Yet Another Study Confirms Gay Life Expectancy 20 Years Shorter

[fix]

Other Eric:

Hi fix!

Cameron is not saying that homosexuality is chosen in most cases. He’s saying that the very nature of homosexuality requires it to be definitively chosen in every case. He’s saying that this fact invalidates NARTH’s psychological model.

The corollary to this position is that homosexuals, as a group, are responsible for whatever sexual temptations they face as a result of their conscious, selfish decision to be a homosexual. The only way out is to make the conscious decision not to be a homosexual and it is a choice that can be made even without the aid of psychology.

So the decision to be subject to a homosexual temptation is completely within a man’s control as far as Dr. Cameron is concerned. A decision to remain in this state is a decision to choose a “tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil” and therefore must be sinful. In sum: Only if you are straight are you saved if one is going to uncritically accept the twisted positions of Dr. Cameron.

You are assigning a position to the man that he has not said he maintians. It is all your inferences that lead you to assert your position, not Cameron’s words.

The quotes in your last post of Cameron’s words in no way contradict Church teaching.

 

[Other_Eric]

fix:

You are assigning a position to the man that he has not said he maintians. It is all your inferences that lead you to assert your position, not Cameron’s words.

The quotes in your last post of Cameron’s words in no way contradict Church teaching.

Hi fix!

I’m not assigning any position to Dr, Cameron. I’m just pointing out what logically follows from the statements he has made.

 

[fix]

Other Eric:

Hi fix!

I’m not assigning any position to Dr, Cameron. I’m just pointing out what logically follows from the statements he has made.

For the past 50 to 60 years, psychiatrists have offered a ready-made “excuse” to those who were “suffering” from the “condition” of homosexuality. Homosexuals were “not responsible” for their same-sex desires (their parents made them do it). Homosexuals were “not responsible” for their sexual activity (their childrearing experiences were).

The corollary to this position is that homosexuals, as a group, are responsible for whatever sexual temptations they face as a result of their conscious, selfish decision to be a homosexual. The only way out is to make the conscious decision not to be a homosexual and it is a choice that can be made even without the aid of psychology.

No, your corollary does not naturally follow his words. He is not saying the tempation is their fault. He is saying they decide to act as they do. Desires can be learned, they are not always present for no reason. Through experience, or sin, or other circumstances we can aquire certain tastes that are illicit. That is what he is saying.

 

[Other_Eric]

For the past 50 to 60 years, psychiatrists have offered a ready-made “excuse” to those who were “suffering” from the “condition” of homosexuality. Homosexuals were “not responsible” for their same-sex desires (their parents made them do it). Homosexuals were “not responsible” for their sexual activity (their childrearing experiences were).

No, your corollary does not naturally follow his words. He is not saying the tempation is their fault. He is saying they decide to act as they do. Desires can be learned, they are not always present for no reason. Through experience, or sin, or other circumstances we can aquire certain tastes that are illicit. That is what he is saying.

Hi fix!

If he is mocking the idea that homosexuals are not responsible for their desires, then it follows that he believes that they are responsible. One can only be held to be responsible for something if he has at some point made a conscious decision for or against it. Once the choice is made, one indeed may become acclimated to whatever illicit activity one has decided to engage in, but because he made the initial choice to be subject to the condition in the first place, he remains responsible for the condition until he chooses to abandon it in the same way that others abandon non-conformist modes of dress and thought. Until that time, every day is a willful and conscious decision to remain a homosexual and therefore in a state of sin.

 

[fix]

Other Eric:

Hi fix!

If he is mocking the idea that homosexuals are not responsible for their desires, then it follows that he believes that they are responsible. One can only be held to be responsible for something if he has at some point made a conscious decision for or against it. Once the choice is made, one indeed may become acclimated to whatever illicit activity one has decided to engage in, but because he made the initial choice to be subject to the condition in the first place, he remains responsible for the condition until he chooses to abandon it in the same way that others abandon non-conformist modes of dress and thought. Until that time, every day is a willful and conscious decision to remain a homosexual and therefore in a state of sin.

You are putting words in his mouth. The limited quote you posted does not say what you imply. In many cases some may be responsible for their “desires”.

 

[fix]

**

Origins of Homosexuality

In FRI’s analysis, most of those who engage in homosexuality adopt these sexual activities and rebellious attitudes as a result of three kinds of experiences:

1. 
   *]direct recruitment to homosexuality by seduction or molestation (particularly of the underage);
   ] indirect recruitment via cultural institutions (e.g., the schools, media, churches) preaching that ‘homosexuality is another way to fulfillment and personal satisfaction;’ and
   ]being around homosexuals as friends, acquaintances, or family members.
   
   None of this in unreasonable. The degree of culpability depends on circumstances that are unique to each case. Why are you trying to place his words at odds with Church teaching?

 

[Other_Eric]

**

None of this in unreasonable. The degree of culpability depends on circumstances that are unique to each case. Why are you trying to place his words at odds with Church teaching?**Hi fix!

In each of the scenarios that Dr. Cameron presents he specifically rejects the idea that any of these experiences lead to an involuntary assumption of the desires. Even in the case of a child who was forcibly molested the article says that the child learns to associate pleasure with the activity and so makes a conscious and willful decision to pursue it into adulthood. The abuse does not remove the child’s free will and he is not compelled into the decision he ultimately makes and could just as easily choose the alternative. The choice and therefore the condition created as a consequence of that choice are therefore sinful.

 

[fix]

Other Eric:

Even in the case of a child who was forcibly molested the article says that the child learns to associate pleasure with the activity and so makes a conscious and willful decision to pursue it into adulthood.

Yes, so? That may be true in some cases. No contradiction of Church teaching here.

The abuse does not remove the child’s free will and he is not compelled into the decision he ultimately makes and could just as easily choose the alternative.

Also, true.

The choice and therefore the condition created as a consequence of that choice are therefore sinful.

Huh? The choice is sinful, culpability may or may not be diminished. The condition? You mean being homosexual? The doctor is not saying it is a sin, you are.

 

[Other_Eric]

fix:

Yes, so? That may be true in some cases. No contradiction of Church teaching here.

Also, true.

Huh? The choice is sinful, culpability may or may not be diminished. The condition? You mean being homosexual? The doctor is not saying it is a sin, you are.

Hi fix!

No, Dr. Cameron is not saying that it is a sin. That would be a strange thing for him to say as he does not claim to be a theologian. The Church bases her teaching partly upon those things which can be discovered by science. Church teaching and science can never contradict each other. Dr. Cameron’s science has discovered that homosexuality is always a choice. If this is true, then it follows that all three prongs of the Church’s requirement for mortal sin are met. Because the Church claims that homosexuality is not a sin if never acted upon, it follows that either Dr. Cameron’s science or the Church is wrong. For myself, I stand with the Church.

 

[fix]

Other Eric:

Hi fix!

No, Dr. Cameron is not saying that it is a sin. That would be a strange thing for him to say as he does not claim to be a theologian. The Church bases her teaching partly upon those things which can be discovered by science. Church teaching and science can never contradict each other. Dr. Cameron’s science has discovered that homosexuality is always a choice. If this is true, then it follows that all three prongs of the Church’s requirement for mortal sin are met. Because the Church claims that homosexuality is not a sin if never acted upon, it follows that either Dr. Cameron’s science or the Church is wrong. For myself, I stand with the Church.

False dichotomy. You inferences are not valid. Cameron is saying many choose to live that life. So what? That may be true in many cases. That is not contradicting Church teaching.

 

[Other_Eric]

fix:

False dichotomy. You inferences are not valid. Cameron is saying many choose to live that life. So what? That may be true in many cases. That is not contradicting Church teaching.

Hi fix!

But Dr. Cameron is not saying “many,” “some,” or “a few” make the choice. He is saying all of them do. His position is absolute. Therefore the dichotomy is not false. Either Dr. Cameron’s science is at fault, or the Church is. Choose.

 

[fix]

Other Eric:

Hi fix!

But Dr. Cameron is not saying “many,” “some,” or “a few” make the choice. He is saying all of them do. His position is absolute. Therefore the dichotomy is not false. Either Dr. Cameron’s science is at fault, or the Church is. Choose.

The quote in post 65 says “most”, but that is not the issue. Your reasoning is the issue. The Church says the inclination is a moral disorder, not a sin. Cameron is saying the individual has free will and can say yes or no to the action. How can you conclude from that his work contradicts Church teaching?

One may have “inclinations” from being abused as example. That says nothing about one acting on such inclinations.

 

[Other_Eric]

fix:

The quote in post 65 says “most”, but that is not the issue. Your reasoning is the issue. The Church says the inclination is a moral disorder, not a sin. Cameron is saying the individual has free will and can say yes or no to the action. How can you conclude from that his work contradicts Church teaching?

One may have “inclinations” from being abused as example. That says nothing about one acting on such inclinations.

Hi fix!

I’m afraid your reading is wrong. Dr. Cameron is saying that the individual has free will to say yes or no not only to the action, but to the very inclination itself.

 

[buffalo]

Other Eric:

Hi fix!

I’m afraid your reading is wrong. Dr. Cameron is saying that the individual has free will to say yes or no not only to the action, but to the very inclination itself.

Is he equating inclination with temptation?

 

[HpyCatholic]

Eric,

Are you saying the Dr. Cameron is proposing homosexuals wilfully choose to be tempted or to be inclined to homosexuality? Is the the crux of your argument? Sorry I’m a bit slow at times and I’m just trying to figure out your argument.

Thanks.

 

[Other_Eric]

buffalo:

Is he equating inclination with temptation?

Hi buffalo!

I’m afraid I don’t understand the difference myself. How could a person be tempted to a homosexual act if he was not first inclined to do it?

 

[Other_Eric]

HpyCatholic:

Eric,

Are you saying the Dr. Cameron is proposing homosexuals wilfully choose to be tempted or to be inclined to homosexuality? Is the the crux of your argument? Sorry I’m a bit slow at times and I’m just trying to figure out your argument.

Thanks.

Hi HpyCatholic!

Yeah, that just about sums up the crux of my argument.

 

[HpyCatholic]

Other Eric:

Hi HpyCatholic!

Yeah, that just about sums up the crux of my argument.

Great, I got something right, woohoo for me.

Now, is this the portion of the article you feel supports your argument?

In FRI’s analysis, most of those who engage in homosexuality adopt these sexual activities and rebellious attitudes as a result of three kinds of experiences:

1. 
   *]direct recruitment to homosexuality by seduction or molestation (particularly of the underage);
   *]indirect recruitment via cultural institutions (e.g., the schools, media, churches) preaching that ‘‘homosexuality is another way to fulfillment and personal satisfaction;’’ and
   *]being around homosexuals as friends, acquaintances, or family members.
   
   We would argue that these same mechanisms also account for most of those who take up smoking, drug abuse, or other common ‘‘bad habits.’’

 

[buffalo]

Other Eric:

Hi buffalo!

I’m afraid I don’t understand the difference myself. How could a person be tempted to a homosexual act if he was not first inclined to do it?

Seduction is very sinister and evil.

 

[Other_Eric]

HpyCatholic:

Great, I got something right, woohoo for me.

Now, is this the portion of the article you feel supports your argument?

In FRI’s analysis, most of those who engage in homosexuality adopt these sexual activities and rebellious attitudes as a result of three kinds of experiences:

1. 
   *]direct recruitment to homosexuality by seduction or molestation (particularly of the underage);
   *]indirect recruitment via cultural institutions (e.g., the schools, media, churches) preaching that ‘‘homosexuality is another way to fulfillment and personal satisfaction;’’ and
   *]being around homosexuals as friends, acquaintances, or family members.
   
   We would argue that these same mechanisms also account for most of those who take up smoking, drug abuse, or other common ‘‘bad habits.’’

1. 
   Hi HpyCatholic!
   
   That is part of it. The entire thesis of the article I linked to is one that posits homosexuality is a choice.