your opinions on gays

  • Thread starter Thread starter Gingerfish
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Philothea53 said:
Per the Constitution of Political Correctness.
Click to expand...
As I said before, homosexuality has not been declared as a mental illness since the 70’s when it was declassified as a mental illness by I believe the APA.

Where you get the idea that it is pollitical correctness is really beyond me
Summary: Recent studies show homosexuals have a substantially greater risk of suffering from a psychiatric problems than do heterosexuals. We see higher rates of suicide, depression, bulimia, antisocial personality disorder, and substance abuse. This paper highlights some new and significant considerations that reflect on the question of those mental illnesses and on their possible sources.
Click to expand...
…core gay behavior is both potentially fatal to others, and often suicidal.
Click to expand...
In conclusion, then, if we ask the question “Is mental illness inherent in the homosexual condition?” the answer would have to be “Further research–uncompromised by politics --should be carried out to honestly evaluate this issue.”
Click to expand...
So what exactly does this prove?
 
goofyjim said:
Well now you’re beginning to sound like someone else. There is nothing distorted in who we are attracted to unless of course it is children. Then I would be concerned. I’m going to leave this thread because it is beginning to fail the catechism’s request that we treat those who are same sex attracted with dignity and respect.
Click to expand...
goofyjim,

Don’t take offense too easily. I think all Tim is trying to say is “it ain’t right.” Right before the Catechism’s call to treat those with SSA with dignity and respect it says…
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered**, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
Click to expand...
“Objectively disordered”…IOW…“it ain’t right.” Recognizing that fact, does not preclude someone from treating you and others with SSA with “respect, compassion, and sensitivity.”
 
rlg94086 said:
goofyjim,

Don’t take offense too easily. I think all Tim is trying to say is “it ain’t right.” Right before the Catechism’s call to treat those with SSA with dignity and respect it says…

“Objectively disordered”…IOW…“it ain’t right.” Recognizing that fact, does not preclude someone from treating you and others with SSA with “respect, compassion, and sensitivity.”
Click to expand...
The Church can call SSA all it wants but God’s permissive will may be that some are supposed to be this way. There is nothing harmful in it so how is it not okay?
 
Gingerfish said:
im new so i just wanna see some opinions . Im all for it
Click to expand...
all for what? that statement makes no sense, neither does your title. Why on earth would my or your opinion about an entire class of persons have any relevance? Are you asking what is CAtholic teaching about the morality of homosexual actions? you can find that out easily by searching on that topic in the morality forum which will lead you to the very cogent explanation in the Catechism. No where will you find a judgment there on gays as persons, you will find a reasoned explanation of the morality of the acts, framed within Judeo-Christian teaching on sex, marriage and the body. You will find a compassionate pastoral loving concern for their well-being. Why is this in the social justice forum? there is no social justice issue (except infringement on the traditional rights of marriage and family by a certain lobby within the gay activist movement).
 
Elric said:
As I said before, homosexuality has not been declared as a mental illness since the 70’s when it was declassified as a mental illness by I believe the APA.

Where you get the idea that it is pollitical correctness is really beyond me

So what exactly does this prove?
Click to expand...
I guess there are those who would require SSA people to be in treatment until they are somehow “cured”.
 
goofyjim said:
The Church can call SSA all it wants but God’s permissive will may be that some are supposed to be this way. There is nothing harmful in it so how is it not okay?
Click to expand...
In the previous post, you quoted the Catechism. I don’t think it makes much sense to quote the Catechism in one post, and then come back and challenge the exact same passage from the Catechism.

Perhaps, you were given this “objective disorder” for a reason, as a cross to bear. I don’t know. But, it doesn’t change the fact that desire for the same sex is “objectively disordered.” Even if you take the Church out of the equation, simple biology would tell someone that SSA isn’t normal - and I mean that in the true sense of normal…the norm…the way two human bodies are meant to interact.
 
goofyjim said:
I guess there are those who would require SSA people to be in treatment until they are somehow “cured”.
Click to expand...
Didnt they used to call that conditioning or brain washing?

I guess 1984 here we come hey.
 
rlg94086 said:
In the previous post, you quoted the Catechism. I don’t think it makes much sense to quote the Catechism in one post, and then come back and challenge the exact same passage from the Catechism.

Perhaps, you were given this “objective disorder” for a reason, as a cross to bear. I don’t know. But, it doesn’t change the fact that desire for the same sex is “objectively disordered.” Even if you take the Church out of the equation, simple biology would tell someone that SSA isn’t normal - and I mean that in the true sense of normal…the norm…the way two human bodies are meant to interact.
Click to expand...
I respectfully disagree that the attraction is a disorder. Biology would also tell you, with the church out of the equation that if you place two males alone for a life time on a deserted isle they will eventually mate with each other. At least it happens in the rest of the nature. And if it weren’t for the religious aspect of things man would just be another animal in nature.
 
rlg94086 said:
In the previous post, you quoted the Catechism. I don’t think it makes much sense to quote the Catechism in one post, and then come back and challenge the exact same passage from the Catechism.

Perhaps, you were given this “objective disorder” for a reason, as a cross to bear. I don’t know. But, it doesn’t change the fact that desire for the same sex is “objectively disordered.” Even if you take the Church out of the equation, simple biology would tell someone that SSA isn’t normal - and I mean that in the true sense of normal…the norm…the way two human bodies are meant to interact.
Click to expand...
Is there really such a thing as a “non-objective disorder”?
 
goofyjim said:
I respectfully disagree that the attraction is a disorder. Biology would also tell you, with the church out of the equation that if you place two males alone for a life time on a deserted isle they will eventually mate with each other. At least it happens in the rest of the nature. And if it weren’t for the religious aspect of things man would just be another animal in nature.
Click to expand...
That isn’t biology, my friend, it’s psychology. Nice try though. The fact that something is natural (i.e. occuring in nature) does not mean that it is normal or that it is moral.

When siamese twins are born joined at the head, it is a natural event…but, it isn’t normal. From a biological standpoint, it is obviously disordered.

I don’t know why you fight this so much. Having a disorder does not mean you are less human. My brother is physically handicapped. Biologically, his body is disordered. His bones grew faster than his muscles. He has to deal with this disorder every day of his life. It doesn’t change his worth as a person.
 
rlg94086 said:
That isn’t biology, my friend, it’s psychology. Nice try though. The fact that something is natural (i.e. occuring in nature) does not mean that it is normal or that it is moral.

When siamese twins are born joined at the head, it is a natural event…but, it isn’t normal. From a biological standpoint, it is obviously disordered.

I don’t know why you fight this so much. Having a disorder does not mean you are less human. My brother is physically handicapped. Biologically, his body is disordered. His bones grew faster than his muscles. He has to deal with this disorder every day of his life. It doesn’t change his worth as a person.
Click to expand...
But when it comes to psychology those labelled with disorders are treated differently and not as equals.
 
goofyjim said:
But when it comes to psychology those labelled with disorders are treated differently and not as equals.
Click to expand...
A) It depends on the disorder. Someone who is bi-polar can get treatment and live with their disorder. Someone who is schizophrenic can as well, but it is more difficult. You probably work with someone who is bi-polar and don’t even know it.

B) In the case of SSA (whatever its cause), the Church calls us to treat those with SSA with compassion and respect, despite their disorder.
 
rlg94086 said:
That isn’t biology, my friend, it’s psychology. Nice try though. The fact that something is natural (i.e. occuring in nature) does not mean that it is normal or that it is moral.

When siamese twins are born joined at the head, it is a natural event…but, it isn’t normal. From a biological standpoint, it is obviously disordered.

I don’t know why you fight this so much. Having a disorder does not mean you are less human. My brother is physically handicapped. Biologically, his body is disordered. His bones grew faster than his muscles. He has to deal with this disorder every day of his life. It doesn’t change his worth as a person.
Click to expand...
And the Church may call it an objective disorder but psychology has determined it to not be a mental disorder. It did not meet the requirements on a standalone basis.
 
At this point I really don’t care anymore. I have same sex attraction and I am not going to walk around like I have any disorder.
 
goofyjim said:
And the Church may call it an objective disorder but psychology has determined it to not be a mental disorder. It did not meet the requirements on a standalone basis.
Click to expand...
You are making a non-argument!

The Church does not claim it is a mental disorder. She says it is “objectively disordered.” The cause for the disorder (biological, psychological, environmental) is unknown. It doesn’t change the fact that it is disordered. You are equating disorder with psycological disorder. The Church does not do that.

As I said, my brother is “objectively disordered” from a biological standpoint.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top