it is, in fact, not something I am in a position to agree or disagree with. His experience is just that: his experience. I can, however, respectfully disagree with his interpretation of his experience as it has been presented here and insofar as it leads him to make general statements regarding the experiences of others, and I have done so. As I wrote: “While I cannot (and do not wish to) question your experience, I do question the logic you’ve presented as relating to that experience, and I question the narrative (and its structure) which depends on or profits by that logic.” If I was attempting to cast doubt on (or to discredit) anything, it was on pat assumptions which accord with our pet narratives of how things are.

–I did not state in my post that homosexual behavior is a wonderful thing, nor did I imply it.

If it were such a wonderful thing, we’d see much more evidence of that, and much less evidence of how wanting it is.

Again, I have not argued that homosexual behavior is a wonderful thing. Furthermore, I’m not interested in arguing that it’s a wonderful thing. And I can’t recall ever arguing on these boards that homosexual behavior is a universally wonderful thing, though you might believe that I’ve made such an argument or might like me to have argued such a thing. Be careful of projection and eisegesis, Elizabeth.

I am curious, though, with regard to the evidence of “how wanting it is.” I know of many people, both heterosexual and homosexual, who have devoted themselves to libertine and sybaritic lives of general dissipation–the ones who were committing heterosexual behaviors were not somehow better off or less wanting than the ones committing homosexual behaviors. Is it possible to distinguish accurately between the supposedly and inherently dissipating effects of a behavior and the dissipating effects of a way of life which serially, uncharitably, irresponsibly and/or dangerously employs that behavior?

We’d also see many fewer attempts to browbeat the public into convincing us just how wonderful it is.

Fewer attempts to browbeat the public on a whole host of fronts would be generally welcome. More attempts at encouraging circumspection and introspection would also be more welcome.

I would hate to think that you believed my post was representative of this browbeating. Because what I did was this: I presented a different perspective. If presenting a different or even a dissenting perspective represents browbeating, then I’m afraid you don’t know what browbeating is, or you are being merely rhetorical.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[markeverett49]

I am curious, though, with regard to the evidence of “how wanting it is.” I know of many people, both heterosexual and homosexual, who have devoted themselves to libertine and sybaritic lives of general dissipation–the ones who were committing heterosexual behaviors were not somehow better off or less wanting than the ones committing homosexual behaviors. Is it possible to distinguish accurately between the supposedly and inherently dissipating effects of a behavior and the dissipating effects of a way of life which serially, uncharitably, irresponsibly and/or dangerously employs that behavior?

I would say that heterosexual depravity is a bad thing too; the difference here, though, is that the proper use of what we shall call ‘the heterosexual impulse’ is to marry, have children, and raise them to know and love God. There is no good use of ‘the heterosexual impulse.’ In short, heterosexuals may commit sexual sins too; but homosexuals cannot do anything sexually (unless it is with a member of the opposite sex) that is good. This is a distinction best never forgotten.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Elizabeth can speak for herself, of course, but I want to respond to this. NO ONE has discovered a purpose or good that same-sex attraction might serve.

Some scientists have indeed proposed evolutionary goods that same-sex attraction may serve, the most prominent of which relates to caregiving–same-sex attracted siblings are more likely to assist in the care and rearing of their opposite-sex attracted brothers’ and sisters’ children, which allows those brothers and sisters who are reproducing to have and care for more offspring than would be otherwise possible (given limited and/or diminished resources). I can point you in the direction of the research if you like.

We can discuss other goods that people through the ages have associated with same-sex attraction (as opposed to homosexual sexual behavior, mind you). For starters, though, have you read the Symposium or the Phaedrus?

(If you ask questions this way—willful ignorance, really—you open yourself up to questions like, “Well, what if some people just hate gay people? Maybe YOU don’t see the value of it but that doesn’t mean there isn’t any!” “Hey, did you know that 11 % of the population is bigoted, which means it is at least TWICE as normal, nearly THREE TIMES as normal as homosexuality? Just because YOU are repulsed by it doesn’t mean other people must be subjected to your baseless moralism!”

You’re being silly, reactionary, or, like Elizabeth, merely rhetorical. In any case, it’s difficult to take an outlandish comparison between same-sex attraction (which is not sin) and hatred of a particular group of people (which is sin) seriously. You’ve embarked on a category error. Comparisons such as these work better when you compare like with like.

You have labored to save a view of yourself as normal and healthy that has robbed the words “normal” and “healthy” of meaning. (I remember when “normal” was a pejorative among many gay people; now it is claimed as a birthright.)

I don’t recall that I was arguing either my own normality or my own health. Would you like to discuss whether or not I, personally, am normal or healthy? That would be odd, no?

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

I would say that heterosexual depravity is a bad thing too; the difference here, though, is that the proper use of what we shall call ‘the heterosexual impulse’ is to marry, have children, and raise them to know and love God. There is no good use of ‘the heterosexual impulse.’ In short, heterosexuals may commit sexual sins too; but homosexuals cannot do anything sexually (unless it is with a member of the opposite sex) that is good. This is a distinction best never forgotten.

Perhaps, then (and within the context of Roman Catholic moral theology specifically), we might begin to understand whatever good use same-sex attraction might have as having nothing to do with homosexual sexual activity…as opposed to simply assuming that it has no good use at all?

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[markeverett49]

]

Some scientists have indeed proposed evolutionary goods that same-sex attraction may serve, the most prominent of which relates to caregiving–same-sex attracted siblings are more likely to assist in the care and rearing of their opposite-sex attracted brothers’ and sisters’ children, which allows those brothers and sisters who are reproducing to have and care for more offspring than would be otherwise possible (given limited and/or diminished resources). I can point you in the direction of the research if you like.

Yes, some scientists have proposed this. It is a just-so story with obvious holes: hole # 1: what evidence suggests that, among our ancestors, ‘homosexual persons’ provided more child-care for their siblings than, say, unmarried heterosexual relatives? Answer: none. Hole # 2: If there is an evolutionary advantage to the presence of homosexuals in a society, why do the most primitive societies have the strongest aversion to homosexuality? (You can still get stoned for it in places, or beheaded.) Hole # 3: if the purpose of homosexuality is to ensure free babysitting for heterosexual siblings, why do so many homosexual persons move away from their families? (Doesn’t that defeat the purpose of being gay?) Hole # 4: why is being homosexual an advantage for a babysitter? (The researchers think that all they need to do is suggest, ‘hey, gay men didn’t have kids so they had TIME to babysit!’ But to make anyone ELSE buy into the theory, they need to show that homosexual men actually did this and that they were good at it. Does anyone argue even now that homosexuals make better babysitters than heterosexuals? Many women are hesitant to leave their children in the care of a male, regardless of sexual orientation, because they think men aren’t as good with kids, esp small ones, as women are. If evolution saw to it that free gay babysitting was nature’s gift to women, what is their explanation for women not knowing this? ) Hole # 5, if homosexuals are such good caregivers, why wouldn’t nature provide more of them? (As it is, there aren’t nearly enough gay babysitters to go around, are there?) Hole # 6: an evolutionary advantage would look something like this: the children babysat occasionally by homosexual men grew up to leave behind more offspring than children babysat only by heterosexuals. How, exactly, do they think they know this? And Hole # 7: this explanations assumes the subservience of homosexuality to heterosexuality and that homosexual persons are essentially servants, the drones of the human family. I don’t buy that either.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Yes, some scientists have proposed this. It is a just-so story with obvious holes: hole # 1: what evidence suggests that, among our ancestors, ‘homosexual persons’ provided more child-care for their siblings than, say, unmarried heterosexual relatives? Answer: none. Hole # 2: If there is an evolutionary advantage to the presence of homosexuals in a society, why do the most primitive societies have the strongest aversion to homosexuality? (You can still get stoned for it in places, or beheaded.) Hole # 3: if the purpose of homosexuality is to ensure free babysitting for heterosexual siblings, why do so many homosexual persons move away from their families? (Doesn’t that defeat the purpose of being gay?) Hole # 4: why is being homosexual an advantage for a babysitter? (The researchers think that all they need to do is suggest, ‘hey, gay men didn’t have kids so they had TIME to babysit!’ But to make anyone ELSE buy into the theory, they need to show that homosexual men actually did this and that they were good at it. Does anyone argue even now that homosexuals make better babysitters than heterosexuals? Many women are hesitant to leave their children in the care of a male, regardless of sexual orientation, because they think men aren’t as good with kids, esp small ones, as women are. If evolution saw to it that free gay babysitting was nature’s gift to women, what is their explanation for women not knowing this? ) Hole # 5, if homosexuals are such good caregivers, why wouldn’t nature provide more of them? (As it is, there aren’t nearly enough gay babysitters to go around, are there?) Hole # 6: an evolutionary advantage would look something like this: the children babysat occasionally by homosexual men grew up to leave behind more offspring than children babysat only by heterosexuals. How, exactly, do they think they know this? And Hole # 7: this explanations assumes the subservience of homosexuality to heterosexuality and that homosexual persons are essentially servants, the drones of the human family. I don’t buy that either.

I’m not here to defend the theory, Mark. You stated definitively that “NO ONE has discovered a purpose or good that same-sex attraction might serve.” That is clearly untrue. Whether or not you agree with the purposes or goods some folks believe same-sex attraction might serve is rather beside the point.

But in the interests of us actually thinking about and engaging with things (as opposed to just reacting to them)…I’ll play devil’s advocate:

No one ever said that homosexual folks made great babysitters–that’s not the point of this particular theory. What the theory touches on includes: 1) since homosexual folks will not have children, whatever available resources their children would consume can be appropriated to the children that their heterosexual siblings have; 2) they’re extra caregivers, not extra miracle baby sitters. As to your other “objections”:

1–“what evidence suggests that, among our ancestors, ‘homosexual persons’ provided more child-care for their siblings than, say, unmarried heterosexual relatives? Answer: none.”

The theory is an evolutionary take on kin selection. That’s all. Since there is no way to determine whether our unmarried ancestors were homosexual or heterosexual, this point is moot.

2–“If there is an evolutionary advantage to the presence of homosexuals in a society, why do the most primitive societies have the strongest aversion to homosexuality?”

Some primitive societies have such an aversion, others do not. Before we can go further, though: when you say primitive, to what, really, are you referring? Non-Western & Non-Industrial societies, pre-modern tribal societies…?

Also, when you broaden the discussion beyond the largely Western-inflected homosexual-heterosexual dichotomy, you will begin to notice the various concepts of a “third gender” in many (and not just tribal) societies.

3,4,5–see above.

6–“an evolutionary advantage would look something like this: the children babysat occasionally by homosexual men grew up to leave behind more offspring than children babysat only by heterosexuals. How, exactly, do they think they know this?”

I think you’re misreading the intended effect, here–the point is not that children babysat by homosexuals will have more children, but that the children who do not need to compete as hard as other children for scarce resources and care will do better than other children who are, comparatively, worse off.

7-- “this explanations assumes the subservience of homosexuality to heterosexuality and that homosexual persons are essentially servants, the drones of the human family. I don’t buy that either.”

Subservience is not assumed. In what universe does a Christian assume that service=subservience? Perhaps you would do better to speak of mutuality.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

A lot of energy and words, Mark, in an effort to discredit anyone, including within the gay community, who disagrees with your highly subjective assessment that homosexual behavior is a wonderful thing. If it were such a wonderful thing, we’d see much more evidence of that, and much less evidence of how wanting it is. We’d also see many fewer attempts to browbeat the public into convincing us just how wonderful it is.

He does have a point regarding “estrangement”, a substantial amount of males weren’t close to their fathers because when a couple has a child the husband has three basic job choices, a) work full time, b) work full time plus overtime, c) work two jobs which doesn’t leave a lot of time for kids. Depending on how you define this “estrangement” you very well might have more men “estranged” from their fathers than not.

 

[CopticChristian]

Grace & Peace!

Likewise, you say that same-sex attraction serves no natural purpose. Don’t you mean to say that you have yet to discover a purpose or a good that same-sex attraction might serve?

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

Mark,

This is how Carl started his post…and I find all your comments distressing.

I don’t know about the research, but as a gay guy, I say that my experience has been different. I see this time and time again, including in myself, that guys who experience same-sex attraction have felt unloved or abandoned or somehow neglected by their fathers as children.

You conclude with this???

I mention this because Gourevitch’s observation of the nature of power in his study of the Rwandan genocide is, to me, broadly applicable: “power consists in the ability to make others inhabit your story of their reality.” Who we are is very much analogous to a story we tell ourselves and to others about who we are. What matters is not just the story we tell…but whose story we’re actually telling.

Everyone’s life is a story that has meaning to them, not to you, not to me, but to them. This CAF, was a place where a man, who happens to have disitress put his personal experience in a thread that declares by me…that there needs to be a Reformation for Secular Homosexual thinking…and he courageously, openly placed his experience for others to read. I said little because what was said was personal.

I don’t wish to question your own personal experience, BUT

What this means is that you do wish to question a personal experience and you deliberately without being asked to go about doing what it is you say you wish not to do. It is tantamount to evangelizing a homosexual agenda.

I can point you in the direction of the research if you’re interested

.

I would wonder about this desire you have to point someone who put their personal experience on the line to what purpose? To prove your point? To show compassion? To register understanding? To do what? I would say that if this person asked questions they would ask them and I would suggest that they do not get them from without asking these questions?

Are you a practicing homosexual that is offering this advice?
Do you struggle with SSA as I have and had difficulty that you may be able to aid me?
Are you a professional?

I would suggest that any advice be sought by someone that was recommeded that would be Catholic and hopefully that understands this situation.

So to argue that this feeling of estrangement is the source of same-sex attraction is to fall into the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning.

did you happen to notice the acceptance of Catholic thought when Carl said this…

So being gay and homosexual behaviour are common, but so is adultery and theft. Just because something is common does not make it right.

The Vatican will not change its stance. I am gay and I don’t need the Vatican to rubber stamp my unfortunate predicament and say it’s okay. If it did, it still wouldn’t make my condition any less pathological.

Do you see an argument? I certainly don’t. I see a man exposing his innerself, his struggle and a life that appears to be in line with Catholic thought and if you did not happen to notice this is Catholic Answers.

But as fallacious as post hoc ergo propter hoc arguments are, they appeal very nicely to our love of linear narratives

Having assumed an interlocutor that does not exist you go on to insist that this argument is fallacious. Again Carl offered a personal experience that perhaps you do not like. Just say you don’t like it.

That doesn’t mean the reasoning becomes any less fallacious or any more true simply because it lends itself to linear storytelling,

I don’t see any reasoning for argument. I see a man sharing personal experience.

Also, in what way is same-sex attraction necessarily detrimental? To what is it detrimental? I understand that same-sex attraction may have had a detrimental effect on you or your life, but would you go so far as to say that same-sex attraction is necessarily and inherently detrimental to everyone that experiences it?

May I remind you that Carl said…

I don’t know about the research, but as a gay guy, I say that my experience has been different. I am gay and I don’t need the Vatican to rubber stamp my unfortunate predicament and say it’s okay. If it did, it still wouldn’t make my condition any less pathological.

It was detrimental for him. You ask him to look for a purpose…

Likewise, you say that same-sex attraction serves no natural purpose. Don’t you mean to say that you have yet to discover a purpose or a good that same-sex attraction might serve?

This begs the question? This suggests that Carl is lost and needs to look further to find that purpose or perhaps you may be satisfied to know that he has found his purpose in the bosom of the Church. Have you considered that?

Your efforts are exactly why this thread was started and I ask you not to derail this in pursuit of evangelizing someone that puts their personal experience on the line. No comments are needed for someone that says they had a problem, they found a solution and they came to CAF and let everyone know.

You find Carl’s life story a problem
What is it Carl’s life means to you?
What does it say about you that you cannot be content with someone finding resolution?

Please reconsider your efforts to derail this thread.

 

[CopticChristian]

Grace & Peace!

Perhaps, then (and within the context of Roman Catholic moral theology specifically), we might begin to understand whatever good use same-sex attraction might have as having nothing to do with homosexual sexual activity…as opposed to simply assuming that it has no good use at all?

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

Mark,

If you want to start a thread about…

What good use is there to SSA…?

go ahead…

This thread is about the Reformation of secular Homosexual thinking.

 

[CopticChristian]

Grace & Peace!

Just a few quick points, Elizabeth:

–I expected this. (I expect one or two more saying similar things before long.)

–It didn’t take much energy, to be honest.

–I wasn’t discrediting anyone. I mentioned many times that Carl’s experience was not at issue–it is, in fact, not something I am in a position to agree or disagree with. His experience is just that: his experience. I can, however, respectfully disagree with his interpretation of his experience as it has been presented here and insofar as it leads him to make general statements regarding the experiences of others, and I have done so. As I wrote: “While I cannot (and do not wish to) question your experience, I do question the logic you’ve presented as relating to that experience, and I question the narrative (and its structure) which depends on or profits by that logic.” If I was attempting to cast doubt on (or to discredit) anything, it was on pat assumptions which accord with our pet narratives of how things are.

–I did not state in my post that homosexual behavior is a wonderful thing, nor did I imply it.

Again, I have not argued that homosexual behavior is a wonderful thing. Furthermore, I’m not interested in arguing that it’s a wonderful thing. And I can’t recall ever arguing on these boards that homosexual behavior is a universally wonderful thing, though you might believe that I’ve made such an argument or might like me to have argued such a thing. Be careful of projection and eisegesis, Elizabeth.

I am curious, though, with regard to the evidence of “how wanting it is.” I know of many people, both heterosexual and homosexual, who have devoted themselves to libertine and sybaritic lives of general dissipation–the ones who were committing heterosexual behaviors were not somehow better off or less wanting than the ones committing homosexual behaviors. Is it possible to distinguish accurately between the supposedly and inherently dissipating effects of a behavior and the dissipating effects of a way of life which serially, uncharitably, irresponsibly and/or dangerously employs that behavior?

Fewer attempts to browbeat the public on a whole host of fronts would be generally welcome. More attempts at encouraging circumspection and introspection would also be more welcome.

I would hate to think that you believed my post was representative of this browbeating. Because what I did was this: I presented a different perspective. If presenting a different or even a dissenting perspective represents browbeating, then I’m afraid you don’t know what browbeating is, or you are being merely rhetorical.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

Mark,

Your entire first post suggested argument. Do we argue to agree or do we argue to disagree. You took Carl’s life and framed it as an argument that you then posted an alternative view. You argue and you disagree.

For the record…

Is Homosexual behavior an abomination?
When two men unite believing that they are spouses is this also an abomination?
Is it ever possible that two men engaging in sexual activity are filled with the Holy Spirit?

Just clear the air…