your opinions on gays

[strngrnrth]

If you are suggesting that homosexuality is somehow a choice rather than a genetic condition then we are at odds, and have probably no basis for discussion. I thought only a few fundamentalists nondenominational still refused to believe that.

I have known ex-gays who were atheists. We all learned our sexual behavior and we can all learn to change or even do without it. A majority of adults have been attracted to both sexes at some point. We have complex psychological reasons for being more comfortable acting on one attraction and refusing the other. After years, what we act on grows through reinforcement and what we don’t act on dies for lack of reinforcement. This takes longer for some than others, and the reasons are partly genetic and partly based on our childhoods. Behavior patterns and thinking patterns are influenced by genes. Alcoholism, addiction, violence and rage, overeating, undereating, and other traits are partly genetic. But people have some control over them. I am working hard at controlling my predispositions to alcoholism and rage among others.

 

[mercygate]

I could agree with that, yet God allows someone to be born into this state. Then He, through his Church, imposes restrictions on this individual’s sexuality he never consented to. So aren’t we back at the same place? The Church doesn’t impose special “crosses” to someone born with Cerebral Palsy or severe retardation does it? Am I still missing something?

You seem not to be making the necessary distinctions here.

The “Church” imposes nothing. Let me say once again: Natural Law.

As for CP or mental retardation – you think these are not circumstances that require a person to achieve a special level of awareness regarding how they will accept these things (or in the case of severe retardation, how families will accept them)?

Moreover, in cases where a person is incapable of entering into marriage because of an inability to make the commitment required of Christian marriage or because of an imediment, such as permanent impotence, marriage is impossible, de facto. The Church makes the statement that marriage is impossible, but it does not create the terms by which marriage is impossible because the terms are in the natural law.

 

[Pug]

Maybe it would be more accurate to call people with SSA or homosexuals “non-breeders” rather than “disordered”.

I agree that there are people who never reproduce, and homosexual behavior is not the only thing related to this. Some people never marry. Marriage itself, even, does not strictly correspond to reproduction. A number of married couples never have a child.

I call SSA people SSA people, or people who happen to be attracted to the same sex. I don’t call them disordered people. Anyway, we all have disordered attachments or attractions. If that is the way of it, then we are all disordered people, so to speak. (Well, leave the Virgin Mary out of it, of course).

Does something bother you about “disordered desire” as a concept, or is it specific to only SSA issues?

 

[Pug]

Mental disorders have varying degrees of effects on the persons suffering from them and those around them. That isn’t to mean that we should ignore them or we should deny them for what they are. Any behavior which a person ignores the risks – physical health, mental health and spiritual health – and continues to participates in those behaviors despite the risk must be suspect as in the state of their mental health. You can not wipe away the
overwhelming negative consequences of homosexuality just by calling it normal.

This makes me think more of sin than mental illness. People who sin act irrationally at the time, ignoring the entirety of the equation and only looking at part of the picture.

It seems to me that an individual with SSA can be a very well adjusted member of society, just as can a non-SSA person. Generally, I wouldn’t call a well adjusted member of society mentally ill. Doesn’t that imply a sort of incapacity or severe distress or something?

 

[KarenNC]

I agree <"the sound you just heard was the sound of hell freezing over>

Don’t fall out of your chair!

If one is going to make a differentiation between heterosexuals who have an attraction to persons of the opposite gender but do not act upon it, those who act on that attraction and those who act on that attraction in a promiscuous manner (a distinction I believe most people do make and I believe should), seems only sensible to do the same with homosexuals.

 

[KarenNC]

This makes me think more of sin than mental illness. People who sin act irrationally at the time, ignoring the entirety of the equation and only looking at part of the picture.

It seems to me that an individual with SSA can be a very well adjusted member of society, just as can a non-SSA person. Generally, I wouldn’t call a well adjusted member of society mentally ill. Doesn’t that imply a sort of incapacity or severe distress or something?

This might be helpful
encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761566888_2/Mental_Illness.html

 

[Elric]

I agree that there are people who never reproduce, and homosexual behavior is not the only thing related to this. Some people never marry. Marriage itself, even, does not strictly correspond to reproduction. A number of married couples never have a child.

Very true.

I call SSA people SSA people, or people who happen to be attracted to the same sex. I don’t call them disordered people. Anyway, we all have disordered attachments or attractions. If that is the way of it, then we are all disordered people, so to speak. (Well, leave the Virgin Mary out of it, of course).

There isnt an example of what exactly “normal” is.

Does something bother you about “disordered desire” as a concept, or is it specific to only SSA issues?

Its more the assertions of “mental illness” that I object to, as well as the negative conotations behind “disordered”.

 

[mercygate]

Its more the assertions of “mental illness” that I object to, as well as the negative conotations behind “disordered”.

Have you worked through the point that for purposes of discussion in a Catholic context, the word “disordered” is being used in a technical sense that might not exclude mental illness but does not equate to “mental illness”?

The “order” is toward procreation, which requires male, female conjugation. The order is aided by the attraction of male-to-female and vice versa.

An “order” of desire that points towards same sex unions excludes procreation, and therefore, is “dis” ordered according to its object.

That’s not necessarily the same thing as being mentally ill.

 

[goofyjim]

It is time for a truce. Gays do not control the population by limiting how many children heterosexuals can have and heterosexual do not control what gays do in the privacy of their own bedroom as long as they are both adults. Sounds fair to me.

 

[Montalban]

Considering that every male human being on the planet uses “the same hole” for both sexual activity and urination…

So we are *monotremes *all?

 

[Montalban]

There are some types of love that will never be understood. That’s right, I said love.

Like a certain type of farmer for his sheep?

 

[Montalban]

What is negative about love?

From God, nothing.

Anything else is not so much love as obsession or some other base desire.

Some might say that they love being in the army - shooting people for their country. Would this be positive?

 

[Montalban]

It is time for a truce. Gays do not control the population by limiting how many children heterosexuals can have and heterosexual do not control what gays do in the privacy of their own bedroom as long as they are both adults. Sounds fair to me.

An apt UserName!

 

[Elric]

Have you worked through the point that for purposes of discussion in a Catholic context, the word “disordered” is being used in a technical sense that might not exclude mental illness but does not equate to “mental illness”?

Im not sure.

Have you worked through the point that I was answering a question that someone posed to me and that there are/were posters that did call homosexuality a mental illness?

The “order” is toward procreation, which requires male, female conjugation. The order is aided by the attraction of male-to-female and vice versa.

Yeah I did mention this in a previous post, in a “conversation” that I was having with the person who asked the question that I replied to.

An “order” of desire that points towards same sex unions excludes procreation, and therefore, is “dis” ordered according to its object.

That’s not necessarily the same thing as being mentally ill.

Have you worked through the point that this was already being discussed?

You really could have saved yourself a lot of typing.

 

[Elric]

Like a certain type of farmer for his sheep?

I certainly hop that you are not advocating “animal husbandry”?

One objection I have with that is that I couldnt love something in that way that I intended to eat.

Yes I love lamb, especally a roasted leg of lamb with roast potatos and pumkin, its very tasty.

 

[mercygate]

Im not sure.

Have you worked through the point that I was answering a question that someone posed to me and that there are/were posters that did call homosexuality a mental illness?

Yeah I did mention this in a previous post, in a “conversation” that I was having with the person who asked the question that I replied to.

Have you worked through the point that this was already being discussed?

You really could have saved yourself a lot of typing.

Yes to all of the above. However, it bears repeating since, on this public thread, a LOT of people on either side of the question are failing to distinguish the ISSUE from the BEHAVIOR, from the PERSON.

Thank you for your concern. I do not mind the typing, since I am relatively patient. Clearly, the point has not been absorbed.

 

[mercygate]

An apt UserName!

Ad hominem sniping is against the rules of the Forums.

 

[Newbie2]

It is time for a truce. Gays do not control the population by limiting how many children heterosexuals can have and heterosexual do not control what gays do in the privacy of their own bedroom as long as they are both adults. Sounds fair to me.

And Christian heterosexuals ignore scripture, in terms of helping our gay brothers and sisters discern what is and what is not acceptable behavior in the eyes of the Lord?

Granted, there is a fine line between giving council and admonition in a Christian-like manner and judging others. Perhaps that’s why discussion about homosexuality generates much debate on this forum and in general.

Many homosexuals seem to see criticism aimed at the behavior as judmental, and it’s easy to see how when you see “christian” churches such the Westboro Baptist “church” in Kansas and their like.

Clearly, this is a very seriously and complex matter that we Catholics have to come to terms with; how exactly in practice to we love the person and help them. Homosexuality must be a very difficult cross to bear, when one wishes to follow Christ’s teachings through his Church.

 

[iamrefreshed]

Iv’e only been tested for HIV once-before my last surgery. And we had a big fight about that. My Dr ordered an HIV test and said I didnt need it and wouldnt pay for it. He said he wouldnt do the surgery unlees i did so i demanded that he an every one who would be in the operating be tested also and offer proof they had not had sex since the test. Cooler heads prevailed(meaning my wife stepped in and told me grow up). I was negaitve, of course.

I can just picture that discussion!

 

[Newbie2]

Iv’e only been tested for HIV once-before my last surgery. And we had a big fight about that. My Dr ordered an HIV test and said I didnt need it and wouldnt pay for it. He said he wouldnt do the surgery unlees i did so i demanded that he an every one who would be in the operating be tested also and offer proof they had not had sex since the test. Cooler heads prevailed(meaning my wife stepped in and told me grow up). I was negaitve, of course.

There’s been studies about how often a surgeon gets holes or perforations in their surgical gloves; it’s not surprising that many times by the end of a surgery there are p(name removed by moderator)oint holes (or a hole) in the gloves. That’s why they scrub beforehand and why they’re so adamant about HIV testing. You can (and apparently did ) see why they wouldn’t want to take someone’s word for it.