Why the obsession with homsexuality?

[Sparkythedog]

This forum seems to be obsessed with issues around homosexuality. Why?

Fear.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Fear.

If you would have read the previous posts, the topic of fear has already been addressed. We do not fear them, we fear for them and for society. There is a stark difference between the two. We believe that by engaging in those acts and promoting that immorality they are endangering their souls along with the stability of our society. As such, we feel obligated to react to their aggressive efforts in kind, which necessitates a great deal of discussion.

 

[Havard]

Among the complaints in the full-page ad “signed by more than 100 prominent Roman Catholic donors and church members” that appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle was that the Archbishop had installed a pastor at Star of the Sea parish who had “inexplicably distributed to elementary school age children an age-inappropriate and potentially abusive, sexually oriented pamphlet” According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the pamphlet asked the children “whether they had masturbated, engaged in sodomy or undergone an abortion.”

sfgate.com/bayarea/matier-ross/article/Prominent-Catholics-call-on-pope-to-oust-S-F-6202539.php

This is the pamphlet distributed at Star of the Sea:

newmanconnection.com/ccwatershed/Examination.pdf

Please tell me how it’s “potentially abusive”. Seriously, I could use a good laugh.

Most kids would find it boring, not to mention the fact that the “adult parts” are a whole lot less explicit than the Bible. Better not leave that lying around for kids to read.

 

[Loly_Maria]

I would say that it’s the idea that the Church is losing power, and things are changing. People are getting more and more freedom to be proud of who they are, including their sexual and/or gender identity, and it’s messing with the status quo.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I would say that it’s the idea that the Church is losing power, and things are changing. People are getting more and more freedom to be proud of who they are, including their sexual and/or gender identity, and it’s messing with the status quo.

Pride comes before the fall.

It’s not a matter of power. The church’s perceived and actual power has fluctuated many times throughout history, and She has undergone numerous wave of persecution and prosperity. Through it all, we have maintained the Truth regardless of how angry it made people and how much She had to suffer to proclaim it. Anyone familiar with history should be familiar with this, and familiar with how the Church has responded to every other effort to force her to deny God’s Law. This time will be no different, nor will the next time, nor the one after that. We do not believe what we believe because it brings us power, we believe as we do because it is Truth, and those who do no abide by the Truth exist in a lie, which is an empty, foundation-less existence prone to change on a whim.

The “freedom” you talk about has always existed, the Church has not stifled it. What She has done has reminded people that choosing to engage your free will in a sinful and unnatural manner can only result in hardship and spiritual death. We try to guide society as best we can because we are obligated out of love to do our best to lead people to God, and no amount of name calling, threatening or active persecution will remove this obligation or hamper our efforts to fulfill it.

 

[on_the_hill]

I dunno. Because it’s fun?

 

[Windmill]

Among the complaints in the full-page ad “signed by more than 100 prominent Roman Catholic donors and church members” that appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle was that the Archbishop had installed a pastor at Star of the Sea parish who had “inexplicably distributed to elementary school age children an age-inappropriate and potentially abusive, sexually oriented pamphlet” According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the pamphlet asked the children “whether they had masturbated, engaged in sodomy or undergone an abortion.”

sfgate.com/bayarea/matier-ross/article/Prominent-Catholics-call-on-pope-to-oust-S-F-6202539.php

Where do I even start with this nonsense?

It’s a freaking examination of conscience. These “prominent catholics” have obviously not seen one before if they brought it up in the petition. Shame on them. Kudos to Cordileone. And who are these “prominent catholics” anyway? By the sound of the article, they are powerful Catholics who have money, not devout Catholics who realize they are members of a hierarchical religion. And since it is apparent that their enemy is the tradition of Catholicism, well, they now have an ally with the MSM.

 

[JimG]

Where do I even start with this nonsense?

It’s a freaking examination of conscience. These “prominent catholics” have obviously not seen one before if they brought it up in the petition. Shame on them. Kudos to Cordileone. And who are these “prominent catholics” anyway? By the sound of the article, they are powerful Catholics who have money, not devout Catholics who realize they are members of a hierarchical religion. And since it is apparent that their enemy is the tradition of Catholicism, well, they now have an ally with the MSM.

I had to laugh at this. Perhaps these “prominent Catholics” are totally unaware of a guide to examination of conscience or have never seen one?? Maybe they should familiarize themselves with it!

 

[edwest2]

Sometimes as our world moves forward in the area of human rights, there are those who want to hold on to the myth that the world is the same as it was 50, 150 or 1500 years ago. When gay people began breaking out of their personal closets it frightened many good and loving people.

On the contrary. A look at the history of the movement shows that information available from the American Psychiatric Association - after years of interviewing and studying homosexual persons - indicated it was a disorder. And that was that. In 1973, in a non-scientific vote that was pressed by radical gay activists and closeted gays in the APA, what was a disorder yesterday was not a disorder the following day. A similar tactic was used to get a diagnosis change for transgender persons.

amazon.com/Homosexuality-American-Psychiatry-Politics-Diagnosis/dp/0691028370

Prior to 1973, what was the public to think when experts made their determination? And no, LGBT persons should never be bullied or harmed. Gay Marriage ignited a redefinition of the family debate that includes information about what marriage actually is.

I never cared what people did in the privacy of wherever they lived. And I spent years in a major hospital working with LGBT persons. We got along. Not until the broad brush, “They’re all bigots, homophobes, etc.” campaign began over gay marriage did a reasonable issue of concern arise in the minds of many.

Ed

 

[Thorolfr]

On the contrary. A look at the history of the movement shows that information available from the American Psychiatric Association - after years of interviewing and studying homosexual persons - indicated it was a disorder. And that was that. In 1973, in a non-scientific vote that was pressed by radical gay activists and closeted gays in the APA, what was a disorder yesterday was not a disorder the following day. A similar tactic was used to get a diagnosis change for transgender persons.

This is not an accurate view of what happened. Certainly, the gay community put pressure on the APA, but the vote to remove homosexuality from the DSM was also based on empirical data.

Although psychoanalytic theories of homosexuality once had considerable influence in psychiatry and in the larger culture, they were not subjected to rigorous empirical testing. Instead, they were based on analysts’ clinical observations of patients already known by them to be homosexual.

This procedure compromises the validity of the psychoanalytic conclusions in at least two important ways. First, the analyst’s theoretical orientations, expectations, and personal attitudes are likely to bias her or his observations. To avoid such bias, scientists take great pains in their studies to ensure that the researchers who actually collect the data do not have expectations about how a particular research participant will respond. An example is the “double blind” procedure used in many experiments. Such procedures have not been used in clinical psychoanalytic studies of homosexuality.

A second problem with psychoanalytic studies is that they have only examined homosexuals who were already under psychiatric care – in other words, homosexuals who were seeking treatment or therapy. Patients, however, cannot be assumed to be representative of the general population. Just as it would be inappropriate to draw conclusions about all heterosexuals based only on data from heterosexual psychiatric patients, we cannot generalize from observations of homosexual patients to the entire population of gay men and lesbians.

Today, a large body of published empirical research clearly refutes the notion that homosexuality per se is indicative of or correlated with psychopathology. One of the first and most famous published studies in this area was conducted by psychologist Evelyn Hooker.

Hooker’s (1957) study was innovative in several important respects. First, rather than simply accepting the predominant view of homosexuality as pathology, she posed the question of whether homosexuals and heterosexuals differed in their psychological adjustment. Second, rather than studying psychiatric patients, she recruited a sample of homosexual men who were functioning normally in society. Third, she employed a procedure that asked experts to rate the adjustment of men without prior knowledge of their sexual orientation. This method addressed an important source of bias that had vitiated so many previous studies of homosexuality.

Hooker administered three projective tests (the Rorschach, Thematic Apperception Test [TAT], and Make-A-Picture-Story [MAPS] Test) to 30 homosexual males and 30 heterosexual males recruited through community organizations. The two groups were matched for age, IQ, and education. None of the men were in therapy at the time of the study.

Unaware of each subject’s sexual orientation, two independent Rorschach experts evaluated the men’s overall adjustment using a 5-point scale. They classified two-thirds of the heterosexuals and two-thirds of the homosexuals in the three highest categories of adjustment. When asked to identify which Rorschach protocols were obtained from homosexuals, the experts could not distinguish respondents’ sexual orientation at a level better than chance.

A third expert used the TAT and MAPS protocols to evaluate the psychological adjustment of the men. As with the Rorschach responses, the adjustment ratings of the homosexuals and heterosexuals did not differ significantly.

Hooker concluded from her data that homosexuality is not a clinical entity and that homosexuality is not inherently associated with psychopathology.

Hooker’s findings have since been replicated by many other investigators using a variety of research methods. Freedman (1971), for example, used Hooker’s basic design to study lesbian and heterosexual women. Instead of projective tests, he administered objectively-scored personality tests to the women. His conclusions were similar to those of Hooker.

psychology.ucdavis.edu/faculty_sites/rainbow/html/facts_mental_health.html

 

[Thorolfr]

Continuation:

**Removal from the DSM **

In 1973, the weight of empirical data, coupled with changing social norms and the development of a politically active gay community in the United States, led the Board of Directors of the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). Some psychiatrists who fiercely opposed their action subsequently circulated a petition calling for a vote on the issue by the Association’s membership. That vote was held in 1974, and the Board’s decision was ratified.

Subsequently, a new diagnosis, ego-dystonic homosexuality, was created for the DSM’s third edition in 1980. Ego dystonic homosexuality was indicated by: (1) a persistent lack of heterosexual arousal, which the patient experienced as interfering with initiation or maintenance of wanted heterosexual relationships, and (2) persistent distress from a sustained pattern of unwanted homosexual arousal.

This new diagnostic category, however, was criticized by mental health professionals on numerous grounds. It was viewed by many as a political compromise to appease those psychiatrists – mainly psychoanalysts – who still considered homosexuality a pathology. Others questioned the appropriateness of having a separate diagnosis that described the content of an individual’s dysphoria. They argued that the psychological problems related to ego-dystonic homosexuality could be treated as well by other general diagnostic categories, and that the existence of the diagnosis perpetuated antigay stigma.

Moreover, widespread prejudice against homosexuality in the United States meant that many people who are homosexual go through an initial phase in which their homosexuality could be considered ego dystonic. According to the American Psychiatric Association, “Fears and misunderstandings about homosexuality are widespread… [and] present daunting challenges to the development and maintenance of a positive self-image in gay, lesbian and bisexual persons and often to their families as well.”

In 1986, the diagnosis was removed entirely from the DSM. The only vestige of ego dystonic homosexuality in the revised DSM-III occurred under Sexual Disorders Not Otherwise Specified, which included persistent and marked distress about one’s sexual orientation (American Psychiatric Association, 1987; see Bayer, 1987, for an account of the events leading up to the 1973 and 1986 decisions).

psychology.ucdavis.edu/faculty_sites/rainbow/html/facts_mental_health.html

 

[here_i_stand]

Pride comes before the fall.

It’s not a matter of power. The church’s perceived and actual power has fluctuated many times throughout history, and She has undergone numerous wave of persecution and prosperity. Through it all, we have maintained the Truth regardless of how angry it made people and how much She had to suffer to proclaim it. Anyone familiar with history should be familiar with this, and familiar with how the Church has responded to every other effort to force her to deny God’s Law. This time will be no different, nor will the next time, nor the one after that. We do not believe what we believe because it brings us power, we believe as we do because it is Truth, and those who do no abide by the Truth exist in a lie, which is an empty, foundation-less existence prone to change on a whim.

The “freedom” you talk about has always existed, the Church has not stifled it. What She has done has reminded people that choosing to engage your free will in a sinful and unnatural manner can only result in hardship and spiritual death. We try to guide society as best we can because we are obligated out of love to do our best to lead people to God,
and no amount of name calling, threatening or active persecution will remove this obligation or hamper our efforts to fulfill it.

Beautifully said!

 

[edwest2]

Continuation:

**Removal from the DSM **

In 1973, the weight of empirical data, coupled with changing social norms and the development of a politically active gay community in the United States, led the Board of Directors of the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). Some psychiatrists who fiercely opposed their action subsequently circulated a petition calling for a vote on the issue by the Association’s membership. That vote was held in 1974, and the Board’s decision was ratified.

Subsequently, a new diagnosis, ego-dystonic homosexuality, was created for the DSM’s third edition in 1980. Ego dystonic homosexuality was indicated by: (1) a persistent lack of heterosexual arousal, which the patient experienced as interfering with initiation or maintenance of wanted heterosexual relationships, and (2) persistent distress from a sustained pattern of unwanted homosexual arousal.

This new diagnostic category, however, was criticized by mental health professionals on numerous grounds. It was viewed by many as a political compromise to appease those psychiatrists – mainly psychoanalysts – who still considered homosexuality a pathology. Others questioned the appropriateness of having a separate diagnosis that described the content of an individual’s dysphoria. They argued that the psychological problems related to ego-dystonic homosexuality could be treated as well by other general diagnostic categories, and that the existence of the diagnosis perpetuated antigay stigma.

Moreover, widespread prejudice against homosexuality in the United States meant that many people who are homosexual go through an initial phase in which their homosexuality could be considered ego dystonic. According to the American Psychiatric Association, “Fears and misunderstandings about homosexuality are widespread… [and] present daunting challenges to the development and maintenance of a positive self-image in gay, lesbian and bisexual persons and often to their families as well.”

In 1986, the diagnosis was removed entirely from the DSM. The only vestige of ego dystonic homosexuality in the revised DSM-III occurred under Sexual Disorders Not Otherwise Specified, which included persistent and marked distress about one’s sexual orientation (American Psychiatric Association, 1987; see Bayer, 1987, for an account of the events leading up to the 1973 and 1986 decisions).

psychology.ucdavis.edu/faculty_sites/rainbow/html/facts_mental_health.html

Thank you, very much, for that information. There are still ongoing debates about the validity of that information. narth.com/main-issues/born-that-way-theory/

Again, Catholics should not bully anyone, including LGBT persons, or harm them. However, there is a sense, as I viewed it on CNN, that coercive messages are being spread that are too generalized. Getting back to CNN, I watched and heard an out athlete tell everyone viewing to “Stop being homophobic.” I found this unfair and confusing. One does not accuse everyone. If something illegal or wrong has occurred, only the perpetrators should be held accountable. Of the LGBT people I have known, I had no issues until a campaign to stigmatize those who view LGBT behavior differently began. That is the crux of the issue.

Best,
Ed

 

[ahs]

Among the complaints in the full-page ad “signed by more than 100 prominent Roman Catholic donors and church members” that appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle was that the Archbishop had installed a pastor at Star of the Sea parish who had “inexplicably distributed to elementary school age children an age-inappropriate and potentially abusive, sexually oriented pamphlet” According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the pamphlet asked the children “whether they had masturbated, engaged in sodomy or undergone an abortion.”

sfgate.com/bayarea/matier-ross/article/Prominent-Catholics-call-on-pope-to-oust-S-F-6202539.php

The “Intolerant” SF Archbishop who won’t Indulge Sin

 

[frobert]

Among the complaints in the full-page ad “signed by more than 100 prominent Roman Catholic donors and church members” that appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle was that the Archbishop had installed a pastor at Star of the Sea parish who had “inexplicably distributed to elementary school age children an age-inappropriate and potentially abusive, sexually oriented pamphlet” According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the pamphlet asked the children “whether they had masturbated, engaged in sodomy or undergone an abortion.”

sfgate.com/bayarea/matier-ross/article/Prominent-Catholics-call-on-pope-to-oust-S-F-6202539.php

Thanks for the link but the article it points to leaves out some pertinent information covered in here… regarding the reactions of the children and their parents to the pamphlet.

 

[frobert]

Thank you, very much, for that information. There are still ongoing debates about the validity of that information. narth.com/main-issues/born-that-way-theory/

Can you provide any information on the credibility of NARTH?

Have a great day.

 

[kozlosap]

Speak for yourself, my -]good man./-]WOMAN!

I’ve been friends with gay people my whole life. I have never changed a thing. I have always loved them. The only thing that has changed is that some of them have been more critical of my beliefs. Because some of them buy into the lies fed by the media. Of course, many of them are wise to what’s going on. They may not be on the same page as the Church, but they know that the increasing rhetoric is coming from people with political agendas. Average joe gay people aren’t afraid of the influence that the Church has when it comes to social issues, political partisans are. Average joe gay people are fine with live and let live.

We will never agree on this issue. You rationalize that if gay people had just kept their mouths shut and stayed in the closet that everything would be great. The same could also have been said when women were asking for basic human political rights or of the civil rights movement.

 

[Havard]

We will never agree on this issue. You rationalize that if gay people had just kept their mouths shut and stayed in the closet that everything would be great. The same could also have been said when women were asking for basic human political rights or of the civil rights movement.

First off, sincere apologies for calling you a man. I confused you with another poster.

But with regard to the substance of your response, you’re off with mark , my fair lady!

I don’t advocate that they keep their mouths shut or stay in the closet. I say God bless gay people, their strengths, their weaknesses, the gifts they share and the crosses they bear. Not one of my gay friends is particularly chaste, and I wish they were, but that is their decision to make. All I do is advocate for chastity, with love.

If they couldn’t vote, I would fight for their right to vote. If they couldn’t associate with each other, I would fight for that too. Or if they couldn’t practice religions that believe in gay marriage, I would fight for their right to practice that faith. But they have all the rights we do. Despite whatever you say, marriage is not a right. It is simply a legal designation, with a bundle of rights and responsibilities attached. I have never heard a persuasive argument to the contrary, but if you’re up for it, by all means please share. I like to keep an open mind, just in case I’ve missed something.

 

[Lion_IRC]

This forum seems to be obsessed with issues around homosexuality. Why?

…says the person who just started ANOTHER thread about the “H” word.

I think you will find that dialogue in the public square about this topic is predominantly instigated by the LGBTQI lobby.

And most of the threads here at CAF are about -* in response to *- vanguard actions started by gay activists in OUR schools, OUR places of business, OUR Churches, the streets where OUR kids play, the television shows we watch…

Biblical theists don’t have a fixation. The defense of heterosexual, honor your mother AND father, nuclear families has been in our standard way of life since the garden of Eden. It’s no coincidence that the only humans who survived the Flood were 4 heterosexual couples.

 

[Tigg]

…says the person who just started ANOTHER thread about the “H” word.

I think you will find that dialogue in the public square about this topic is predominantly instigated by the LGBTQI lobby.

And most of the threads here at CAF are about -* in response to *- vanguard actions started by gay activists in OUR schools, OUR places of business, OUR Churches, the streets where OUR kids play, the television shows we watch…

Biblical theists don’t have a fixation. The defense of heterosexual, honor your mother AND father, nuclear families has been in our standard way of life since the garden of Eden. It’s no coincidence that the only humans who survived the Flood were 4 heterosexual couples.

Love it!