Why is the US Catholic church so obsessed with the gay issue?

[Rau]

Again nothing abnormal about homosexuality.

Your thesis is that “homosexuality arises”, therefore “homosexuality is normal”. If that is in fact the basis of your definition of “normal”, then I guess few would disagree with you.

But is that a good basis upon which to define “normal”. How does that definition help us? It leads us to conclude that all that arises is “normal”. The autistic. The blind. Those who experience gender dysphoria. Those who experience sexual attraction to young children. These things happen. Are they normal?

The truth about homosexuality is that it is an aberration, a distortion, a dysfunction, one in which a man or woman finds it difficult or impossible to act according to the natural functions of his or her physical body. It is not terribly uncommon; it can occur in many cultures and times; it can be manifested in varying degrees, but none of this makes it normal - if that word is to have any useful meaning.

 

[lileli]

Your thesis is that “homosexuality arises”, therefore “homosexuality is normal”. If that is in fact the basis of your definition of “normal”, then I guess few would disagree with you.

But is that a good basis upon which to define “normal”. How does that definition help us? It leads us to conclude that all that arises is “normal”. The autistic. The blind. Those who experience gender dysphoria. Those who experience sexual attraction to young children. These things happen. Are they normal?

The truth about homosexuality is that it is an aberration, a distortion, a dysfunction, one in which a man or woman finds it difficult or impossible to act according to the natural functions of his or her physical body. It is not terribly uncommon; it can occur in many cultures and times; it can be manifested in varying degrees, but none of this makes it normal - if that word is to have any useful meaning.

According to science you are wrong and by science I don’t mean blind faith. I mean documented evidence that you are wrong.

A person should not be said to have a mental illness unless the person’s actions substantially impair their ability to function in their work or personal life. Homosexuality does not impair one’s ability to function; it does not impair a person’s ability to fulfill their responsibilities at work, and does not prevent them from creating and maintaining meaningful and healthy personal relationships. Additionally, homosexuals are as psychologically healthy as heterosexuals. (Strickland, B.R. (1995). Research on sexual orientation and human development: A commentary. Developmental Psychology, 31, 137-140). Problems with homosexuality stem from the attitudes and actions of others toward homosexuals rather than from a homosexual’s sexual preference.

On the other hand, one could certainly make a strong argument that homophobia is a mental illness. Homophobia, as an intense, irrational hostility toward or fear of homosexuals, has a high potential for impairing an individual’s ability to perform in their employment. The majority of careers will require interacting with homosexuals at some point. If a person has such a loathing or fear of these individuals that he cannot work well with them, his homophobia will prevent him from fulfilling his employment responsibilities. --Laches 16:07, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

 

[lileli]

Father Francis is meeting with gay activists in Latin American countries…some of you should follow his example and actually LISTEN to people you so easily condemn.

 

[Rau]

According to science you are wrong and by science I don’t mean blind faith. I mean documented evidence that you are wrong.

Science (and everyday observation) tells us that some persons experience SSA, though we don’t know why. Got that. If that is the meaning of “normal” for you, I’ll go with that definition for the sake of discussion. [We now need to agree that that “autism” and “pedophilia” and any number of other conditions are “normal” too, but that is somewhat off-topic.]

But where does the classification of the condition as “normal” lead to? Does it lead you to conclude that it is morally right to choose to engage in the sexual acts to which such a condition draws one? How is that connection made? How do these act fit with God’s plan? How are the goods of homosexual acts modelled in Scripture? What did Jesus teach about marriage - and why then only in connection with the sexual union of men and women. Why are there no positive references to same sex union in Scripture?

 

[lileli]

Science (and everyday observation) tells us that some persons experience SSA, though we don’t know why. Got that. If that is the meaning of “normal” for you, I’ll go with that definition for the sake of discussion. [We now need to agree that that “autism” and “pedophilia” and any number of other conditions are “normal” too, but that is somewhat off-topic.]

But where does the classification of the condition as “normal” lead to? Does it lead you to conclude that it is morally right to choose to engage in the sexual acts to which such a condition draws one? How is that connection made? How do these act fit with God’s plan? How are the goods of homosexual acts modelled in Scripture? What did Jesus teach about marriage - and why then only in connection with the sexual union of men and women. Why are there no positive references to same sex union in Scripture?

Rau how does being homosexual hurt anyone?

 

[lileli]

Science (and everyday observation) tells us that some persons experience SSA, though we don’t know why. Got that. If that is the meaning of “normal” for you, I’ll go with that definition for the sake of discussion. [We now need to agree that that “autism” and “pedophilia” and any number of other conditions are “normal” too, but that is somewhat off-topic.]

But where does the classification of the condition as “normal” lead to? Does it lead you to conclude that it is morally right to choose to engage in the sexual acts to which such a condition draws one? How is that connection made? How do these act fit with God’s plan? How are the goods of homosexual acts modelled in Scripture? What did Jesus teach about marriage - and why then only in connection with the sexual union of men and women. Why are there no positive references to same sex union in Scripture?

In the bible you have examples of murder, rape, and even incest justified as moral so I prefer not get into a theological discussion where one sides picks and chooses what it wants to believe. Not to mention the numerous translation issues that have occurred with the bible. I prefer not resting on the thinking of men from 2000 years ago. We are discovering new facts everyday that helps explain our world and the Church should embrace that.

 

[Rau]

…A person should not be said to have a mental illness unless the person’s actions substantially impair their ability to function in their work or personal life. Homosexuality does not impair one’s ability to function; it does not impair a person’s ability to fulfill their responsibilities at work, and does not prevent them from creating and maintaining meaningful and healthy personal relationships. Additionally, homosexuals are as psychologically healthy as heterosexuals. (Strickland, B.R. (1995). Research on sexual orientation and human development: A commentary. Developmental Psychology, 31, 137-140). Problems with homosexuality stem from the attitudes and actions of others toward homosexuals rather than from a homosexual’s sexual preference.

I’m well familiar with the position the DSM takes. As a diagnostic tool for practicing mental health professionals - what point would be served by taking any other position? Consider the situation:

• the cause of the condition is unknown;
• most who experience it do NOT conclude they need treatment;
• there is no accepted, effective treatment;
• people with the condition are able to function in society.

The DSM does NOT address the etiology of SSA - it steers clear of this question and thus the question of normalcy. It pragmatically filters down conditions where the impacts on the individual or others are unacceptable…

So, I have no difficulty with the DSM’s position.

On the other hand, one could certainly make a strong argument that homophobia is a mental illness. Homophobia, as an intense, irrational hostility toward or fear of homosexuals, has a high potential for impairing an individual’s ability to perform in their employment.

Most phobia’s are a “condition” to various degrees. My sister has arachnophobia - it is irrational, but of trivial significance to her, so the DSM concludes (in respect of her) there is “nothing to treat” here. Agoraphobia is often a more significant condition, seriously impacting one’s capacity to operate in the world. If such is the case, guess which one is most unacceptable to the sufferer. Guess which one attracts the most attention from mental health professional.

Of interest is that the charge of homophobia is often made, but the condition (behaviour) much less commonly exhibited (thankfully).

 

[lileli]

I’m well familiar with the position the DSM takes. As a diagnostic tool for practicing mental health professionals - what point would be served by taking any other position? Consider the situation:

• the cause of the condition is unknown;
• most who experience it do conclude they need treatment;
• there is no accepted, effective treatment;
• people with the condition are able to function in society.

The DSM does NOT address the etiology of SSA - it steers clear of this question and thus the question of normalcy. It pragmatically filters down conditions where the impacts on the individual or others are unacceptable…

So, I have no difficulty with the DSM’s position.

Most phobia’s are a “condition” to various degrees. My sister has arachnophobia - it is irrational, but of trivial significance to her, so the DSM concludes (in respect of her) there is “nothing to treat” here. Agoraphobia is often a more significant condition, seriously impacting one’s capacity to operate in the world. If such is the case, guess which one is most unacceptable to the sufferer. Guess which one attracts the most attention from mental health professional.

Of interest is that the charge of homophobia is often made, but the condition (behaviour) much less commonly exhibited (thankfully).

For etiology look into the history of sexual evolution and at close primate relatives.

 

[Rau]

For etiology look into the history of sexual evolution and at close primate relatives.

When Science reaches some understanding on the etiology, I’ll be interested to read it. But it does not interest the DSM (nor need it), and it does not play a part in Church teaching either.

 

[lileli]

When Science reaches some understanding on the etiology, I’ll be interested to read it. But it does not interest the DSM (nor need it), and it does not play a part in Church teaching either.

In your opinion. In my opinion it does concern Church teaching.

 

[Rau]

In your opinion. In my opinion it does concern Church teaching.

Please explain how that is so?

 

[Rau]

In the bible you have examples of murder, rape, and even incest justified as moral so I prefer not get into a theological discussion where one sides picks and chooses what it wants to believe. Not to mention the numerous translation issues that have occurred with the bible. I prefer not resting on the thinking of men from 2000 years ago. We are discovering new facts everyday that helps explain our world and the Church should embrace that.

Which new facts cause the overturning of any moral teaching?

I understand you to be saying that the Bible is not useful for understanding the faith. You have separately been dismissive of the Church’s teaching authority. What is left then? Science?

 

[Faithdancer]

Again nothing abnormal about homosexuality.

Do you prefer “deviant” then? Because it certainly is that, if only from a statistical perspective. In reality, however, homosexual activity is condemned by Holy Scripture.

 

[lileli]

Do you prefer “deviant” then? Because it certainly is that, if only from a statistical perspective. In reality, however, homosexual activity is condemned by Holy Scripture.

From your interpretation sure but I don’t subscribe to that model and neither should the Church.

 

[lileli]

Which new facts cause the overturning of any moral teaching?

I understand you to be saying that the Bible is not useful for understanding the faith. You have separately been dismissive of the Church’s teaching authority. What is left then? Science?

To look at the Bible without looking at the cultures and historical context in which the events took place is useless. God has apparently changed his mind on a whole host of issues(the transition from Judaism to Christianity) and Jesus corrected many misunderstandings of hold Jewish religious laws therefore it is very reasonable to believe that our current Church can be in error in some ways. I don’t see anywhere where infallibility is promised and while the Holy Spirit may guide us, man still has free will to corrupt and reinterpret messages.

 

[Rau]

To look at the Bible without looking at the cultures and historical context in which the events took place is useless. God has apparently changed his mind on a whole host of issues(the transition from Judaism to Christianity) and Jesus corrected many misunderstandings of hold Jewish religious laws therefore it is very reasonable to believe that our current Church can be in error in some ways. I don’t see anywhere where infallibility is promised and while the Holy Spirit may guide us, man still has free will to corrupt and reinterpret messages.

Do you think the Church, which brings us the Bible, is incapable of interpreting it? Seriously? It would appear that, in answer to my question, you are left with no foundation for your faith.

 

[lileli]

Do you think the Church, which brings us the Bible, is incapable of interpreting it? Seriously? It would appear that, in answer to my question, you are left with no foundation for your faith.

I believe the Church, just like any other organization, is subjected to the will of men that may have other motives other than faith. To deny this is deny humanity. Surely we can see how the will of men have brought shame to our Church multiple times therefore it is only logical to see that the will of men may be wrong on certain matters of faith.

 

[Rau]

I believe the Church, just like any other organization, is subjected to the will of men that may have other motives other than faith. To deny this is deny humanity. Surely we can see how the will of men have brought shame to our Church multiple times therefore it is only logical to see that the will of men may be wrong on certain matters of faith.

You reinforce my point. You regard the Bible as unreliable guidance, and the Church as worse than that! What is the basis for your faith? Personal ideas? Popular opinion?

 

[lileli]

You reinforce my point. You regard the Bible as unreliable guidance, and the Church as worse than that! What is the basis for your faith? Personal ideas? Popular opinion?

To have blind faith is to give up on the most precious gif God gave us, our ability to critical think. If you must know, I believe in Jesus Christ and that he gave the world salvation. I believe in the communion of people who try to understand Jesus Christ. I believe in his real presence in the bread and the wine. I believe God gave us multiple tools in order to understand our world. I believe in the afterlife in where one can be close to God or apart. I believe in the dignity of humans and live my life through these words. “Judge your life and your actions through their consequences” I believe in judging my actions and seeing if they are positive or negative. I believe in ALWAYS asking questions.

 

[Rau]

To have blind faith is to give up on the most precious gif God gave us, our ability to critical think. If you must know, I believe in Jesus Christ and that he gave the world salvation. I believe in the communion of people who try to understand Jesus Christ. I believe in his real presence in the bread and the wine. I believe God gave us multiple tools in order to understand our world. I believe in the afterlife in where one can be close to God or apart. I believe in the dignity of humans and live my life through these words. “Judge your life and your actions through their consequences” I believe in judging my actions and seeing if they are positive or negative. I believe in ALWAYS asking questions.

You believe in the Real Presence - a truly challenging dogma, supported in the Bible (though that’s not the belief of all Christian faiths) and taught by the Catholic Church. In your view, the Church got this right…on the basis that you concur! Other Churches take the Eucharist as symbolic.

But you believe sex acts between persons of the same sex are fine, despite Biblical prohibitions in both old and New Testaments, the absence of ANY favourable mention of such relationships in the Bible, and despite the Church teaching it as wrong for the entire existence of the Church. And you believe the Church got this one wrong…on the basis you hold a different opinion!

In summary, your faith comprises what you find acceptable and/or convenient. The Church is valuable when she agrees with you.